6 replies to this topic

[MajorChunks]

First off, I'm not trying to shut down anyone's ideas. All suggestions are good ones, in my book.

I've been reading a lot of the feedback and suggestion threads lately, and came up with a few observations on the more popular ideas/themes. This may be long, and I apologise. I like my words.

I think the important thing to remember is that the feel of a game is just as important as the balance. One gives fun, the other fairness. That being said:

• Adding a cone of fire: Usually suggested as a solution for pinpoint damage alphas, occasionally with a scaling cone solution with number of weapons/heat generated.

Yeah, it certainly would be effective in reducing pinpoint damage, I won't deny that. However, I think the thing to note here is that this detracts from the spirit of the game: that we can pick and choose the locations on our enemy to hit. It's fun and rewarding to blow off a commando's leg at 500 meters, and adding randomness would remove that strategic option (in fact, it would likely result in people aiming for center of mass more, hitting other locations only by RNG accidents).


The problem right now, of course, is that at the moment it's just plain more efficient to hit the CT 2-3 times rather than take the time to blow an arm or a leg off first. If you only really had a chance to fire one salvo, due to heat or whatever limiting mechanic, it might be more strategically viable to aim for a crippling arm/leg shot before whittling him down.

People often compare the random cone mechanic to other shooters, which is fair. But remember that in other shooters nobody hip-fires, except in emergencies. That's what the iron sights are for, and we don't really have that option here.

• Removing torso convergence: Causing torso weapons to fire straight ahead, rather than converging with arm weapons. Again, this is to address pinpoint alpha damage.

This is similar to the above option, though I would argue more frustrating. Yes, it would reward high-skill players, absolutely. But actually using the system would look just plain silly and feel so very, very awkward. This relates to the "feel" portion. I'm sure it would be effective, but watching a high-skill player aim all his torso weapons would just be painful to watch, what with the jumping all over the place. If you thought the jumpjet shake gave you headaches...


I would also see a gravitation towards arm-focused mechs. I doubt many people would use Cataphracts nearly as much, or even Atlai, due to a sizeable chunk of their big weapons being torso-mounted. The Hunchback would certainly completely die off, that's for sure, and the poor thing already has enough problems.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Slowing down weapon convergence (significantly) I think is a fabulous compromise, and a fine idea. It also gives that Elite skill a purpose again.

• Add hardpoint size restrictions: The idea, of course, is to prevent boating by just removing boats altogether.

I'm not going to argue whether or not this would be effective, whether or not it technically follows or breaks TT rules, etc. People have done that already to death. But remember that customization and personalization of your mech is really a core part of this game. It appeals to a base need to tinker with stuff and make something really yours. Remember when they took attribute/skill points out of Diablo 3? No more melee casters. I was sad.


Being able to create cheese is part of the fun. It keeps things fresh. And the people that want to boat PPCs will still do it - just with mechs that were designed to. Is that better? Healthier for the game? Who knows. But I like my trollback with 2 LL and 3 MGs on it, because it's MY crappy build.

• Weapons in a group shouldn't fire together/weapons should all do laser-type damage-over-time: The idea is to reduce the ability to put all your damage into one location, without sacrificing aiming ability.

While not an awful idea in and of itself, I fear that this read leads us to a game where all weapons function pretty much the same, with some minor number changes. I like weapon diversity, it adds noticeable depth and everyone gets their own style of play. It sure would be pretty simple to balance, though.

• ECM should do less/something different: Just an observation here. I can see why it's implemented the way that it is: It encourages players to use their eyes to spot enemy forces, which is actually really rewarding in it's own way. It lets ECM mechs be sneaky, and rewards getting some high ground to do some old-fashioned scouting. Does that mean it shouldn't change? I don't know. But I can see how it fits.

So that's my two cents. Actually, it seems more like 20 bucks considering the size of the post. Well, big spender I guess.


And if I could chuck in one actual suggestion to this post: Just adding a "DPS" indicator in Mechlab alongside "Damage" would probably do wonders for very little cost. Just saying.

Edited by MajorChunks, 14 June 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[Dude42]

Okay, so, here goes...


#1 Adding a CoF wouldn't eliminate the ability to selectively target enemy body parts except at long range while moving, or running hot. It should be hard to hit that commando leg at 500m, especially if you yourself are running and your mech is practically on fire. Want to take a nice shot at that leg? Stop running, cool down.

#2 I agree with you, it would be silly with fixed torso convergence, slowing it down is definitely the way to go.

#3 It's hard to agree that an AC/20 in a machine gun slot, or a PPC in a small laser slot isn't broken at some level. I somewhat agree with the "Large" and "Small" hardpoint sizes. It might hurt some build diversity, but for the sake of not having ridiculous non-canon boats walking around I'm willing to make that sacrifice. I mean just wait till a mech capable of quad Gauss comes out because it had 4 machine gun slots, one in each arm and one in each torso. You know its gonna happen.

#4 That IS an awful idea in and of itself Call a spade a spade.

#5 ECM is somewhat OP. It should not prevent missile lock IMO. It should only reduce the range at which a mech can be locked, not provide godmode as far as missiles are concerned. It should also not effect allies. It should be a piece of scouting equipment that keeps you from lighting up like a christmas tree to every mech on the enemy team, not a mobile shield bubble.

Also, why would you want to change the damage to DPS? I can see wanting both, but why replace it? I like knowing how much damage I can do in a single blast. To me that's more important than the imaginary perfect DPS, because I'm poking in and out of cover, and generally not just standing there trying to achieve maximum theoretical dps on the target. I'm trying to kill him with surgical strikes, not sustained damage per second.

[Jam the Bam]

I agree with all of the OP's points.

#2 I like, some kind of indication of the degree of convergence achieved at any one time should be present, and would mean snap shots are much harder to do. Would make the game much more interesting without gimping certain mechs. It could also be used as a tweaking point to differentiate between mechs.

I especially agree with #1, and disagree strongly with the above poster (Dude 42). It should be difficult to hit something small and moving at range, but adding RNG to the equation is NOT adding difficulty, just randomness. They are not the same thing. You should be basing a hit on your ability to lead a target correctly, not whether the dice god are with you.

[MajorChunks]

Dude42, on 13 June 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

#1 Adding a CoF wouldn't eliminate the ability to selectively target enemy body parts except at long range while moving, or running hot. It should be hard to hit that commando leg at 500m, especially if you yourself are running and your mech is practically on fire. Want to take a nice shot at that leg? Stop running, cool down.

Oh, I have not doubt that it would be highly effective. I just think that there's a more elegant, less RNG-based system that can accomplish the same thing, like slowing down convergence and/or slowing projectile speeds.
Not being able to pick off weak points would also really cripple the skirmisher/guerilla role, particularly if it was speed/heat based. Duelling an opponent would have less to do with piloting skill and more to do with who can fire the most shots, since more shots=more chances of hitting CT/head. The likely outcome is that Assaults would become stronger and more dominant than they already are. All in my opinion, of course.

Dude42, on 13 June 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

#3 It's hard to agree that an AC/20 in a machine gun slot, or a PPC in a small laser slot isn't broken at some level. I somewhat agree with the "Large" and "Small" hardpoint sizes. It might hurt some build diversity, but for the sake of not having ridiculous non-canon boats walking around I'm willing to make that sacrifice. I mean just wait till a mech capable of quad Gauss comes out because it had 4 machine gun slots, one in each arm and one in each torso. You know its gonna happen.

Again, it's a perfectly valid solution. It just would make me very, very sad.

Dude42, on 13 June 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

#5 ECM is somewhat OP. It should not prevent missile lock IMO. It should only reduce the range at which a mech can be locked, not provide godmode as far as missiles are concerned. It should also not effect allies. It should be a piece of scouting equipment that keeps you from lighting up like a christmas tree to every mech on the enemy team, not a mobile shield bubble.

I agree with this, personally. You should be able to lock an ECM mech, and if it didn't cover allies it could potentially be made available to more mechs, like my trenchbucket for example. I just wanted to note that the whole can't-target-over-200m thing creates some mildly interesting gameplay that requires real eyesight and spotting, rather than press-r-as-fast-as-you-can like we used to have in closed beta.

Dude42, on 13 June 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

Also, why would you want to change the damage to DPS? I can see wanting both, but why replace it?

Yeah, both is better. I just think it needs to be included, as some weapons like the AC/2 really don't show their potential in the flat Damage bar, which may be subconsciously making players gravitate towards the heavy-hitting weapons. A lot of it has to do with playstyle, though - DPS is a more valuable stat for brawlers, whereas Damage is more valuable for snipers and skirmishers. Both is better, I'll change my original post.

[Otto Cannon]

Dude42, on 13 June 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

#3 It's hard to agree that an AC/20 in a machine gun slot, or a PPC in a small laser slot isn't broken at some level. I somewhat agree with the "Large" and "Small" hardpoint sizes. It might hurt some build diversity, but for the sake of not having ridiculous non-canon boats walking around I'm willing to make that sacrifice. I mean just wait till a mech capable of quad Gauss comes out because it had 4 machine gun slots, one in each arm and one in each torso. You know its gonna happen.

It's not really like that though. The problem is that people see mechs as having 'machine gun slots' because of the non-Battletech hardpoints that PGI have given them. Hardpoints are basically just there so that the animators know where the laser beams and missiles should come from when you shoot.
In the original game you could have any weapons that you could fit within your tonnage and crits, because if you fitted too many big guns your mech would be a glass cannon and utterly rubbish. There was no such thing as a non-canon boat because many of the canon mechs were boats anyway and the 'ready made' mechs were never supposed to be the only mechs, just the most common types.
Your 4x gauss example would be a pathetic sight on the battlefield, waddling along slowly with no armour and hardly any ammo for its guns, so it shouldn't be a problem if someone wants to build one and get killed in it constantly.

In short, unlimited customisation is a major part of Battletech and if building a mech boating a certain weapon is OP then it's because that weapon needs to be balanced better.

[Dude42]

Otto Cannon, on 16 June 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

It's not really like that though. The problem is that people see mechs as having 'machine gun slots' because of the non-Battletech hardpoints that PGI have given them. Hardpoints are basically just there so that the animators know where the laser beams and missiles should come from when you shoot.
In the original game you could have any weapons that you could fit within your tonnage and crits, because if you fitted too many big guns your mech would be a glass cannon and utterly rubbish. There was no such thing as a non-canon boat because many of the canon mechs were boats anyway and the 'ready made' mechs were never supposed to be the only mechs, just the most common types.
Your 4x gauss example would be a pathetic sight on the battlefield, waddling along slowly with no armour and hardly any ammo for its guns, so it shouldn't be a problem if someone wants to build one and get killed in it constantly.

In short, unlimited customisation is a major part of Battletech and if building a mech boating a certain weapon is OP then it's because that weapon needs to be balanced better.

I do agree with you to a certain extent. The point at which that extent stops is the point at which you can load 40-60 damage to a single section with a single shot. I wholly agree that should the issue of pinpoint alpha strikes be resolved, that even builds such as the quad guass could work, without being OP.

I'm aware that custom battlemechs are allowed in TT, but TT had systems in place to prevent the abuse of such loadouts. Like real heat management and penalties, just for starters. Not even gonna comment on accuracy. In TT you most certainly couldn't duct-tape weapons together such that they all hit the same armor panel.

Edited by Dude42, 16 June 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[Otto Cannon]

Dude42, on 16 June 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

I do agree with you to a certain extent. The point at which that extent stops is the point at which you can load 40-60 damage to a single section with a single shot. I wholly agree that should the issue of pinpoint alpha strikes be resolved, that even builds such as the quad guass could work, without being OP.

I'm aware that custom battlemechs are allowed in TT, but TT had systems in place to prevent the abuse of such loadouts. Like real heat management and penalties, just for starters. Not even gonna comment on accuracy. In TT you most certainly couldn't duct-tape weapons together such that they all hit the same armor panel.

I entirely agree that we need to get rid of pinpoint alphas, I just think PGI need to do that by changing convergence rather than just not allowing you to use weapon combinations because the game mechanic is broken.