704 replies to this topic

[Steel Claws]

Why are we making this hard.

There are several "ideas" for stopping the alpha wars but most are over complicated or start randomizing the game - bad idea. Convergence - pinpoint aiming - not enough heat - no these are not the issue.

Make it so you can't load high damage weapons into every weapon slot for that type of weapon - like say swapping out a medium laser for a PPC/LL or a machine gun for a AC 20. The PPC itself isn't the issue - the fact that you can swap out a medium laser with one is. The same is true about ACs and guass. For that matter you should not be able to exceed the tube count of the missile hardpoint either. Shooting 20 LRMs out of a SRM 6 slot should not be allowed and vice versa. They aren't the same.

All you have to do is base what can be loaded on a chassis by what comes on it stock. Two big weapons on stock mech = being able to load two big weapons. Any unfilled slots on the stock mech would only be able to mount weapons with less than 6 points of damage - or in the case of an A1 cat half LRMs half SRMs. What a novel idea - stop the high alpha boating by stopping the high alpha boating. Simple and easy. I offer for your concideration new slot types - the LE, LB, SrM and LrM. This would make mediums and lights more viable and promote movement. There - game balanced or very close to it.

Then maybe they could offer us some champion mechs that have real meaning. Why buy what you can already make? But offer me a mech that has some different slots....

Edited by Steel Claws, 05 July 2013 - 06:13 PM.

[DocBach]

If you restricted hardpoints like you suggest, we'd just see everyone run the 'Mechs that can boat the most heavy weapons.

[Dusk Breeze]

I read through the entire proposal:
10/10 - Would like to see implemented/trialed ASAP.

Sadly since PGI seems to suffer from rather severe case of NIH (Not Invented Here), I fear this may never come to pass. What a shame.

[Steel Claws]

DocBach, on 05 July 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

If you restricted hardpoints like you suggest, we'd just see everyone run the 'Mechs that can boat the most heavy weapons.

There are very few with more than 2 - all in all they are reasonably even and balanced by agility and speed. It would pretty much even out. No big alphas means that speed and agility once again matters.

[Homeless Bill]

Steel Claws, on 05 July 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

[Hardpoint restrictions]

Seems like you didn't read the rebuttal for this, but here's the short version: I think hardpoint restrictions are a great idea for several reasons, cleaning up some cheese being one of those benefits. But don't mistake it for a long-term solution, because it isn't.

Here are just a few examples:

zorak ramone, on 28 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Annihilator
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Annihilator
Capable of 4xGR or 3xGR/PPC. Its 100 tons, so its got the tonnage to carry it. Never mind the slow stock speed since engines can be upgraded. EDIT: this one is also capable of 4xUAC5/4xML. Lol?

Thunderhawk
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder_Hawk
Carries 3xGR in stock and potentially capable of 3xGR/2xPPC. Another 100 tonner as well

King Crab
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/King_Crab
Another 100 tonner. Carries 2xAC20 in stock, with tonnage to spare. Depending on where they put the stock LL, this thing could also do 2xGR/PPC. The big advantage this guy has would be his very low profile.

Gunslinger
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gunslinger
An 85 tonner that can carry 2xGR/2xPPC based on stock hardpoints. Other than looking ridiculous, what's special about it. Well, it JUMPS and has ECM!

Mauler
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mauler
Another 2xGR/2xPPC mech in a 90 ton package. This one would also be capable of 4xUAC5.

Devastator
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Devastator
Another 2xGR/2xPPC (in stock!) mech in a 100 ton package.

Two of these mechs are fan favorites that have appeared in prior games (Annihilator and Mauler). One has popped up several times in polls for mechs we'd like to see (King Crab). The others are not obscure mechs and could end up being added to the game. These are not the only mechs capable of multi-GR configurations.

I think it's lazy to avoid certain chassis based on their large weapon-boating capability. Proper balance means weapons should be as equally viable as possible, even when boated. Aside from the lazy factor, regular Clan 'mechs without pinpoint weapons will have ridiculous alphas. I don't think firing 12xERML at a single spot is particularly balanced, either. Hardpoint restrictions are a great band-aid, particularly with our current selection of 'mechs. That said, they're not a long-term solution.

Clan weaponry is going to **** things up enough. If Clan lasers don't scare you, how about the LRM boats? Anything mounting a bunch of SSRMx6 packs? I think a sane limit on all extreme, pinpoint damage is the real virtue of this proposal, and that's why it should be implemented regardless of their decision on hardpoint restrictions.

In another man's words:

FupDup, on 05 July 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

Customization in and of itself does not cause problems.

Real balancing issues are caused by things like individual weapons being outright superior to most others, convergence, lenient heat scales, and so forth. Customization merely allows players to take advantage of those imbalances on chassis that don't come stock with the imbalanced equipment.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 05 July 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[Zyllos]

Hardpoint solutions are not to fix the alpha meta, it is a fix to place specific mechs into their intended roles and give legitimacy to others. As Bill said, it is a fix that is needed, but it is not the whole fix need to bring overall balance.

[Asmosis]

I think just adding a minimum period of 0.1 to 0.3 seconds between weapon fire based on size class of weapon would be sufficient, so that even if you click "fire" on a group of 6 ML's for example, it would still chainfire them 0.2 seconds apart, or 6x SPL would be fired 0.1 sec apart or 4xLL would be 0.3 sec apart.

Make it a global "cooldown" on weapon fire to prevent alt group macros trying to get around it by firing multiple groups simultaneously.

[Homeless Bill]

Asmosis, on 05 July 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

I think just adding a minimum period of 0.1 to 0.3 seconds between weapon fire based on size class of weapon would be sufficient, so that even if you click "fire" on a group of 6 ML's for example, it would still chainfire them 0.2 seconds apart, or 6x SPL would be fired 0.1 sec apart or 4xLL would be 0.3 sec apart.

Make it a global "cooldown" on weapon fire to prevent alt group macros trying to get around it by firing multiple groups simultaneously.

I don't like the idea of some or all weapons causing a global cooldown because I think it's needlessly harsh. People love group fire, it’s convenient, weapon groups make perfect sense to new and veteran players alike, and its removal would hit strikers in a hugely negative way.

Many mediums and other ‘mechs rely on shoot-and-scoot tactics. Many of them would be at a huge disadvantage if they were forced to chain-fire their weapons. Bursts of damage aren't a problem – huge bursts of damage all hitting a single location are. We need a scalpel; this solution is a battle ax.

While I like it's simplicity, I think group fire serves too valuable a purpose to remove or punish with guaranteed inaccuracy. I think it only really gets bad when a certain pinpoint damage potential is met. I decided it was worth the extra complexity to preserve more options for the player.

I also think the player feedback for my system is better and easier to implement. How do you get new players used to each weapon's cooldown? It's such a short timespan that HUD elements would be inadequate, and unless players searched through the mechlab, there's no way to know how long they'll have to wait to shoot again. I think it would be very newbie-unfriendly.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 05 July 2013 - 08:48 PM.

[Tsunamisan]

Great idea! Really hope PGI does it

[Steel Claws]

Homeless Bill, on 05 July 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Seems like you didn't read the rebuttal for this, but here's the short version: I think hardpoint restrictions are a great idea for several reasons, cleaning up some cheese being one of those benefits. But don't mistake it for a long-term solution, because it isn't.

Actually I did, but notice I add that not allowing small weapons to be changed out for large. This limits a mauler to 2 LL or 2 PPC - no gauss or ac 20s. Maybe UAC 5s but jamming and ammo usage make those less scary than many think. The rest I seriously doubt will ever make it into the game - especially a Devastator. Even if they did you could restrict their movement and a few other things that could help balance them out. If you remove the ability to put weapons that will do more damage than 6 pts into spot that had a weapon that doers 6 or less you would be a long way toward balancing things out.

[Homeless Bill]

Steel Claws, on 05 July 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

Actually I did, but notice I add that not allowing small weapons to be changed out for large. This limits a mauler to 2 LL or 2 PPC - no gauss or ac 20s. Maybe UAC 5s but jamming and ammo usage make those less scary than many think. The rest I seriously doubt will ever make it into the game - especially a Devastator. Even if they did you could restrict their movement and a few other things that could help balance them out. If you remove the ability to put weapons that will do more damage than 6 pts into spot that had a weapon that doers 6 or less you would be a long way toward balancing things out.

Are you suggesting they should pass up one of the most iconic Clan assault 'mechs just because it will keep enormous amounts of cheese out of the game? Again, I think hardpoint restrictions would clean stuff up for now, but I think they'd have to avoid a lot of chassis to prevent it from getting bad. A Dire Wolf's stock configuration even has 88 points of potential pinpoint damage (not even counting the LRM10). That's simply too much for a single click in my mind, no matter what faction you are or what loadout you're running.

Either way, UAC/20 + the rest of a Clan heavy/assault arsenal as an alpha strike will be enough to make anyone **** their pants, regardless of pinpoint damage.

I just think leaving it at only hardpoint restrictions is the lazy way to do things, and it's going to leave a messes to clean up later, regardless of what 'mechs they let us field.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 06 July 2013 - 01:46 AM.

[YueFei]

Yeah, we already have mech builds with the potential to 2 or 3 shot the same mech build in the same weight class. AC/40 Jagers with XL engines can two-shot each other. Clan tech is just gonna make it even worse. Mechs will die in a single salvo of fire.

Homeless Bill's system will make it so that a player can blast all of their weapons at an opponent and watch half of it miss and the other half scatter across different components. Or, they can pick their shots a couple weapons at a time. Pilots will be able to play mind games against each other, trying to pinpoint a specific component while denying the opponent a shot at their own mech's vitals.

Scouts would actually be able to scout without the risk of being insta-gibbed. They could peek out, take a couple hits spaced out over a few seconds, which can strike different components, and then pull away again or dash to the next piece of cover.

I would also add that weapons should produce far more impact on the mech being struck. Rather than just shaking the cockpit, it should shove the torso and reticle off to the side or up or down, and players must manually re-align. This will make it so that if someone times their shot just right, they can make your alpha strike miss entirely. This adds to the risk/reward of an alpha strike. It makes mech duels a matter of shot selection, timing, and *repeated* precision fire, with a rapid series of shots flying back and forth.

The lore is filled with examples of pilots landing a shot at just the right moment to throw off an opponent's aim. Let's add that to Mechwarrior Online and add an extra layer of intensity as mechs fling weapons back and forth in a rapid exchange, instead of the current 4 second pause in between ridiculous pin-point alpha strikes.

Edited by YueFei, 06 July 2013 - 01:17 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Steel Claws, on 05 July 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

Actually I did, but notice I add that not allowing small weapons to be changed out for large. This limits a mauler to 2 LL or 2 PPC - no gauss or ac 20s. Maybe UAC 5s but jamming and ammo usage make those less scary than many think. The rest I seriously doubt will ever make it into the game - especially a Devastator. Even if they did you could restrict their movement and a few other things that could help balance them out. If you remove the ability to put weapons that will do more damage than 6 pts into spot that had a weapon that doers 6 or less you would be a long way toward balancing things out.

You didn’t read the examples I gave that Bill reposted

First of all, many of the mechs I listed pack serious firepower in stock that would break MWO.

The Devestator packs 2xGR/2xPPC in stock.
The King Crab packs 2xAC20 in stock.
The Thunderhawk packs 3xGR instock

Second, what kind of customization would you allow? Similarly sized weapons? In that case, would a LL for a PPC be reasonable? What about a GR for an AC10 or AC20? If so, then the annihilator and king crab are now 3xGR and 2xGR/PPC.

EDIT: As for not adding or restricting certain chassis: if you have to nerf specific configs, then the whole weapon system is broken. Nerfing specific mechs just proves it.

Edited by zorak ramone, 06 July 2013 - 05:14 AM.

[scJazz]

Whelp as awesome as this thread/idea happens to be and as blisteringly gawdawful stupid as Paul's Heat Multiplying idea happens to be I fear any more time spent on this thread is a waste.

I was watching PGI on Twitch last night. One of them was complaining about all the PPCs they faced in 8mans. Then someone from PGI said... "I can't wait until Paul's Heat thing is implemented". So... whelp... I guess we are going to get stuck with St00pidz plan.

[zorak ramone]

scJazz, on 06 July 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

Whelp as awesome as this thread/idea happens to be and as blisteringly gawdawful stupid as Paul's Heat Multiplying idea happens to be I fear any more time spent on this thread is a waste.

I was watching PGI on Twitch last night. One of them was complaining about all the PPCs they faced in 8mans. Then someone from PGI said... "I can't wait until Paul's Heat thing is implemented". So... whelp... I guess we are going to get stuck with St00pidz plan.

If they do go ahead with the heat penalty thing, they (and many players) will be thinking everything is A-Okay until the VTR-9A1 is introduced. This mech has machineguns mounted in the legs. In all likelihood, they'll move those to a side torso. At this point we'll have an 80 ton jumper capable of 2xGR/PPC. That's a 40 point alpha that never stops, and defeats any attempt at heat-based balancing.

I suspect that at this point everyone will understand why the heat mechanism is dancing around the issue ... or everyone will continue to dance around the issue and call for some weapon specific nerf of the GR. The GR fragility nerf is a relic of the days when PPCs were too hot ... actually everything was too hot because of heat scale issues. Instead of fixing the heat scale they danced around the issue and nerfed the GR.

Insert comment about history repeating itself and people who don't understand history being doomed thusly.

[Zolaz]

[scJazz]

zorak ramone, on 06 July 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

If they do go ahead with the heat penalty thing, they (and many players) will be thinking everything is A-Okay until the VTR-9A1 is introduced. This mech has machineguns mounted in the legs. In all likelihood, they'll move those to a side torso. At this point we'll have an 80 ton jumper capable of 2xGR/PPC. That's a 40 point alpha that never stops, and defeats any attempt at heat-based balancing.

I suspect that at this point everyone will understand why the heat mechanism is dancing around the issue ... or everyone will continue to dance around the issue and call for some weapon specific nerf of the GR. The GR fragility nerf is a relic of the days when PPCs were too hot ... actually everything was too hot because of heat scale issues. Instead of fixing the heat scale they danced around the issue and nerfed the GR.

Insert comment about history repeating itself and people who don't understand history being doomed thusly.

Even if that is the case... PGI will never undo the stupid. 2 months from release once that mind blistering soul searing stupid is inserted into the game it will never be removed.

[zorak ramone]

Zolaz, on 06 July 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Welp, that’s it guys.

As long as there is a single problem in the entire more important than weapon balance in MWO, we can’t discuss it. Might as well close down the forums: I don’t see poverty or war ending anytime soon.

Serously, just f*** off.

[Talrich]

I think this is the best solution if the developers are able to able to pull it off.

As for implementation, I think this approach will strongly benefit from good transparency to the TCS information, and benefit from a better concept for grouping weapons. For the concept to really shine without players having to resort to macros, I think they'll need a "cluster fire" option, where you can direct buttons to fire different weapon clusters in serial. For example, you might set mouse button #1 to control four weapons, but fire only two of them per click.

I still worry that the Dev's won't attempt to build this solution, or can't code it and test it by September launch. In that case, I still think my damage band-aid approach (discussed here: http://mwomercs.com/...-20s-and-gauss/) beats heat penalties or nothing, but it'll be a shame if they don't try to make this happen.

Good luck.

[Aslena]

I think this is be best solution I've seen