180 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

What about the consumables? (Large Repair/Med Kit.. etc)

[Jestun]

Livewyr, on 20 June 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

What about the consumables? (Large Repair/Med Kit.. etc)

Quote

As of update 8.5, you can now purchase Premium Consumables with their same gold value in credits (e.g., 50 gold = 20,000 credits)

Source: http://wiki.worldoft...ium_Consumables

[Tolkien]

Livewyr, on 20 June 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Boating isn't really the problem- individual weapons are the problem.

Example:
If a PPC actually paid real heat for its shot, it would be ok to use individually or in as a pair, but painful to boat.
This would be just like an AC10.. whichby itself is ok to use in its own right- pointless to try and boat as getting more than 3 requires 36 tons even before ammunition.

While I think you're right that PPCs are doing too well right now (judging by how often I get smoked by a six pack out of the blue) I have to point out a problem with your premise.

Even if all the weapons were 'perfectly' balanced for heat and damage, multiples of the same weapon are always easier to use than a diversified build.

This is because all weapon systems have different projectile speeds and/or durations that mean to hit the same fast moving or far away target you have to aim at very different places to hit them, and have to hold the aim there for different lengths of time to do full damage.

When this is combined with convergence that aligns to the same point on a target it's a serious problem. It means players are rewarded for taking copies of the same weapon (or if you prefer, they are punished for taking diversified builds in terms of making them aim at many different places and rates) that will then hit the same spot on the target.

If you still don't believe me, consider the 50 ton clan mech called the hunchback IIc. It carries only two guns, and they are both ultra autocannon 20's. Even with the enhanced armor values this can core most mechs in a single volley and for only 28 heat.

Imagine once we start getting mechs with 3-4 clan gauss rifles on the field.


I submit that even if we can get 'perfectly balanced' individual weapons, convergence is going to murder the game.

What must be added are not heat penalties, but a feature that forces damage to spread around on the enemy one way or the other.

[Livewyr]

Well that's nice to know actually. (Thank you)


Only took them 2 years. (during which they were wildly successful)

[MustrumRidcully]

Riptor, on 20 June 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

What a load of BS.. where to begin?

Battletech was never about customisation, the mechwarrior PC games where because they took the CONSTRUCTION RULES and made them into a customisation system that should not have been there to begin with. Not only because it allowed people to build insanely overpowered mechs, no it also made different chassis of the same tonnage redundant, made omni mechs totaly obsolete and was impossible to balance.

That system was never made with competitive multyplayer in mind and was focused on singleplayer first and only.

About boats in BT:

Wrong wrong wrong. Boats are a dwindling minority in the battletech universe and are VERY specialized to boot. Not only where those boats build with the balancing factor of every weapon having a great chance of hitting a different component and not like we have it now in MWO ALL ON THE SAME SPOT

So the real thing was not - boats didn't exist or were impossible to build by the construction rules -i t was that they didn't deliver pinpoint precise shots.

Okay, logically we should of course immediately remove the type of mechs that Battletech allowed then, instead of thinking about how we deal with this difference - precision vs random hit location.

Quote

, lore wise those mechs could only work when they where paired with more jack of all trades mechs because the situation on the battlefield was highly different. A lance of blackhawks would stand no chance against a lance with long range and short range firepower. They might get through the firestorm and reach their enemies but then they wouldnt have much left to fight because they allready are half dead when they reach the enemy.

Are you sure you're not mixing up "mixed lance" with "mixed weapon loadout".

I would bet that if you where to actually analyze battletech battle scenarios from a large player base, you would not find the benefit going to those with "versatile" mechs, but those with versatile lances or teams, containing a mix of specialisists for different ranges.

Quote

Actually boating was highly ineffective. Boating LRM? Stand next to the guy and laugh as he cant hit you. Boating medium lasers? Have fun being shot to pieces by long range weapons without a chance of firing back. Boating AC/20s? Same thing, plus the added risk of getting an ammo explosion.

If a versatile mech can get close to the LRM boat, why can't the AC/20 or Medium Laser boat?
If a versatile mech can keep outside the range of an AC/20 or Medium Laser boat, why can't an LRM boat?
What does the versatile mech do if the AC/20 or Medium Laser boat gets close?
What does the versatile mech do if the LRM boat stays away?

Team Tactics suggest that you use specialists in their roles and actively work on the battlefield that they don't get forced to get outside your role. The goal of the commanders of each side is to ensure that your own team can fight to its strength, and the enemy to its weaknesses.

[Livewyr]

Tolkien, on 20 June 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

While I think you're right that PPCs are doing too well right now (judging by how often I get smoked by a six pack out of the blue) I have to point out a problem with your premise.

Even if all the weapons were 'perfectly' balanced for heat and damage, multiples of the same weapon are always easier to use than a diversified build.

This is because all weapon systems have different projectile speeds and/or durations that mean to hit the same fast moving or far away target you have to aim at very different places to hit them, and have to hold the aim there for different lengths of time to do full damage.

When this is combined with convergence that aligns to the same point on a target it's a serious problem. It means players are rewarded for taking copies of the same weapon (or if you prefer, they are punished for taking diversified builds in terms of making them aim at many different places and rates) that will then hit the same spot on the target.

If you still don't believe me, consider the 50 ton clan mech called the hunchback IIc. It carries only two guns, and they are both ultra autocannon 20's. Even with the enhanced armor values this can core most mechs in a single volley and for only 28 heat.

Imagine once we start getting mechs with 3-4 clan gauss rifles on the field.


I submit that even if we can get 'perfectly balanced' individual weapons, convergence is going to murder the game.

What must be added are not heat penalties, but a feature that forces damage to spread around on the enemy one way or the other.

Clan weapons are going to be scary to balance.. (I think they're going to have to make them have a slower recycle rate and/or slower projectile speeds since that's really the only thing they can fudge with that the clans don't already have a counter for)

However, my premise still stands:
While boating weapons would be easier to use from a uniformity standpoint, most high damage weapons have other drawbacks that make them difficult to boat.
-Gauss is the heaviest weapon currently in the game (and explodes), AC20 is the largest, and the AC10 weighs almost as much as a AC20, and is the same size as the Gauss.. they are weight, size and ammo prohibitive for effectively boating.
-The PPC is supposed to be heat prohibitive of for effectively boating. (Since it doesn't pay high weight, large size, or any ammo taxes.. and has no personal risk)

LRMs individually have their own challenges (AMS, ECM, missile travel speed, target warning, etc..) that are not aided in any way by boating. They have their own prohibitions, even after the weight and ammo needs.

[WarRats]

Jestun, on 20 June 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

Disagree.

Balance does not require us to retreat into pre-defined stock builds.

Your right the gameplay can be balanced without pre-defined stock builds and refits. If just the weapons are balanced why add future new mechs beyond one of each tonnage to the game. The 20 ton mech will be worthless compared to the 35 ton mech because the 35 ton mech will move just as fast but have more weapons and armor. Some restrictions beyond heat and pure weapon balance need to be made to make other chassis worthwhile.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Take out instant convergence (Making Pinpoint worth taking).

Fix heat by lowering the cap and upping dissipation.

Add in some penalties for heat being high and above the cap.

THEN we can discuss whether boating penalties/changes need to occur.

[Jestun]

WarRats, on 20 June 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Your right the gameplay can be balanced without pre-defined stock builds and refits. If just the weapons are balanced why add future new mechs beyond one of each tonnage to the game. The 20 ton mech will be worthless compared to the 35 ton mech because the 35 ton mech will move just as fast but have more weapons and armor. Some restrictions beyond heat and pure weapon balance need to be made to make other chassis worthwhile.

This sounds an awful lot like an assumption. Can you provide a source that confirms that any newer, smaller mech would 100% definitely be no faster than existing mechs?


If weapons are truly balanced (which they are not yet, but I've seen it far worse than the current situation) then people could use what they enjoy, what their style of gameplay fits best. So new mechs with different hardpoints, etc could better suit certain players while still remaining balanced.

But that's a pipe-dream. The reality is that balance is a never-ending process and it will constantly be tweaked.

[Livewyr]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 June 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Take out instant convergence (Making Pinpoint worth taking).

Fix heat by lowering the cap and upping dissipation.

Add in some penalties for heat being high and above the cap.

THEN we can discuss whether boating penalties/changes need to occur.

To be honest, I hadn't given the convergence idea much thought- so I'm going to try and extrapolate the ideas (because if it is what I think it is, I'm on board) Correct me if I'm wrong:

Is the idea: ?
Having center/main reticle where you put it, with weapons individually moving to it slowly(er-ish)

I wouldn't mind having several smaller reticles converge slower. (and even slower for torso weapons)
I do want to avoid removing convergence overall.. let shots be where I put them- but I wouldn't mind adding in the limitation that comes with operating multiple weapons placed over different areas. (which would indeed make the pinpoint research worth more than a step towards module slot)

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I've kind of stop trying to type out long ideas on how to fix things because PGI never listens.

But for instance, if you have your reticle over someone who is 200m out, then immediately turn to target 400m out, you still get instant convergence, instead of there being a lag time while you weapons recaculate (which would give a reason for pinpoint to exist).

[Sybreed]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 June 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Take out instant convergence (Making Pinpoint worth taking).

Fix heat by lowering the cap and upping dissipation.

Add in some penalties for heat being high and above the cap.

THEN we can discuss whether boating penalties/changes need to occur.

well, I understand why you're saying that and it would be the safest route, but IMO a hardpoint system like Manmhut suggested would fix a lot of imbalances related to boating. Namely, it would make the Awesome the PPC assault it should be again.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sybreed, on 20 June 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

well, I understand why you're saying that and it would be the safest route, but IMO a hardpoint system like Manmhut suggested would fix a lot of imbalances related to boating. Namely, it would make the Awesome the PPC assault it should be again.

People need to start being realistic about what PGI will do.

I don't think they will do a hardpoint system revamp.

[Gallowglas]

If this were to happen, you'd see a lot more mechs simply disappear and in place of specific weapon platform combinations being dominant, you'd see certain MECHS being dominant. I don't think it would end up doing anything for balance at all.

[Sybreed]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 June 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

People need to start being realistic about what PGI will do.

I don't think they will do a hardpoint system revamp.

but you know the system I'm taking about right? The one that doesn't limit boating but makes putting heavier guns in smaller hardpoints generate more heat, have a slower RoF, etc. I'd take that over Paul's arbitrary heat penalty system. It's more intuitive and it makes more sense.

edit: What I mean is: Since PGI are already working towards putting a convoluted heat penalty system, might as well go with hardpoint sizes like described above.

Gallowglas, on 20 June 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

If this were to happen, you'd see a lot more mechs simply disappear and in place of specific weapon platform combinations being dominant, you'd see certain MECHS being dominant. I don't think it would end up doing anything for balance at all.

a bit like how the Awesome disappeared?

Hint: Fixing PPCs won't bring the Awesome back.

Edited by Sybreed, 20 June 2013 - 07:51 AM.

[Acid Phase]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 June 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

People need to start being realistic about what PGI will do.

I don't think they will do a hardpoint system revamp.

I really wish they were up front about that. No answer has been given. And if so....it's very vague.

Quote

(@AC1DPHA5E) tweeted at 4:18 PM EST on Tue, May 21,2013:

"@russ_bullock Bryan won't answer. I'll try asking you. Weapon balance fix is hardpoint size restrictions. Why are you guys against it?"


(@russ_bullock) tweeted at 6:06 PM EST on Tue, May 21,2013:

"@AC1DPHA5E were not against it, it's been discussed"

(@AC1DPHA5E) tweeted at 7:47 PM EST on Tue, May 21,2013:

"@russ_bullock What was the outcome of that discussion? It will be the only balance to a boat ridden MWO. Which btw, LRMs are FoTM now."

Bryan Ekman, on 31 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Ask the Devs #39

Asmudius Heng: Russ Bullock replied to a player on Twitter who enquired why PGI didnt like the idea of hardpoint sizes. Russ replied:"@AC1DPHA5E we’re not against it, it's been discussed."
Is it possible to get an elabolration on what that discussion was so we know if this is 1) still being discussed and why, 2) rejected for X reason.
A: No further news on this thought process. If we reject it, I’ll let you know.

...........Nothing.

Edited by Acid Phase, 20 June 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Livewyr]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 June 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

I've kind of stop trying to type out long ideas on how to fix things because PGI never listens.

But for instance, if you have your reticle over someone who is 200m out, then immediately turn to target 400m out, you still get instant convergence, instead of there being a lag time while you weapons recaculate (which would give a reason for pinpoint to exist).

(Ah, ok)

And yeah.. I learned the hard way not to spell out ideas for PGI to consider.. I think we all learned that with the ECM threads...

To be fair.. I think they DO read the ideas that are put out there.. I just ultimately think they don't give two ****s.

If it goes with their current plan (my idea for adjusting mech models to reflect weapon loadouts from wayyy back when) , or it is a good idea that isn't contradictory to their current plan (PPark's idea to allow for arm-torso lock), it might see implementation.

Outside of that.. they have to like the idea on a personal level.. (and the devs like their PPCs and ECM)

[Henree]

R&R, local availability and legality.

[WarRats]

Jestun, on 20 June 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

This sounds an awful lot like an assumption. Can you provide a source that confirms that any newer, smaller mech would 100% definitely be no faster than existing mechs?


If weapons are truly balanced (which they are not yet, but I've seen it far worse than the current situation) then people could use what they enjoy, what their style of gameplay fits best. So new mechs with different hardpoints, etc could better suit certain players while still remaining balanced.

But that's a pipe-dream. The reality is that balance is a never-ending process and it will constantly be tweaked.

My assumption is based off the current speed restrictions and the current state of light mechs.

Pure weapons balance will not make the 20 ton mech viable to pilot. When all other lights excel at light hunting. A c-bill reward multiplier for doing in well in a cheaply designed mech might make it more rewarding and worth exploring less tricked out designs.

[East Indy]

What about setting limits through recoil?

Before players learned how to abuse Chromehounds, the game's physics would teach players some harsh but comedic lessons. Planting heavy weapons, then trying to fire-link them on all but the most stable chassis, would practically spin you around. You couldn't hit anything. It was common sense.

Applying recoil would be pretty consistent: multiple big weapons would be unwieldy outside of intelligently staggered shots, and even small weapons would cause a 'Mech to lurch off target if fired together in large enough numbers.

Best of all, PGI could preserve models like the Awesome or Swayback by integrating unique stability into their "quirks." The Awesome would be a skyscraper-like target because it was the only 'Mech capable of accurately firing three PPCs at once.

Edited by East Indy, 20 June 2013 - 08:14 AM.