139 replies to this topic

[BlackIronTarkus]

Chavette, on 12 June 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

PPCs is fine and it should stay as is... its the other weapon that sucks!

Tell me OP, what is harder;

Standing on a hill sniping fat targets that are slower than the first car I ever owned, back in out of sight and to safety when you need to cooldown?

or

Being shot by multiples enemies while trying to close in on your target dodging bullets, hiding behind cover, timing your move while their weapons are on cooldown and all that with a slow and fat husk of metal that serve as your mechwarrior?

Answer: The brawler.

Not only that but when you do close in, the same weapons that have been hammering you from long range are as effective unless you put your hull against his cockpit. Now tell me that isnt broken? Brawling weapons require a lot more skill than any long range weapons in this particular game. Especialy since brawling weapons are doing barely more damage and in some case less than the energy weapons.

Im talking about the machine guns, the LB-10x, the SRMs and any of the AC. Only the dual ac20 are truely effective in the current meta and they only fit a few husk and require many sacrifices.

[MustrumRidcully]

Funny Observation:

Hunchback with 8 MLs: 40 damage alpha. Range: 270m full damage, out to 540m. Weight: 50 tons.
Jagermech with 2 AC/20: 40 damage alpha. Range: 270 full damage, out to 810m. Weight: 65 tons.
Stalker with 2 PPCs and 2 ER PPCs: 40 damage alpha. 540 full damage, out to 1080m+. Weight: 85 tons.

It seems weight class can currently give you range, but can it give you better alpha potential?

Stalker with 6 MLs + 4 SRM6: 66 damage alpha. Range: 270m or less. Weight: 85 tons.

If the 4 PPC Stalker gets just one shot in at range at the "melee" Stalker, the stalker needs two shots to out-DPS the Stalker. At that point, they are at 120 damage vs 132 damage. To get through the Stalker CT, you need about 144 damage. Whoever shoots first the next time, wins this match...
But does that 4 PPC Stalker really only get in one shot at range?

[Tombstoner]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 June 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Funny Observation:

Hunchback with 8 MLs: 40 damage alpha. Range: 270m full damage, out to 540m. Weight: 50 tons.
Jagermech with 2 AC/20: 40 damage alpha. Range: 270 full damage, out to 810m. Weight: 65 tons.
Stalker with 2 PPCs and 2 ER PPCs: 40 damage alpha. 540 full damage, out to 1080m+. Weight: 85 tons.

It seems weight class can currently give you range, but can it give you better alpha potential?

Stalker with 6 MLs + 4 SRM6: 66 damage alpha. Range: 270m or less. Weight: 85 tons.

If the 4 PPC Stalker gets just one shot in at range at the "melee" Stalker, the stalker needs two shots to out-DPS the Stalker. At that point, they are at 120 damage vs 132 damage. To get through the Stalker CT, you need about 144 damage. Whoever shoots first the next time, wins this match...
But does that 4 PPC Stalker really only get in one shot at range?

I think we can both agree that the hunchback alpha is not 40 damage to one spot and this makes it looses this comparison at the start.

On a flat field range gives the stalker the edge since it can get off at least one more alpha and cool down by the time the others close.

Next is who can carry more HS/DHS with a larger engines for more heat capacity? then it becomes number of alphas before shut down. i think the stalker wins since it has 20 tone advantage at the start.

Armor - stalker wins, it simply has more armor on the CT

So size gives you more alphas at range before shutdown with more armor.
40-45 points seems to be a sweet spot it can punch through most mechs ct armor in 2 shots/ 4 second

i could be wrong but why would i want to play a medium or heavy mech. using a light gives you the mobility/survivability only if your above 120 units. other wise its stalkers, HL's or atlas untill the cyclops/ charger arrives.

The http://www.sarna.net...28BattleMech%29 will be a meta changer if it makes it into the game. depending on the hard points its given it will be a beast.... i can see 2 energy in the LT and 2 ballistics in the RT - 2x ac-5 or ultra 5 and 2 er ppc's so a 30+ point alpha every 4 seconds with the rest of the tonnage going into speed and DHS.

[Demuder]

Lostdragon, on 17 June 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

The sad thing is this is an epidemic throughout gaming, not just online gaming. Single player games used to be the place where niche games could be successful and flourish, but as soon as a niche becomes profitable publishers start trying to water it down and make it more palatable to the masses so they can move more units. Look at what happened to Bioware. They are the best example of this.

The company was founded by two doctors who decided they wanted to make video games. They set out to make the best RPG possible and with a team of only about 60 people (who had no game development experience) they created Baldur's Gate. It won multiple game of the year awards for 1998 and wound up being very successful in its niche.

BGII was developed using the same philosophies as the original but with the experience gained applied to make the game better in every way. It was a masterpiece because it had a clear focus and goal. It won more praise than the original and is to this day my favorite game of all time.

Enter Dragon Age, spiritual successor to BG. The first game was pretty good, but not as polished and flavorful as BG in my opinion. Still it was fun and brought back fond memories. It did well but the publisher decided the sequel would do even better if it had more mass appeal. So DA II was a dumbed down iteration that lost all the magic the original had and failed to conjure fond memories of past successes like BGII.

MWO has the potential to be the Baldur's Gate II of the MW series but I see the game deviating further and further from that path and moving more toward Dragon Age II.

Semi off-topic, but it brought a tear to my eye. Also the real gem in all that was Planescape: Torment imho.

[Lostdragon]

dimstog, on 17 June 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Semi off-topic, but it brought a tear to my eye. Also the real gem in all that was Planescape: Torment imho.

Torment is definitely a classic. I loved all the Infinity engine games.

[johnyboy420]

you know if ppc's arc'ed like they do in the novels this never be a big prob but they don't so they are super pin point

ppc's go straight for the most part but they don't do the like lighting thing

i saw that in the mech5 gameplay trailer had there ppc's working like that, why just change that?

if they went straight at the target but arc'ed around in a small COF towards the enemy mech it make the PPC's bolt just random enough too make it not so pinpoint but not make it useless?

gauss is glass you cant ***** about that gun that much

Edited by johnyboy420, 17 June 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[Aggressor666]

soarra, on 12 June 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

but instead of thinking about yourself, think about the game as a whole.. how is a massive alpha from a sniper good for the long term game

likely as good as a massive alpha from a "brawler" AC40 like jagger's and cats a single alpha to the back can kill most mechs besides assaults or at the very least take off an arm or leg

[Chavette]

Neverfar, on 17 June 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

"Dumbing down" is one of those vague unhelpful statements/complaints/demands that is easy to say and very hard to define. It's right next to "balance the game" "give us a fun meta" and "reward skilled™ play" in unhelpful things to say in a forum.

You have to at the very least explain yourself. Even if a weapon is dumbly overpowered and has no drawbacks (as can sometimes happen) saying "BALANCE TEH GAME DEVS!!!!1" doesn't really inform anyone.

Likewise with "stop dumbing the game down".

Thats why I spent a wall of text to explain it?

BlackIronTarkus, on 17 June 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Tell me OP, what is harder;

Standing on a hill sniping fat targets that are slower than the first car I ever owned, back in out of sight and to safety when you need to cooldown?

or

Being shot by multiples enemies while trying to close in on your target dodging bullets, hiding behind cover, timing your move while their weapons are on cooldown and all that with a slow and fat husk of metal that serve as your mechwarrior?

Answer: The brawler.

Not only that but when you do close in, the same weapons that have been hammering you from long range are as effective unless you put your hull against his cockpit. Now tell me that isnt broken? Brawling weapons require a lot more skill than any long range weapons in this particular game. Especialy since brawling weapons are doing barely more damage and in some case less than the energy weapons.

Im talking about the machine guns, the LB-10x, the SRMs and any of the AC. Only the dual ac20 are truely effective in the current meta and they only fit a few husk and require many sacrifices.

You are replying to something I never said, and has little to do with the subject?

Yes they need to balance the game so all roles are viable for the thinking man. What they are doing now is making all roles broken so the careless man role is viable. Thats the point here. Not what, but how or for what reason should something get nerfed/buffed.

Edited by Chavette, 17 June 2013 - 04:18 PM.

[badaa]

when ever i see a title like this what it really says play like us or dont play at all

[Chavette]

badaa, on 17 June 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

when ever i see a title like this what it really says play like us or dont play at all

Quite close. It says play the game how it should be played or don't complain it doesn't work out, for you should never be doing that in the first place. It gets ugly when the game gets adjusted to cater to those who are playing robot deathmatch online, for the rest.

[White Bear 84]

Waking One, on 12 June 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

So have I. Fact remains, PPCs are just too good for their cost and too easy to use skewing the balance completely. They're the opposite of "skill" if you will.

Not suprising considering that they do not use ammo, do high damage and will last for as long as your alive.. ..all you need is patience. That is why people use them. Can hide, shoot, hide, shoot and go about doing that all day.

[Aggressor666]

William Mountbank, on 17 June 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

I think mostly you guys are firing your lasers into the wind:


"We anticipate most players will play the 3PV mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. We’re going to emphasize that both view modes are essential to a well-rounded experience, with FPV being something that you use [only] if you are a true sim-head."
-Brian Ekman

Emphasis mine, but as the OP and others said here, the target audience here is not the Battletech fan who enjoys mechwarrior style combat. It's the FPS kid who has seen those Japanese games featuring giant sword wielding robots using rockets to run along walls. Not that I can blame the devs, a game that punished players for bad tactics and simplistic thinking is a game that sells as well as chessboards in the under 20s group.

3pv will SUCK period.
all those people crying about poptarts will suddenly be overwhelmed by hill humpers since all you have to do in 3PV is look slightly downward and you can see everything over a ridge without ever exposing yourself.... the novacat was infamous for that.
hell I remember scouting behind a ridge calling positions on the enemy team since I could basically see the entire map from where I was.
honestly if 3PV is added it'll be the nail in the coffin for this game as far as I'm concerned and I doubt I'm alone

[MaddMaxx]

Lostdragon, on 17 June 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

snip

Enter Dragon Age, spiritual successor to BG. The first game was pretty good, but not as polished and flavorful as BG in my opinion. Still it was fun and brought back fond memories. It did well but the publisher decided the sequel would do even better if it had more mass appeal. So DA II was a dumbed down iteration that lost all the magic the original had and failed to conjure fond memories of past successes like BGII.

snip

And a GD shame that was as well.

[MaddMaxx]

Aggressor666, on 17 June 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

3pv will SUCK period.
all those people crying about poptarts will suddenly be overwhelmed by hill humpers since all you have to do in 3PV is look slightly downward and you can see everything over a ridge without ever exposing yourself.... the novacat was infamous for that.
hell I remember scouting behind a ridge calling positions on the enemy team since I could basically see the entire map from where I was.
honestly if 3PV is added it'll be the nail in the coffin for this game as far as I'm concerned and I doubt I'm alone

So you have seen PGI's version of 3PV then? Can you link the rest of us poor ******** to the video...please.

No one will be forced to use it. If those Players, who have been waiting for it, arrive upon its release, so what, they were not around without it. PGI's gets a second wave and those who do not wish to use and can carry on.

The same will be true for CW. Not everyone wants to be a Team player... (obviously)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 18 June 2013 - 07:29 AM.

[CHWarpath]

Gaan Cathal, on 12 June 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

This. Simply bringing back convergence (and hooking it to the targeted mech's range, not the range of whatever hill is under your reticule when you're leading) would fix a whole heap of problems with low skill floor alpha builds.




That is the single dumbest comparison I have ever read. You clearly lack even the slightest concept of the principles of Marxism, and are just applying "socialist!" to any concept you dislike in the american fashion irrespective of it's accuracy. Using the guy's name doesn't make your idiocy sound more intellectual, it just makes it sound like you're trying to be intellectual.



No. A laser requires better aim because it needs to be on target ten times as long to do it's damage (assuming an AC/20 is on target for .1s for trigger pull).

The reason your laser accuracy is so high is that any damage from a laser beam makes that beam a 'hit', even if only one damage tick lands. It's a stupid way to do the metric, of course, and makes laser accuracy stats meaningless.

I had to respond to this, dude you are bad at this game as you probably are at all games. An all or nothing projectile weapon is not superior to a laser weapon in any way shape or form. With a laser even if you miss you can still recover and make some damage. You miss with a projectile, all you get is heat generated and no damage being scored. This community can barely land a laser shot on a moving target, and they surely are not landing a projectile on a moving target consistently. When I out damage you in a match again, I will be sure to rub it in.

Chavette, on 17 June 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Thats why I spent a wall of text to explain it?



You are replying to something I never said, and has little to do with the subject?

Yes they need to balance the game so all roles are viable for the thinking man. What they are doing now is making all roles broken so the careless man role is viable. Thats the point here. Not what, but how or for what reason should something get nerfed/buffed.

You act like you are some Alexander the Great level tactician or something. The number one skill you can have in these games is getting rounds on target, everything else is secondary. If you had any real training in gun fighting, you would know this simple fact already.

[CHWarpath]

Aggressor666, on 17 June 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

likely as good as a massive alpha from a "brawler" AC40 like jagger's and cats a single alpha to the back can kill most mechs besides assaults or at the very least take off an arm or leg

Why are you turning you back to people who are shooting you exactly?

[CHWarpath]

William Mountbank, on 17 June 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

I think mostly you guys are firing your lasers into the wind:


"We anticipate most players will play the 3PV mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. We’re going to emphasize that both view modes are essential to a well-rounded experience, with FPV being something that you use [only] if you are a true sim-head."
-Brian Ekman

Emphasis mine, but as the OP and others said here, the target audience here is not the Battletech fan who enjoys mechwarrior style combat. It's the FPS kid who has seen those Japanese games featuring giant sword wielding robots using rockets to run along walls. Not that I can blame the devs, a game that punished players for bad tactics and simplistic thinking is a game that sells as well as chessboards in the under 20s group.

Your post makes no sense. "Rewarding" bad tactics? Bad tactics don't yield any rewards there my friend. Also what is your definition of a "tactic", something you imagined during a fit of psychosis? A good tactic to the rest of the world is one that leads you to a win. Yes I am afraid this game is an FPS, as you have to aim most of your weapons.

[CHWarpath]

Lostdragon, on 13 June 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

The only way s to fix the heavy alpha builds smashing people with one or two shots issue is to have some sort of what you call randoness, make it impossible to equip those loadouts, or make it impossible to fire all the weapons at once.

I do not want to see arbitrary limits placed on firing weapons so I am completely against the third option. Option 2 would require hard point size restrictions and I would prefer not to have that since it would stifle creativity and reduce customization options.

This leaves "randomness", which isn't random if you know how to mitigate it. Have the degree of inaccuracy based on a number of known values as Doc and many others have suggested. I think making this part of a reworked heat penalty system with static heat cap and higher dissipation is the best path forward for the game.

A system like this actually makes sense and is more intuitive than what the devs have come up with. It also adds a new element of skill to the game in that you need to time your shots with the right combination of speed, heat, target lock, etc. to make the shot land where you want.

You could always not just stand there and not let them smash you as well.

[MustrumRidcully]

CHWarpath, on 23 June 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

I had to respond to this, dude you are bad at this game as you probably are at all games. An all or nothing projectile weapon is not superior to a laser weapon in any way shape or form.

You are wrong. This would assume that there is only ever a chance to hit nothing at all, or the intended location. You ignore all the parts where i just don't hit exactly where I want.
Yes, a miss with a PPC or Ballistic Alpha sucks. But completely missing is not the only possible outcome. And for Lasers, getting 100 % of your damage into one hit location is not easy, either - the enemy moves, twists his torso, and you might be moving, going over a bump. A second isn't long, but long enough to let your weapons spread.

And then there is the scenario where you don't hit exactly where you wanted, but still somewhere.
If a 4 PPC Salvo was intended to hit the CT but hits the LT, the LT is now vulnerable. It might actually be a good idea to switch your aim to it now, and keep hammering the enemy mech there. You need a bit longer to actually kill it now, but taking a side torso often means taking away most of the enemies firepower.

The LLs will rarely get into this type of situtaion. YOu will hit the CT with half your damage, and you hit the LT for half your damage, or something like that. You should probably keep aiming for whatever yo uaimed in the first place, but your chances of delivering 100 % of your damage to that location is lower than for a PPC or Ballistic weapon.

[William Mountbank]

CHWarpath, on 23 June 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Your post makes no sense. "Rewarding" bad tactics? Bad tactics don't yield any rewards there my friend. Also what is your definition of a "tactic", something you imagined during a fit of psychosis? A good tactic to the rest of the world is one that leads you to a win. Yes I am afraid this game is an FPS, as you have to aim most of your weapons.

I think you quoted the wrong post. The words 'Rewarding' or 'reward' are not in my post quoted by you. Nor did I say MWO was not an FPS - in fact, the tone of my post clearly shows I am against having a 3PV included as a viewmode, and that I prefer FPS as a MWO viewmode.
My definition of a tactic is in general the same as yours, but as was patently clear from my post, I was lamenting the nerfing of player forethought and the use of 'tactics' as opposed to simply running forwards and shooting. I assume my fit of psychosis is not so great that I can be forgiven for not including 'simply running forwards and shooting' as a tactic, having decided wrongly that a prerequisite to 'tactics' is forethought.