43 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Just to be clear, by "boating", I mean carrying as many of the same ballistic weapon as possible, whether it's 4 AC5s, 3 UAC5s or 2 AC20s. Some of you may reserve the term "boating" for 4+ of the same weapon, but just bear with me here.

Now, it's almost a given at this point that boating energy weapons is bad. PGI are apparently looking into it and planning some kind of nerf. Boating missile boats is kind of a hit or miss these days, especially in PUGs. But I really think a lot of people are underestimating the effectiveness of "boating" ballistics, especially the UAC5s and AC20s.

I did an experiment by printing screenshots after 20 matches of my Ilya Muromets with 3 UAC5s (arguably not as effective as the 3 UAC5 Jager, but still good). I originally intended this to be proof that I'm losing most of my matches, despite doing ok damage, but I ended up with completely different results than I was expecting.

You can see the result of my experiment below. To sum it up, I had the following results with my 3 UAC5s.

• Top score on my team in 15/20 matches = 75% of all matches
  
• Victory in 14/20 matches = 70% of all matches
  
• 10289 dmg over 20 matches = average 514 dmg per match
  
• 35 kills, 6 deaths = 5,83 kill / death ratio

I'm having a hard time reaching the same stats in my other heavy mechs, not to mention light or medium. So it's not really a matter of skill.

Spoiler

Match 1 - Defeat. Conquest. Average score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 2 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 1 kill. Died.
Match 3 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills. Died.
Match 4 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 5 - Victory. Conquest. Average score, 2 kills
Match 6 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 0 kills.
Match 7 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, almost. 2 kills.
Match 8 - Victory. Assault. Top score, 1 kill.
Match 9 - Victory. Assault. Average / bad score.
Match 10 - Victory. Assault. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 11 - Defeat. Assault. Top score, 0 kills. Died.
Match 12 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 2 kills.
Match 13 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills.
Match 14 - Victory. Conquest. Good score, 1 kill.
Match 15 - Victory. Conquest. Average score, 2 kills.
Match 16 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 17 - Defeat. Conquest. Top score, 2 kills.
Match 18 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 4 kills.
Match 19 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 3 kills.
Match 20 - Victory. Conquest. Top score, 1 kill.

Note: I did not include matches with less than 7 players on either team.

If someone wants to do a similar experiment with an AC20 Jager, I'd be interested in seeing it. When I get my Cataphract 4X, I'll be trying the same with 4 x AC5s. I think it'll do fairly well, as my Ilya Muromets was doing quite a lot of damage just with 3 x AC5s and medium lasers.

[The Cheese]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

...But I really think a lot of people are underestimating the effectiveness of "boating" ballistics, especially the UAC5s and AC20s.

Yeah, no one underestimates the effectiveness of boating either of those weapons.

[Gaan Cathal]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

Now, it's almost a given at this point that boating energy weapons is bad. PGI are apparently looking into it and planning some kind of nerf. Boating missile boats is kind of a hit or miss these days, especially in PUGs. But I really think a lot of people are underestimating the effectiveness of "boating" ballistics, especially the UAC5s and AC20s.

A: It's not a given at all. What's bad is boating high-alpha instant-damage pinpoint weapons. There's absolutely no issue with Swaybacks or Jenners or Quickdraws being op for energy boating.

B: With that said, ballistics are a part of the high-alpha instant-damage pinpoint weapon problem. In theory the heat penalty will hurt them, but likely only the very marginal AC/2 boat will be affected.

C: In short, you're sort of right. It's the pinpoint big-alpha that's the problem though, not specifically boating in and of itself.


As regards your data. Yeah, the 3xUAC/5 Ilya is a good mech, it has been for quite some time. I imagine you'll see comparable numbers from the 4xAC/5 -4X. AC/40 Jaegers are actually a little more marginal, they tend to be glass cannons and veer strongly into either facerolling the opposition like a stubby-armed freight train or keeling over comically having unleashed a devastating slaughter at the scenery behined a closing light then getting utterly cratered by a ranged alphaboat.

Boats are good. They will always be good. It's because your weapons are unified in purpose and use, making you as efficient as possible at your chosen point of engagement. A sniper wins at range, a facemelter wins in a brawl. A mix of the two looses in both cases. A lot of the effective canon mechs are boats for this reason, and a lot of the more effective mixed-weapon loadouts are built to synergise their weapons.

The Atlas is often held up as example of why "Boating bad! BAD!" by people who think they understand the canon because it runs all three weapon groups. The AS7-D, the 'prime' variant, runs 4MLAS, an AC/20 and an SRM6. All of which have an engagement range of 270m. It also carries an LRM20 pack to lob at things while closing, but the primary armament is facemelting brawler weaponry. It actually synergises better in TT than in MWO because range is the only aiming factor. Once the Helm Memory Core starts spitting out lostech like candy, we see a general increase in sensible stock builds. We also see the AS7-K. A gauss rifle, two ERLLs and an LRM20 for the primary armament, a couple of MPL as a backup. Again, the primary armament is highly synergised. Both Atlai function like boats as much as if they carried 4xAC/5s or 3PPCs or what have you. The overall number of weapons are increased in MWO, but that's universal, due to more hardpoints and slightly borked heat.

[Alistair Winter]

The Cheese, on 19 June 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

Yeah, no one underestimates the effectiveness of boating either of those weapons.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Everyone knows those are the best ballistic weapons. But there's a lot more QQing about PPCs than there is about UAC5s. And I have not heard PGI say anything about intentions to look at the UAC5's effectiveness.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

A: It's not a given at all. What's bad is boating high-alpha instant-damage pinpoint weapons. There's absolutely no issue with Swaybacks or Jenners or Quickdraws being op for energy boating.

A fair point, I should have pointed out that it's mostly relevant for high alpha weapons. With that said, the Swayback is the most devastating Hunchback at the moment (untill SRMs are fixed), and when you start talking about Jenners, you also need to consider other factors, like whether Streaks are balanced or whether Light mechs in general are as good as they should be. The issue with light and medium mechs is that many people consider them underpowered, so in this regard, your counterargument is a bit controversial.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

B: With that said, ballistics are a part of the high-alpha instant-damage pinpoint weapon problem. In theory the heat penalty will hurt them, but likely only the very marginal AC/2 boat will be affected.

The UAC5 boats don't really have a huge alpha though.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

C: In short, you're sort of right. It's the pinpoint big-alpha that's the problem though, not specifically boating in and of itself.

Another somewhat controversial statement. I'm not sure changing convergence is going to help too much. Would you rather have 3 AC2s delivering damage on 3 different locations, or 1 gauss? Unless you want some kind of COD-like mechanism that makes your weapons inaccurate, I don't see that changing.

The best way to punish boats is to make a game that rewards balanced builds, with both long and short range weapons. In most games, specialists are vulnerable. In this game, almost every mech is a specialist, and the jack of all trades are the most vulnerable.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

As regards your data. Yeah, the 3xUAC/5 Ilya is a good mech, it has been for quite some time.

I've been playing since the Ilya was released, so I know that. This thread isn't specifically about the Ilya, I could probably have done equally well with the Jager, if not better.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Boats are good. They will always be good. It's because your weapons are unified in purpose and use, making you as efficient as possible at your chosen point of engagement. A sniper wins at range, a facemelter wins in a brawl. A mix of the two looses in both cases. A lot of the effective canon mechs are boats for this reason, and a lot of the more effective mixed-weapon loadouts are built to synergise their weapons.
The Atlas is often held up as example of why "Boating bad! BAD!" by people who think they understand the canon because it runs all three weapon groups. The AS7-D, the 'prime' variant, runs 4MLAS, an AC/20 and an SRM6. All of which have an engagement range of 270m. It also carries an LRM20 pack to lob at things while closing, but the primary armament is facemelting brawler weaponry. It actually synergises better in TT than in MWO because range is the only aiming factor. Once the Helm Memory Core starts spitting out lostech like candy, we see a general increase in sensible stock builds. We also see the AS7-K. A gauss rifle, two ERLLs and an LRM20 for the primary armament, a couple of MPL as a backup. Again, the primary armament is highly synergised. Both Atlai function like boats as much as if they carried 4xAC/5s or 3PPCs or what have you. The overall number of weapons are increased in MWO, but that's universal, due to more hardpoints and slightly borked heat.

I know that, but it doesn't have to be that way. In so many other games, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to win by having a group of uniform specialists crush their enemies by brute force. Where you're talking turn based strategy, real time strategy, MMORPGs, or whatever else. You want synergy, but synergy is usually achieved by making different components work together. In MWO, the whole is rarely more than the sum of its parts, but often less.

However, this kind of discussion has proven to be entirely academic, because PGI is not in the business of making fundamental changes to how the game works. They are now just making small adjustments, fine tuning what they've already done. And with that in mind, I do think that they should be looking at ballistics in addition to energy weapons. And I think that more fans should be aware of the effectiveness of low alpha ballistic boating, not just the AC20 and Gauss, which are usually the weapons people complain about.

[The Cheese]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Everyone knows those are the best ballistic weapons. But there's a lot more QQing about PPCs than there is about UAC5s. And I have not heard PGI say anything about intentions to look at the UAC5's effectiveness.

The weapon itself is capable of laying down stupid amounts of hurt when it's boated, but it has the drawback of needing the wielder to be exposed and facing the target for a comparatively long time to do it. That's why no one complains about it. If PPC's had the same kind of drawback, no one would complain about those either.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

put two gauss in a catapult, 1-2 medium lasers to finish with for close-mid range limpers, and an xl 250. everything will die either before they get into effective range to kill you, or before they see you. And before you turn your nose up at the XL, consider this, you're in a catapult, if for some reason you're in close range with something that will eat you, chances are they'll tear your cockpit out first anyway. not to mention gauss explosions have a habit of popping adjacent systems, this includes engines. So realistically, if you're not killing every slow mother hubbard before they can get close to you, something went horribly wrong.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 19 June 2013 - 01:58 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

The Cheese, on 19 June 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

The weapon itself is capable of laying down stupid amounts of hurt when it's boated, but it has the drawback of needing the wielder to be exposed and facing the target for a comparatively long time to do it. That's why no one complains about it. If PPC's had the same kind of drawback, no one would complain about those either.

Naturally there are drawbacks. But when a weapon consistently gives better results for both the individual (i.e. me in this experiment) and the majority of the players (I'm only speaking from my own observation of other players here), that means there's cause for concern. The PPC has different drawbacks, like heat, but what really matters is the numbers. Look at how players perform with each weapon. Statistics are more effective than trying to rationalize why things are actually balanced, when the numbers suggest otherwise. A lesson I wish PGI would consider, but there you go

[Ralgas]

Drop weight restrictions will bring these even further into focus. If you pay attention to the specifics given in the heat balance thread the aim was to apply extra heat when damage went over 30 in an alpha (6ml or 3ppc). One could reaonably guess the extra heat may be applied to two ac/20. To the people then using the swayback as an example but why should it not be hit when dishing out 45 dmg in one click? Would it be really that bad to split a 6ml and a 3ml wep group and alternate?

I'm very much of the opinion pgi's solution is too easy to workaround but the intent at the very least is good. As for uac's an extra point of heat wouldn't hurt there, even for ballostics they run too cool for what they can dish out

[Gaan Cathal]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

A fair point, I should have pointed out that it's mostly relevant for high alpha weapons. With that said, the Swayback is the most devastating Hunchback at the moment (untill SRMs are fixed), and when you start talking about Jenners, you also need to consider other factors, like whether Streaks are balanced or whether Light mechs in general are as good as they should be. The issue with light and medium mechs is that many people consider them underpowered, so in this regard, your counterargument is a bit controversial.

Ah, but is the Swayback fine and the other hunchies underpowered, rather than the Swayback being OP? To use a different counterargument - I would argue that the 4PPC Catapult is currently fine from a balance perspective, while the 4PPC Stalker is not. This is because the reduced heat containment/dissipation on the Catapult means that it inevitably gets one alpha, followed by cycled paired shots until it fully disengages for some reason. There's also the QKD-5K, 60t with 6 energy hardpoints. Not seen any unreasonable builds. 6 MPL packs a surprisingly sustainable punch.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

The UAC5 boats don't really have a huge alpha though.

30 alpha is appreciable. A King Crab or similar would see us hitting 40 alpha with them. The fact is that 30 damage recycles a lot faster than an AC/40. If you take more than three shots to win a fight, the UAC/5 wins out (unless it jams).

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

Another somewhat controversial statement. I'm not sure changing convergence is going to help too much. Would you rather have 3 AC2s delivering damage on 3 different locations, or 1 gauss? Unless you want some kind of COD-like mechanism that makes your weapons inaccurate, I don't see that changing.

I'm not actually a big advocate of messing too much with convergence. Just re-implement time-to-convergence and have it converge to locked target range if there is one (if not defaulting to the current 'ground under cursor' mode). The fact is all the massive alpha weapons have limiting factors. Look at AC/40 Jaegers. Deadly, but either glass cannons or so slow they're easy fodder for anything ranged. Massed Gauss fire? 15t weapons that explode when critted and carry next to no ammo/ton have considerable drawbacks. I'd advocated adding their minimum range, just to stop them being quite so bloody good in a brawl, but that's about it. The reason PPCs are an issue is that their drawback isn't weight, compared with AC/20s and Gauss they're featherlight. Their drawback is heat, except that that drawback is largely negated by the current high-containment-value system.

Basically, high pinpoint alpha is very dangerous and needs limitations. Those limitations currently function for 2/3 of the highest alpha pinpoint weapons. The third is boated like crazy. No coincidence. The problem isn't PPC boats. It's that PPC boats are too good for the skill required to use them.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

The best way to punish boats is to make a game that rewards balanced builds, with both long and short range weapons. In most games, specialists are vulnerable. In this game, almost every mech is a specialist, and the jack of all trades are the most vulnerable.

In most games a 'jack of all trades' has more emphasis on the 'master of none' element. A common misconception about this is that the classic 'assault rifle infantryman' is a 'jack of all trades' in a modern-warfare game. They're not. They dominate midrange combat. That's entirely different. The game isn't Long Range <-> CQB (if it's designed right). It's Long Range <-> Midrange <-> CQB. Now if you made a jack of all trades by giving a class a desert eagle with zoom-scope for long range and a slow-firing-but-accurate smg to extend their CQB range into midrange they'd get murdered by snipers at range, assault rifles in the midrange and smgs in CQB.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

I know that, but it doesn't have to be that way. In so many other games, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to win by having a group of uniform specialists crush their enemies by brute force. Where you're talking turn based strategy, real time strategy, MMORPGs, or whatever else. You want synergy, but synergy is usually achieved by making different components work together. In MWO, the whole is rarely more than the sum of its parts, but often less.

I've highlighted there because I agree with that. A problem with MW:O atm is that more of the same wins. However. In that case you are talking about a group - say a lance - coordinating over multiple ranges. Say two brawlers, and LRM boat and a light with a TAG. However, individually, all those mechs are specialists. The brawlers will all be boating 270-400m weapons. The scout presumably loading ECM or BAP and as many ML or SPL as he can fit on top of his Tag and oversized engine and the LRM boat has as many LRMs as he can feasibly fire plus some point defence weapons for sub-180m panic combat.

If you take that same dictum and spread it over the mechs, you have...a mess. Four mechs each with an LRM launcher, TAG and assortment of brawling weapons is far inferior in combat with the aforementioned lance. A pure sniper group would stand a decent chance of beating them at the moment, but if this heat-penalty thing works I think that'd be moot. Mostly goes to show how overpowered long range combat is at the moment. A pure brawler group would be pummeled by LRMs on the way in and during the brawl, which would probably more than counter the lack of a fourth brawler in a patch where LRMs are decent. A lance of scouty lights would need to circumvent the brawlers and gank the LRM boat in order to stand a solid enough chance in the brawl to commit. Overall the balanced lance has the edge over specialised lances, which are still viable. The lance of balanced mechs, however, is at the bottom of the pack. It can't engage convincingly at any range.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

However, this kind of discussion has proven to be entirely academic, because PGI is not in the business of making fundamental changes to how the game works. They are now just making small adjustments, fine tuning what they've already done. And with that in mind, I do think that they should be looking at ballistics in addition to energy weapons. And I think that more fans should be aware of the effectiveness of low alpha ballistic boating, not just the AC20 and Gauss, which are usually the weapons people complain about.

Looking at the numbers they're talking about for the heat penalties, I think convincing low-calibre ACs might be taking a hit. Just a suspicion at this point though.

[MustrumRidcully]

One of the reasons the PPC hate is stronger is the way it's effective. 40 points to the Hunchback's Hunch? Armor is gone. next shot? The main weapon complement is gone. Basically, 2 shots and your mech is a ruin.

The UAC/5 would be much more gradual. it might still be OP, but it's not a two-shot experience.

[The Cheese]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

Naturally there are drawbacks. But when a weapon consistently gives better results for both the individual (i.e. me in this experiment) and the majority of the players (I'm only speaking from my own observation of other players here), that means there's cause for concern. The PPC has different drawbacks, like heat, but what really matters is the numbers. Look at how players perform with each weapon. Statistics are more effective than trying to rationalize why things are actually balanced, when the numbers suggest otherwise. A lesson I wish PGI would consider, but there you go

I see your point, but you get players doing well when they boat just about any non-crappy weapon. For every player I see do well boating UAC/5s, there's another doing well with med lasers, another with AC/2s, another with LRMs, and so on. Personally, I find I perform well when I boat large lasers in a more mobile chassis, such as a Catapult or a Dragon, and I see other people getting the same results. That doesn't necessarily mean they're in need of a nerf. Hell, large lasers are one of the few weapons that people seem to agree are in a good place.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that weapons should never be reviewed and tweaked to keep them in line, just that I don't think UAC/5s are the beast that you're suggesting they are. Even before snipefest 13' began, there weren't that many people complaining that the 3xUAC/5 muromets was supremely overpowered.

[Gaan Cathal]

I'd actually argue that the 3xUAC/5 Ilya, the 4xAC5 -4X, the 4xAC5 and 2xAC20 Jaegers and mechs in a similar bracket are actually a good benchmark of where balance should be. They're scary. They're brutally effective. That's good. No-one wants big stompy mechs with nerfguns. Bring laserboats into line in with those terms of effectiveness (hard to judge without a ~70t energy boat really) and I think the game will be looking pretty good. The problem is that atm PPCs are so, so much better than lasers that they're almost the default choice for any energy hardpoint. I don't have an issue with grouped PPCs being viable (hello Adder Prime) but they need to be reeled in so they don't invalidate lasers.

[Rippthrough]

Battlecruiser, on 19 June 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

put two gauss in a catapult, 1-2 medium lasers to finish with for close-mid range limpers, and an xl 250. everything will die either before they get into effective range to kill you, or before they see you. And before you turn your nose up at the XL, consider this, you're in a catapult, if for some reason you're in close range with something that will eat you, chances are they'll tear your cockpit out first anyway. not to mention gauss explosions have a habit of popping adjacent systems, this includes engines. So realistically, if you're not killing every slow mother hubbard before they can get close to you, something went horribly wrong.

I used to brawl in my twin guass, 4 x MLas K2.
Whilst they're busy lining up a shot on your cockpit, you can just facerape them back, the agility and torso twist speed gives you some serious accuracy for just blowing the cockpits out of other mechs even in a brawl.
Anything that wasn't dead on the way down to get me got a shock in close combat too....

Edited by Rippthrough, 19 June 2013 - 02:32 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Lots of good replies here, I don't have time to comment at the moment, but will do it later.

The Cheese, on 19 June 2013 - 02:20 AM, said:

I see your point, but you get players doing well when they boat just about any non-crappy weapon. For every player I see do well boating UAC/5s, there's another doing well with med lasers, another with AC/2s, another with LRMs, and so on. Personally, I find I perform well when I boat large lasers in a more mobile chassis, such as a Catapult or a Dragon, and I see other people getting the same results. That doesn't necessarily mean they're in need of a nerf. Hell, large lasers are one of the few weapons that people seem to agree are in a good place.

Well, I have played many different mechs in this game, although I've sold everything except the ones you see in my sig. There are very few builds that can consistently give me the same kind of results as the 3UAC5 Ilya. I don't think I'm just especially gifted when it comes to using the UAC5

[The Cheese]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Well, I have played many different mechs in this game, although I've sold everything except the ones you see in my sig. There are very few builds that can consistently give me the same kind of results as the 3UAC5 Ilya. I don't think I'm just especially gifted when it comes to using the UAC5

If you kept those Awesomes because you do well in them, then yes, you are an exceptionally skilled player.

[Gaan Cathal]

The Cheese, on 19 June 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

If you kept those Awesomes because you do well in them, then yes, you are an exceptionally skilled player.

No ****. Centurions aren't exactly powerhouses either, considering the state of mediums.

[aniviron]

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

[/size]

A: It's not a given at all. What's bad is boating high-alpha instant-damage pinpoint weapons. There's absolutely no issue with Swaybacks or Jenners or Quickdraws being op for energy boating.

B: With that said, ballistics are a part of the high-alpha instant-damage pinpoint weapon problem. In theory the heat penalty will hurt them, but likely only the very marginal AC/2 boat will be affected.

C: In short, you're sort of right. It's the pinpoint big-alpha that's the problem though, not specifically boating in and of itself.


As regards your data. Yeah, the 3xUAC/5 Ilya is a good mech, it has been for quite some time. I imagine you'll see comparable numbers from the 4xAC/5 -4X. AC/40 Jaegers are actually a little more marginal, they tend to be glass cannons and veer strongly into either facerolling the opposition like a stubby-armed freight train or keeling over comically having unleashed a devastating slaughter at the scenery behined a closing light then getting utterly cratered by a ranged alphaboat.

Boats are good. They will always be good. It's because your weapons are unified in purpose and use, making you as efficient as possible at your chosen point of engagement. A sniper wins at range, a facemelter wins in a brawl. A mix of the two looses in both cases. A lot of the effective canon mechs are boats for this reason, and a lot of the more effective mixed-weapon loadouts are built to synergise their weapons.

The Atlas is often held up as example of why "Boating bad! BAD!" by people who think they understand the canon because it runs all three weapon groups. The AS7-D, the 'prime' variant, runs 4MLAS, an AC/20 and an SRM6. All of which have an engagement range of 270m. It also carries an LRM20 pack to lob at things while closing, but the primary armament is facemelting brawler weaponry. It actually synergises better in TT than in MWO because range is the only aiming factor. Once the Helm Memory Core starts spitting out lostech like candy, we see a general increase in sensible stock builds. We also see the AS7-K. A gauss rifle, two ERLLs and an LRM20 for the primary armament, a couple of MPL as a backup. Again, the primary armament is highly synergised. Both Atlai function like boats as much as if they carried 4xAC/5s or 3PPCs or what have you. The overall number of weapons are increased in MWO, but that's universal, due to more hardpoints and slightly borked heat.

This might be my favourite post so far this month, just because you've done such fantastically clear job of explaining why it is that boating is good, something most people tend to gloss over. Also, I actually laughed aloud at the phrase "Once the Helm Memory Core starts spitting out lostech like candy, we see a general increase in sensible stock builds."

[Alistair Winter]

Multiquote ftw!

Ralgas, on 19 June 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

Drop weight restrictions will bring these even further into focus. If you pay attention to the specifics given in the heat balance thread the aim was to apply extra heat when damage went over 30 in an alpha (6ml or 3ppc). One could reaonably guess the extra heat may be applied to two ac/20. To the people then using the swayback as an example but why should it not be hit when dishing out 45 dmg in one click? Would it be really that bad to split a 6ml and a 3ml wep group and alternate?
I'm very much of the opinion pgi's solution is too easy to workaround but the intent at the very least is good. As for uac's an extra point of heat wouldn't hurt there, even for ballostics they run too cool for what they can dish out

What's the workaround?

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

Ah, but is the Swayback fine and the other hunchies underpowered, rather than the Swayback being OP? To use a different counterargument - I would argue that the 4PPC Catapult is currently fine from a balance perspective, while the 4PPC Stalker is not. This is because the reduced heat containment/dissipation on the Catapult means that it inevitably gets one alpha, followed by cycled paired shots until it fully disengages for some reason. There's also the QKD-5K, 60t with 6 energy hardpoints. Not seen any unreasonable builds. 6 MPL packs a surprisingly sustainable punch.

Mlas-boats are great. Previously, I think the Cicada 2A was the uncrowned king of Mlas-boats, although the 8Q was also very effective at one point. And the Blackjack Mlas-boat is very nasty in the right hands, although probably harder to use than the Quickdraw (I've tried neither)

But to answer your question - the Swayback is fine because the huge advantage from its weapons overshadow the disadvantages of being relatively big, slow and lightly armored compared to heavy mechs. If you were to make the other hunchbacks better choices, you would probably want to deal with those factors, and that would make the Swayback OP.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

30 alpha is appreciable. A King Crab or similar would see us hitting 40 alpha with them. The fact is that 30 damage recycles a lot faster than an AC/40. If you take more than three shots to win a fight, the UAC/5 wins out (unless it jams).

Well, this could easily devolve into nitpicking. Yeah, it's a high alpha considering its high rate of fire. But using alpha as the most important metric, it's not really a high alpha build.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

I'm not actually a big advocate of messing too much with convergence. Just re-implement time-to-convergence and have it converge to locked target range if there is one (if not defaulting to the current 'ground under cursor' mode). The fact is all the massive alpha weapons have limiting factors. Look at AC/40 Jaegers. Deadly, but either glass cannons or so slow they're easy fodder for anything ranged. Massed Gauss fire? 15t weapons that explode when critted and carry next to no ammo/ton have considerable drawbacks. I'd advocated adding their minimum range, just to stop them being quite so bloody good in a brawl, but that's about it. The reason PPCs are an issue is that their drawback isn't weight, compared with AC/20s and Gauss they're featherlight. Their drawback is heat, except that that drawback is largely negated by the current high-containment-value system.

Basically, high pinpoint alpha is very dangerous and needs limitations. Those limitations currently function for 2/3 of the highest alpha pinpoint weapons. The third is boated like crazy. No coincidence. The problem isn't PPC boats. It's that PPC boats are too good for the skill required to use them.

I don't think the AC40 Jagers are balanced at all. Yeah, they're glass cannons. Yeah, they're slow. Yeah, they have a rough time on Alpine if you catch them in the open. But on 80% of all maps, those disadvantages are almost irrelevant, unless you have a very good team working with you. If we had game modes, maps and game balance that encouraged role warfare, the AC40 Jagers would not be a problem, because you would have scouts to identify their position, and those scouts would be far enough ahead that your team would have time to adjust their position accordingly, hopefully moving to a location where the AC40 Jagers would be at a disadvantage. But in most matches, especially when PUGing, all that silly strategical stuff is out the window.

Roll a game of Assault. Your team hugs the crater. You turn a corner to have a look, and three smiling AC40 Jager pilots welcome you with open arms and 120 damage. At that point, their fragility, lack of speed or range doesn't matter, because they have reduced your mech to a cloud of ashes. That scenario is plausible on many maps. I like to think that I have an average skill level in this game, but MW:O is still a kind of russian roulette, where you risk dying if you happen to take the wrong path. Which is fine if you're playing CS and getting sprayed by an AK-47 at point blank. But I don't think it's appropriate for this game.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

In most games a 'jack of all trades' has more emphasis on the 'master of none' element. A common misconception about this is that the classic 'assault rifle infantryman' is a 'jack of all trades' in a modern-warfare game. They're not. They dominate midrange combat. That's entirely different. The game isn't Long Range <-> CQB (if it's designed right). It's Long Range <-> Midrange <-> CQB. Now if you made a jack of all trades by giving a class a desert eagle with zoom-scope for long range and a slow-firing-but-accurate smg to extend their CQB range into midrange they'd get murdered by snipers at range, assault rifles in the midrange and smgs in CQB.

I wasn't thinking about that, specifically, but I agree. If it was like that, it would be great. Now, people have claimed that the strength of the medium mech is its versatility, being able to help out both light mechs and assault mechs in their different objectives. So the advantage of the rifleman isn't dominating any range, but not being as useless as a desert eagle at 200 meters, or as useless as a Barrett M82 when clearing a building. And as you say, the rifleman should have an optimal range where he's actually more effective than other alternatives.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

I've highlighted there because I agree with that. A problem with MW:O atm is that more of the same wins. However. In that case you are talking about a group - say a lance - coordinating over multiple ranges. Say two brawlers, and LRM boat and a light with a TAG. However, individually, all those mechs are specialists. The brawlers will all be boating 270-400m weapons. The scout presumably loading ECM or BAP and as many ML or SPL as he can fit on top of his Tag and oversized engine and the LRM boat has as many LRMs as he can feasibly fire plus some point defence weapons for sub-180m panic combat.
If you take that same dictum and spread it over the mechs, you have...a mess. Four mechs each with an LRM launcher, TAG and assortment of brawling weapons is far inferior in combat with the aforementioned lance. A pure sniper group would stand a decent chance of beating them at the moment, but if this heat-penalty thing works I think that'd be moot. Mostly goes to show how overpowered long range combat is at the moment. A pure brawler group would be pummeled by LRMs on the way in and during the brawl, which would probably more than counter the lack of a fourth brawler in a patch where LRMs are decent. A lance of scouty lights would need to circumvent the brawlers and gank the LRM boat in order to stand a solid enough chance in the brawl to commit. Overall the balanced lance has the edge over specialised lances, which are still viable. The lance of balanced mechs, however, is at the bottom of the pack. It can't engage convincingly at any range.

I can't quite tell where you're talking about the game as it is, as opposed to the game as it should be. In regards to different lances having different specialties, that would work if 1) Lances actually had a function in most matches and 2) The game rewarded an overall balance of abilities between different lances on the same team. At the moment, neither of those conditions are present. But I'd like to see it.

MustrumRidcully, on 19 June 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

One of the reasons the PPC hate is stronger is the way it's effective. 40 points to the Hunchback's Hunch? Armor is gone. next shot? The main weapon complement is gone. Basically, 2 shots and your mech is a ruin.
The UAC/5 would be much more gradual. it might still be OP, but it's not a two-shot experience.

I'm not sure if my victims consider themselves lucky when they get chewed out by concentrated UAC5 fire over 5 or 6 seconds, during which their aim is disrupted so much by shaking and explosions that they can barely see the colour of the sky. I certainly get just as frustrated when I'm being rapidly torn apart by ballistics or missiles, as when I'm quickly put to sleep by PPCs or AC20s.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

I'd actually argue that the 3xUAC/5 Ilya, the 4xAC5 -4X, the 4xAC5 and 2xAC20 Jaegers and mechs in a similar bracket are actually a good benchmark of where balance should be. They're scary. They're brutally effective. That's good. No-one wants big stompy mechs with nerfguns. Bring laserboats into line in with those terms of effectiveness (hard to judge without a ~70t energy boat really) and I think the game will be looking pretty good. The problem is that atm PPCs are so, so much better than lasers that they're almost the default choice for any energy hardpoint. I don't have an issue with grouped PPCs being viable (hello Adder Prime) but they need to be reeled in so they don't invalidate lasers.

Well, this is where people have different ideas. Personally, I really liked the way Mechwarrior felt in the older games. There was often relatively little cover, but engaging another mech often led to a long, methodical fight, where you would circle each other for a long time, trying to destroy a limb or two, and finally landing the killing blow. It wasn't just a 10-second scramble to land 3 consecutive alpha strikes on the center torso.

I never felt that I was armed with nerf guns. But then again, those games had various tanks, choppers and buildings that really gave you a sense of scale and illustrated how powerful your weapons were. In MW:O, I can't even destroy a medium-sized pine tree.

The Cheese, on 19 June 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

If you kept those Awesomes because you do well in them, then yes, you are an exceptionally skilled player.

Oh you.

I do think the Awesome is underrated, but still the weakest of the assault mechs. I am by no means exceptional, I just play certain mechs because I think they're cool. With average skills and a lot of practice, many weak mechs can do reasonably well in this game. But I'm sure I'd be more effective in a Stalker with 4 ER PPCs than in my Awesome 8Q with 3 ER PPCs and a small laser.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

No ****. Centurions aren't exactly powerhouses either, considering the state of mediums.

True. I've been fairly successful with the AL with dual LPLs and dual medium lasers. I guess those days are gone now though.

[Gaan Cathal]

M-m-m-mullllltiiiiiquooooote!

aniviron, on 19 June 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

This might be my favourite post so far this month, just because you've done such fantastically clear job of explaining why it is that boating is good, something most people tend to gloss over. Also, I actually laughed aloud at the phrase "Once the Helm Memory Core starts spitting out lostech like candy, we see a general increase in sensible stock builds."

Candy op. Nerf candy.

In all seriousness, boating is good. It shows thought about a mech's role and how best to achieve that. The same is true of highly synergistic non-boat builds. The two aren't really different.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

What's the workaround?

For the Swayback? 6ML+3SPL. For 4PPC Stalkers? 2PPC+2ERPPC. Heat-penalty-begone!

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

Mlas-boats are great. Previously, I think the Cicada 2A was the uncrowned king of Mlas-boats, although the 8Q was also very effective at one point. And the Blackjack Mlas-boat is very nasty in the right hands, although probably harder to use than the Quickdraw (I've tried neither)

The 6ML Jenner is just brutal if you can handle the heat. Though I've suspicions it'll be replaced with the 6SPL Jenner shortly.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

But to answer your question - the Swayback is fine because the huge advantage from its weapons overshadow the disadvantages of being relatively big, slow and lightly armored compared to heavy mechs. If you were to make the other hunchbacks better choices, you would probably want to deal with those factors, and that would make the Swayback OP.

Don't deal with those factors, improve the other aspects of the Hunchbacks so they're worth the drawbacks. They don't have to be arithmetically dead equal to the Swayback. Just workable. (Gaussback!)

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

I don't think the AC40 Jagers are balanced at all. Yeah, they're glass cannons. Yeah, they're slow. Yeah, they have a rough time on Alpine if you catch them in the open. But on 80% of all maps, those disadvantages are almost irrelevant, unless you have a very good team working with you. If we had game modes, maps and game balance that encouraged role warfare, the AC40 Jagers would not be a problem, because you would have scouts to identify their position, and those scouts would be far enough ahead that your team would have time to adjust their position accordingly, hopefully moving to a location where the AC40 Jagers would be at a disadvantage. But in most matches, especially when PUGing, all that silly strategical stuff is out the window.

Personally I only find they dominate in River City and Frozen City. Both building-dense urban combat maps where they should shine.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

Roll a game of Assault. Your team hugs the crater. You turn a corner to have a look, and three smiling AC40 Jager pilots welcome you with open arms and 120 damage. At that point, their fragility, lack of speed or range doesn't matter, because they have reduced your mech to a cloud of ashes. That scenario is plausible on many maps. I like to think that I have an average skill level in this game, but MW:O is still a kind of russian roulette, where you risk dying if you happen to take the wrong path. Which is fine if you're playing CS and getting sprayed by an AK-47 at point blank. But I don't think it's appropriate for this game.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

Well, this is where people have different ideas. Personally, I really liked the way Mechwarrior felt in the older games. There was often relatively little cover, but engaging another mech often led to a long, methodical fight, where you would circle each other for a long time, trying to destroy a limb or two, and finally landing the killing blow. It wasn't just a 10-second scramble to land 3 consecutive alpha strikes on the center torso.

I never felt that I was armed with nerf guns. But then again, those games had various tanks, choppers and buildings that really gave you a sense of scale and illustrated how powerful your weapons were. In MW:O, I can't even destroy a medium-sized pine tree.

Re-ordered your stuff slightly to address related points, hope you don't mind.

The main point I'm taking from that is that you find the overall speed of combat (as in TTK) a problem. The AC/40 is symptomatic of that, but not the actual problem. If we want a game where limbs and weapons are blown off during a fight and gradual degradation of mechs is a more prominent thing, then Internal Structure hitpoints need a dramatic increase. Increasing armour will only precipitate even more concentrated CT-burning. However if you can actually rip the AC/20 off a Wang's arm fairly sharpish compared with burning through his CT, it becomes an actual choice. Sure, right now I'll put damage into that arm if it's facing me as I make an attack run, but if I have the option it's either front or rear CT getting burned out no matter the mech. Unless I'm trolling. Then the arms come off, then a leg, then...etc, etc. Works best with two lights.

Essentially if you doubled the TTK by increasing armour, I would probably feel like I was using nerf weapons, and I would gravitate even more towards high pinpoint alpha and headshotting. If you doubled the TTK by increasing structure, I would take twice as long to kill anything, but be blowing off limbs and guns and heatsinks right and left. This would not feel like I was using nerf weapons, and it would make non-pinpoint-alphaspike weapons a little more viable.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

I wasn't thinking about that, specifically, but I agree. If it was like that, it would be great. Now, people have claimed that the strength of the medium mech is its versatility, being able to help out both light mechs and assault mechs in their different objectives. So the advantage of the rifleman isn't dominating any range, but not being as useless as a desert eagle at 200 meters, or as useless as a Barrett M82 when clearing a building. And as you say, the rifleman should have an optimal range where he's actually more effective than other alternatives.

I can't quite tell where you're talking about the game as it is, as opposed to the game as it should be. In regards to different lances having different specialties, that would work if 1) Lances actually had a function in most matches and 2) The game rewarded an overall balance of abilities between different lances on the same team. At the moment, neither of those conditions are present. But I'd like to see it.

The problem with the 'medium mechs are this' thing with that analogy is that no weight class is anything. A two-ERPPC light is a sniper, a quad-LPL AS7-RS is a brawler. The problem mediums have is that they don't have the tonnage/hardpoints to stand up to heavies, but nothing under 140kph is capable of using speed as a defense (or offense). Even the slower lights have this issue. The RVN-2X should be, all things considered, as much of a threat as the JR7-D (ok, the worst of the Jenners, but the worst of very good is still very good). I mean it has all that extra engine tonnage to spend on a bigger missile pack and toys like more DHS and so on, right? Wrong. 125kph in this game means you get hit even by below-average shots with impact weapons, and the shooter has to be abysmal to miss you with beam weapons. This is the problem the mediums have. They trade armour and weapons for not quite enough speed to matter. The Cicada is actually probably one of the most viable mediums at the moment by virtue of being a slightly sub-par Jenner.

If anything the 'rifleman' at the moment is the Brawling Heavy. The trip-UAC/5, quad-AC/5, hexa-ML, quad-LL and so forth heavies. A Swayback arguably qualifies, since it can be effective and fights in the same theatre. Just trades tank for gank. Certain Assaults also qualify - the many-ML+many-SRM Stalker. The quad-LL/LPL (pre-nerf) -RS.

As for the Lances thing. I used Lances as an example because if we exclude 8-mans from the equation (8-mans are dead, etc) then the Lance of four mechs is the standard pre-designed unit of mechs. One doesn't expect a group of six opposing mechs to be synergised, if they are it's largely by chance (synch drops being somewhat borked in non-8-man play by Elo) and they may well not know. A unit of four, however, can select and fit mechs intentionally to work together.

Mostly that was both a description of how it should be and (largely) how it is. Balanced Lances (not Lances of 'balanced' mechs) are fairly good at the moment. Lances of alphasnipers are better than they should be, but that's getting fixed. Brawler and Lightswarm Lances work more or less as described. Brawler Lances will work better when SRMs start behaving. Lances of individually balanced mechs are, and should be, crap. There's a certain degree of rock-paper-scissors, or will be when snipers are downtuned. Lightswarm>Sniperlance>Brawlerlance>Lightswarm with the Balanced Lance able to deal with all three on more or less equal ground, but likewise dealable with by said Lances if they negate the advantage (gank the Sniper, refuse to let the light squirrel them, etc). There's also a degree of resistance to being screwed by random map selection with the Balanced Lance. Any decent team, pug or otherwise, can give massed snipers a bad day in Frozen City if they know what they're doing. Especially on Conquest. Slow brawlers are well known for finding Alpine a particularly cold circle of hell. Caustic is hell on Lights because of the minimal cover.

[Howdy Doody]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

I'm having a hard time reaching the same stats in my other heavy mechs, not to mention light or medium. So it's not really a matter of skill.

Or maybe you found a Mech that matches your play style.

I've had many times where a Mech I was destroying folks in one night, I was getting rocked another night. I have noticed (for me anyway) that a lot of it depends on what type of mood I'm in and/or how focused I am I playing WITH the type of Mech I have.