1263 replies to this topic

[AndyHill]

Victor Morson, on 17 June 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Nerf alphas and convergence all you want and the quick deaths won't stop until less people get restricted to 'mechs that carry less weight & space for weapons.

I'm curious about the practical application of this and how it will address the issue, since I've probably missed something important. Last weekend I took a 3PPC + Gauss AS7-RS (45 semi-pinpoint alpha) and got pretty good results with it. The biggest cases of murder were a couple of matches where the teams were predominantly medium and heavy, they pop pretty neatly when you hit them properly. Assaults at least have enough armor to withstand a few salvos from even the highest alpha builds.

In a med to med combat a laserboat hunchback has 45 points alpha, which is the same as my RS, but only half the armor. True, the range is less, but faster 'mechs can close the distance faster. Also, two PPCs is a viable loadout for many mediums and although that's less than half the alpha of the Atlas sniper versus about half the armor, the difference isn't that great. To me the relative armor and firepower of the mediums is comparable to assaults so I would be curious to know how having more mediums would change the balance?

[Shumabot]

Victor Morson, on 17 June 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Well, they kind of are, but not because they are high damage snipers. Too many people are obsessed with stomping that build type out which is wrong.

The problem is since there's no per-drop tonnage restriction, everyone is in an assault that's able to bring way more big guns than any other 'mech, causing a lot of really rapid full-to-zero deaths and making people blame he first obvious symptom, not the disease. Nerf alphas and convergence all you want and the quick deaths won't stop until less people get restricted to 'mechs that carry less weight & space for weapons.

Neither of those is the cause. They lifted the damage system from the TT but added non randomized hit mechanics, which broke their damage system. They took the tabletops customization and slot system but neglected BV values and forgot that battletech is designed as an arbitrated RPG combat game, not an arena style competitive battle game, and they broke their customization. They added and designed mechs and hardpoint layouts based on their historical use in the TT and original art, while neglecting the fact that the layouts never made sense and the art is predominantly what determines whether or not a mech is good, ergo they wildly broke inter mech balance by being inconsiderate of what they were designing. They created maps that hugely favor one loadout type or another and then released 3 maps in a row that push sniping without considering what that would do to the metagame, ergo they broke match weapon balance. They instituted an elo system that they didn't have the population for and have not given a tonnage or counterpick based matchmaking system, ergo they broke team balance.

They have failed in every category, none of these is the "disease" and none are "symptoms". Each are terrible mistakes in design in their own right.

[shotokan5]

I have not problem at what has been proposed. We will see its effect in the next patch tomorrow I am sure. Sounds almost reasonable. I am not sure about the .05 delay time. That may have to be adjusted over time not sure. Heat management over time is very important and has always been part of Mech. It should make one take a more frequent look at the gage. Streeks well its a sound thought and we will see tomorrow if it works.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

/sigh...

not that I don't like what you're doing, It's just getting too little too late.

(that feeling is shouting, "Don't log in until your Daishi gets here".. it's been growing in strength for a couple months)

Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 17 June 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Skyfaller]

Victor Morson, on 17 June 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

Because the example, which shows how the system "works" already proves it is broken. The reason there is such backlash is because no matter how you tweak the numbers, the core concept is terrible. There is literally NO problem with boating right now. Boating isn't the issue. Huge tons of guns on assault 'mechs is the issue in my book; some people feel convergence is the issue, which while I disagree with, at least is addressing the problem.

I disagree. Number of guns on a mech has nothing to do with it. The real reason is that those weapons can do pinpoint damage (aka convergence). Look at a previous poster screenshot. 1000+ damage with 4 ppcs and a gauss. 1000 damage, 4 kills 2 assists. That means he fired 3 alpha volleys per mech he hit average. At 55 damage per alpha its a no brainer to see why he did so well.. any light/medium and most heavies would be insta popped by this damage if it hit a weakened armor section... and most heavies and assaults would be 2-shotted if hit on the RT/LT or rear with it.

...all because the damage goes into one spot in every alpha shot. If you remove the ridiculous insta-perfect convergence and add a cone-fire system like WOT's where you have to slow down for the aimpoint to narrow and its random hit location within the cone then you would have a much more balanced game. An alpha would have each of those 4 ppcs hitting a different location... just like TT would.

Quote

Again, literally nothing is solved about high-damage snipers with these changes. Nothing.

Agreed. The 6 PPC stalker simple gets a heat penalty. Its no big deal when you know you deliver 60 damage at long range anyway.

The only way to fix the effectiveness of high alpha damage boating is to tackle the very thing that makes it EFFECTIVE: Convergence.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Agreed. The 6 PPC stalker simple gets a heat penalty. Its no big deal when you know you deliver 60 damage at long range anyway.

The only way to fix the effectiveness of high alpha damage boating is to tackle the very thing that makes it EFFECTIVE: Convergence.

Which ignores all the other ways boating is inherently superior to mixed loadouts (opportunity costs, a matched playstyle and loadout, the most possible damage to match time efficiency, best use of loadout space, etc). Boating isn't "high damage alphas" it's "why would I not take weapons that all do one thing and then do that thing the entire match, thus maximizing every ounce of tonnage on my mech 100% of the game?"

Edited by Shumabot, 17 June 2013 - 06:54 AM.

[LordCosine]

I think these random boat values per weapon are a terrible way to go.

Sounds like an arbitrary complexity..
How do you propose to implement this in the UI?
Is it just going to be a secret change that users simply need to simply know exists.
This would be especially terrible for new users, who just magically perform worse when they use 7 medium lasers instead of 6.

Also now a misery could just run 2 erppc 2 ppc and a gauss, to effectively bypass this strange alteration.

I would prefer going with one of the convergence ideas that have been floating around the forums.

OR make this weapon independent, and instead base it off of heat generated per sec. Generate too much heat within one second and you get a heat penalty.

OR change heat dissipation away from being a linear value/sec.
heat dissipation could instead dissipate at a speed based on your current heat. so the less heat you have built up, the faster your heat dissipates. This would naturally make chain fire super heat efficient. finally you wouldn't need any new UI since you could visually see this on your heat bar.

[Cygnus_XI]

Don't think it's going to do a whole lot tbh. PPCs are just too easy to use. I'd prefer if projectile speed was reduced so to make hitting moving targets harder. Yeah and 150% heat threshold for internal damage seems somewhat too generous as well. If it was at 125% or something like that it may help a bit.

Edited by Cygolino, 17 June 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Shumabot, on 17 June 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Neither of those is the cause. They lifted the damage system from the TT but added non randomized hit mechanics, which broke their damage system.

I wish people would realize that MechWarrior is not Table Top and for good reason. When you are about strategy game fights, the level of what can be done is based largely on the "time simulated per turn."

Case in point: In the 'mech dueling game, Solaris - it gets brought up a lot since it's rules are way more compatible with a MechWarrior game - they brought the time scale way down leading to... people aiming for specific areas in greater detail. Really, it's apart of the fluff and everything else, just not Table Top, which deals with more abstract Facings.

But no, we should not have random "die role" hit mechanics. I've posted before I would be OK with slowing convergence a bit or causing the accuracy of weapons being tied to heat (as that would be something good to lift from TT), because that would ultimately leave accuracy in the hands of the pilot and not dice - they get to choose what accuracy level their guns are, and debate pushing heat as a result. That adds depth and strategy, not pure chance then.

[Victor Morson]

Victor Morson said:

There is literally NO problem with boating right now. Boating isn't the issue. Huge tons of guns on assault 'mechs is the issue in my book; some people feel convergence is the issue, which while I disagree with, at least is addressing the problem.

Skyfaller, on 17 June 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

I disagree. Number of guns on a mech has nothing to do with it. The real reason is that those weapons can do pinpoint damage (aka convergence). Look at a previous poster screenshot. 1000+ damage with 4 ppcs and a gauss. 1000 damage, 4 kills 2 assists. That means he fired 3 alpha volleys per mech he hit average.

EDIT: Bolting & Underlining mine.

You more or less just proved my argument for me man. "Weight and number of 'mechs have nothing to do with it! Look at the guy in the assault boating huge numbers of huge guns." How can you seriously say that assaults that can carry that kind of firepower being the majority is not the problem when your whole argument is prefixed around assaults carrying that kind of firepower?

If this Stalker was 1, maybe 2 (thinking 8 mans here) 'mechs on the field, it would be terrible because it would be a slow, easily shut down lumbering pile in a 2 Assault, 2 Heavy, 3 Medium, 1 Light (just a random example) split. The heavies & mediums would be the real dictators of where and when battles occur, then.

But yeah. Your very opening line is what you need to look at. Everything else you said there is prefixed by it, and that's my point.

Skyfaller, on 17 June 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

Agreed. The 6 PPC stalker simple gets a heat penalty. Its no big deal when you know you deliver 60 damage at long range anyway.

The only way to fix the effectiveness of high alpha damage boating is to tackle the very thing that makes it EFFECTIVE: Convergence.

6 PPC Stalker is balls, and it isn't effective in the first place. Merely lowering the post-shutdown heat cap will make it explode if anyone drives it like they are currently driving it. There is literally no reason to add more nerfs to it because it's already garbage and will be even worse garbage if they add any additional heat effects.

The alpha system is unnecessary.

Also while I've said that I don't mind if convergence is impacted by heat or the like, but making weapons "scatter shot" all the time is a horrendous idea for a sim. It just is. I know some of you want to oddly play Megamek from a first person view, but that's just not going to happen.

You need to leave accuracy in the player control. Now, you can penalize accuracy for certain actions, but ultimately it has to be the player's choice. I wouldn't mind if accuracy went wild at high heat levels anymore than I'd mind if a sniper rifle is worthless when running in an FPS. Because ultimately then it leaves it to the player to chose if they need that accuracy or if they need to fire right now.

Just adding this random "dice rolls from cross hairs" element is doing nothing to improve the game. I love Table Top too and think it's a great place to get the spirit of rules, but that should be it. I'd totally opt for movement speed (including torso speed) modifiers, accuracy modifiers, visibility modifiers (cockpit effects) and more from running too hot. I'm all for making the heat management game have more depth.

But uncontrollable random chance will always be awful. It simply lowers the "skill ceiling" too much to the point that once you learn whatever the current meta builds are, skill barely would matter in an environment like that.

Edited by Victor Morson, 17 June 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[GoatHILL]

150% is too high 120-125% would be better also I think the limit for med lasers should be 8.

[Lord Rip]

BigMekkUrDakka, on 17 June 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

so called "high damage snipers" never was and never will be a real problem, if you think they are problem you should play some other game

Actually they are. As long as you can group bunch of big guns and do instant 40+ damage to a single location doing anything else is just being stupid or masochistic.

[DeaconW]

BigMekkUrDakka, on 17 June 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

proves nothing, you can rack the same or even more damage with DDC (2ppc or 2 LL gauss lrm?) if enemy team bad enough, and yours team ain't much better which is the case on this screenie

Not only that, but the fact that it ended in 3-0 is a GOOD thing and indicates a fairer match by the MM.

[Lord Rip]

Skyfaller, on 17 June 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

I disagree. Number of guns on a mech has nothing to do with it. The real reason is that those weapons can do pinpoint damage (aka convergence). Look at a previous poster screenshot. 1000+ damage with 4 ppcs and a gauss. 1000 damage, 4 kills 2 assists. That means he fired 3 alpha volleys per mech he hit average. At 55 damage per alpha its a no brainer to see why he did so well.. any light/medium and most heavies would be insta popped by this damage if it hit a weakened armor section... and most heavies and assaults would be 2-shotted if hit on the RT/LT or rear with it.

...all because the damage goes into one spot in every alpha shot. If you remove the ridiculous insta-perfect convergence and add a cone-fire system like WOT's where you have to slow down for the aimpoint to narrow and its random hit location within the cone then you would have a much more balanced game. An alpha would have each of those 4 ppcs hitting a different location... just like TT would.




Agreed. The 6 PPC stalker simple gets a heat penalty. Its no big deal when you know you deliver 60 damage at long range anyway.

The only way to fix the effectiveness of high alpha damage boating is to tackle the very thing that makes it EFFECTIVE: Convergence.

Since WoT does it I am very surprised they seem resistant to it, I mean pretty much everyone now realizes that 3PV is coming because WoT does it and they are popular. If we are going to end up playing WoM then at least rip off the good stuff rather than the window dressing.

Shumabot, on 17 June 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Which ignores all the other ways boating is inherently superior to mixed loadouts (opportunity costs, a matched playstyle and loadout, the most possible damage to match time efficiency, best use of loadout space, etc). Boating isn't "high damage alphas" it's "why would I not take weapons that all do one thing and then do that thing the entire match, thus maximizing every ounce of tonnage on my mech 100% of the game?"

Remove the ability to group PPCs and large ballistics and I would bet any amount they would be FAR less successful. Can't be that hard ro remove grouping for them.

[Lord Rip]

Victor Morson, on 17 June 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

EDIT: Bolting & Underlining mine.

You more or less just proved my argument for me man. "Weight and number of 'mechs have nothing to do with it! Look at the guy in the assault boating huge numbers of huge guns." How can you seriously say that assaults that can carry that kind of firepower being the majority is not the problem when your whole argument is prefixed around assaults carrying that kind of firepower?

If this Stalker was 1, maybe 2 (thinking 8 mans here) 'mechs on the field, it would be terrible because it would be a slow, easily shut down lumbering pile in a 2 Assault, 2 Heavy, 3 Medium, 1 Light (just a random example) split. The heavies & mediums would be the real dictators of where and when battles occur, then.

But yeah. Your very opening line is what you need to look at. Everything else you said there is prefixed by it, and that's my point.



6 PPC Stalker is balls, and it isn't effective in the first place. Merely lowering the post-shutdown heat cap will make it explode if anyone drives it like they are currently driving it. There is literally no reason to add more nerfs to it because it's already garbage and will be even worse garbage if they add any additional heat effects.

The alpha system is unnecessary.

Also while I've said that I don't mind if convergence is impacted by heat or the like, but making weapons "scatter shot" all the time is a horrendous idea for a sim. It just is. I know some of you want to oddly play Megamek from a first person view, but that's just not going to happen.

You need to leave accuracy in the player control. Now, you can penalize accuracy for certain actions, but ultimately it has to be the player's choice. I wouldn't mind if accuracy went wild at high heat levels anymore than I'd mind if a sniper rifle is worthless when running in an FPS. Because ultimately then it leaves it to the player to chose if they need that accuracy or if they need to fire right now.

Just adding this random "dice rolls from cross hairs" element is doing nothing to improve the game. I love Table Top too and think it's a great place to get the spirit of rules, but that should be it. I'd totally opt for movement speed (including torso speed) modifiers, accuracy modifiers, visibility modifiers (cockpit effects) and more from running too hot. I'm all for making the heat management game have more depth.

But uncontrollable random chance will always be awful. It simply lowers the "skill ceiling" too much to the point that once you learn whatever the current meta builds are, skill barely would matter in an environment like that.

I've got no problem leaving accuracy in the hands of the pilot, just fire them one at a time, When you shoot multiple large acaliber weapons at the same instant you should have trouble not falling down let alone hitting exactly the same spot with guns that are spread across both arms and a torso. Being able to do it simply difies the laws of physics miles beyond what anything else in battletech does. It would be the RL equivalent of someone taking two 44Magnum revolvers and shooting them both quickdraw and hitting both shots between someones eyes, simply not possible.

[Sharp Spikes]

So, this thread turned into debate about different propositions to fix gameplay issues. While I'm not opposed to it, I should note that this thread meant to be feedback about gameplay changes announced by PGI. Not that they will take that feedback into account, but still... After all they'll ignore all your propositions too, no matter how good they are, and do everything in the worst possible way.

[OneEyed Jack]

Nik Reaper, on 14 June 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

The first thing most would agree is that a good , fun competitive game is based around counter play. For that to work there must be time and opportunity to counter an action , wich you don't have if a single mech can core you out in 2 shots.

So all the FPS's out there where you play a human and often die to 1-2 shots are, by default, un-fun? That must explain why there's so many of them.

Hayashi, on 16 June 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Honestly, it would make more sense to keep the max number of weapons rule specific to each chassis.

Seriously? You're seriously suggesting it makes more sense to make this proposed, stupidly convoluted system, which will already drive off new players in droves, even more convoluted?

Shumabot, on 17 June 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Which ignores all the other ways boating is inherently superior to mixed loadouts (opportunity costs, a matched playstyle and loadout, the most possible damage to match time efficiency, best use of loadout space, etc). Boating isn't "high damage alphas" it's "why would I not take weapons that all do one thing and then do that thing the entire match, thus maximizing every ounce of tonnage on my mech 100% of the game?"

Blatant, and false, propaganda. No weapon is optimized for every situation, so boating is not inherently superior. It is superior if and when the situation makes the boated weapons superior, and inferior much of the rest of the time. And don't give me some BS argument about how ERPPC are great weapons at any range. Their heat is too low, but still high enough that using them at short range, where pausing to cool off safely is not an option, is a poor option.

Lord Rip, on 17 June 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

I've got no problem leaving accuracy in the hands of the pilot, just fire them one at a time, When you shoot multiple large acaliber weapons at the same instant you should have trouble not falling down let alone hitting exactly the same spot with guns that are spread across both arms and a torso. Being able to do it simply difies the laws of physics miles beyond what anything else in battletech does. It would be the RL equivalent of someone taking two 44Magnum revolvers and shooting them both quickdraw and hitting both shots between someones eyes, simply not possible.

Is that what it would be like? Really?

[Draecos]

So.... let's see.
We still have a fairly aggressive LRM flight path.....
PLUS increased speed.....
ALSO..... the tighter clusters....
AND.... now MORE damage?

WTF is wrong with you people at PGI? Have you EVER looked at the tabletop game? Did you ever study it and play it at all?

If you guys are going to keep LRM's as they are, you need to drop ammo per ton and get THAT in line with the TT game.

Getting really tired of this.......

[Draecos]

Lord Rip, on 17 June 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Since WoT does it I am very surprised they seem resistant to it, I mean pretty much everyone now realizes that 3PV is coming because WoT does it and they are popular. If we are going to end up playing WoM then at least rip off the good stuff rather than the window dressing.




Remove the ability to group PPCs and large ballistics and I would bet any amount they would be FAR less successful. Can't be that hard ro remove grouping for them.

I'm not against the grouping. Again though...... they're ignorant of the TT game. If you had a mech that was carrying 6 PPC's, you'd melt your mech firing all six at once. That'd be it. LRM's weren't THAT freakin effective (I think it was on a 11 or 12 with 2d6 that got you a full 20 hit with an LRM 20).

Just....... so ticked at the callous way in which PGI "balances" weapons.

[Miken]

LRMs not a problem, it's not instant alpha and you can avoid it or just escape from it. Heat penalty not an option at all, game mechanic must be simple. Convergence for high damage alpha strikers one of variants to solve the problem

Edited by Miken, 17 June 2013 - 08:51 PM.