180 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

East Indy, on 20 June 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

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.

Why would energy weapons have recoil?

[MustrumRidcully]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Why would energy weapons have recoil?

The PPC fluff states it has. And Lasers already suffer from beam durations. There is a reason we see 4 PPC Stalkers or Dual AC/20 Jagers and not ER LL Stalkers or Jagermechs.

[Fate 6]

Livewyr, on 19 June 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

Limiting customization is a wonderful idea!

I want to see an even smaller variety of mechs on the field now, and I want to see the same 4 mechs/refits over and over.

Lets look at some mechs here:
HBK-4P
HBK-4H
HBK-4SP

I see these mechs with almost-stock weapons (on the 4H it's usually a Gauss or AC20) all the time. I think customization is certainly not an issue here. The only mechs that customization limits would hurt are the ones being abused (Jagers and Stalkers, and to an extent Atlases). I can possibly see it having a negative effect on some Dragons and a couple CTF builds, but mediums and lights have no issue with it because they don't have the tonnage to abuse customization.

Limiting customization will not limit the number of viable mechs. We will simply see mechs performing roles closer to their intended purpose - missiles and lasers on Stalkers, several medium ballistics on Jagers, etc. Awesomes can become the true PPC boat again. Plenty of my mediums perform perfectly well, and only my non-hero Cents and CDA-3M deviate significantly from their stock weapons.

[Jestun]

Fate 6, on 20 June 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Limiting customization will not limit the number of viable mechs.

Utterly false.

[RG Notch]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 June 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

The PPC fluff states it has. And Lasers already suffer from beam durations. There is a reason we see 4 PPC Stalkers or Dual AC/20 Jagers and not ER LL Stalkers or Jagermechs.

Wow, more perfect example of how dumb the fluff is and why it should be ignored. Not saying nothing should be done about convergence and pin point accuracy but recoil in an energy weapon is just dumb.

[Jestun]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Wow, more perfect example of how dumb the fluff is and why it should be ignored. Not saying nothing should be done about convergence and pin point accuracy but recoil in an energy weapon is just dumb.

While I in no way feel that lore, or realism, should be used to make balance decisions...

Quote

The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is a unique energy weapon. PPCs fire a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target, causing damage through both thermal and kinetic energy. As such, despite being an energy weapon, it produces recoil.

Quote

recoil
vb [rɪˈkɔɪl] (intr)
1. to jerk back, as from an impact or violent thrust
2. (often foll by from) to draw back in fear, horror, or disgust to recoil from the sight of blood
3. (foll by on or upon) to go wrong, esp so as to hurt the perpetrator
4. (Physics / Atomic Physics) (of a nucleus, atom, molecule, or elementary particle) to change momentum as a result of the emission of a photon or particle
n [rɪˈkɔɪl ˈriːkɔɪl]
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery)
a. the backward movement of a gun when fired
b. the distance moved
2. (Physics / Atomic Physics) the motion acquired by a particle as a result of its emission of a photon or other particle
3. the act of recoiling

The PPC is firing ions & protons, which are not massless.


Again, this is not something to base a balance decision on.

[East Indy]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Why would energy weapons have recoil?

Why would armies run around in impractically giant robots? Reality got left behind a long time ago.

Thinking about it, this could not only help the convergence-boat thing, but introduce skill-related metas on when and how to fire big weapons. Just an idea.

[Gaan Cathal]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Why would energy weapons have recoil?

Physics says so, basically.

[Dock Steward]

East Indy, on 20 June 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Why would armies run around in impractically giant robots? Reality got left behind a long time ago.

Thinking about it, this could not only help the convergence-boat thing, but introduce skill-related metas on when and how to fire big weapons. Just an idea.

I have brought up recoil a few times here and elsewhere because I think it could add a lot and solve a few problems.

Question though: In canon, the PPC has recoil but other energy weapons do not. Hypothetically speaking, if MWO implemented a recoil system that only affected ballistics, the PPC, and maybe Missiles, but NOT the other energy weapons, would that be a problem? Non PPC laser boats (at least the 4xLL K2 that I have) seem to run too hot for that alpha to be good more than once. Is adding recoil to these weapons going to be necessary if the other weapons have it?

Edited by Dock Steward, 20 June 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[Tolkien]

Livewyr, on 20 June 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

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.

While I agree with much of what you say including the parts about LRMs advantages being well offset by their problems I have to contend that your premise breaks down with the upcoming clan tech. Where it breaks is a fault line that actually can be seen in the current high alpha builds if one looks closely and it involves high pinpoint damage. Let's take a look at what is going to show up in short order:

Simply put if we assume they are going to keep stock clan mechs legal the weight and size of clan tech weapons is such that multiple of them can be taken in numbers sufficient to 1 shot mechs while still able to work around the limits you are describing. For example the clan ultra autocannon 10 is 20% lighter and 42% smaller than the inner sphere standard autocannon 10. The clan ultra 20 is 2 tons lighter and 2 slots smaller than the inner sphere normal autocannon 20.

Similarly clan ppcs do 50% more damage for 50% more heat.... but it's lighter and 50% smaller. Likewise their double heatsinks are only 2 slots and their xl engines are smaller. Their endo steel and ferrofrib are half as bulky as inner sphere (7 crits versus 14). Basically a clan energy boat can easily get enough double heatsinks to make up for that 50% more heat and then some.

Clan mechs can dish out an absurd amount of fire, and if something is not done to prevent pinpointing multiple weapons to the same spot mechs are going to *melt*.

If you disagree with me still please tell me what you would do about the 50 ton clan mech called the hunchback iic.... it's got 2 ultra autocannon 20's and the mobility to use them. Granted it's armor is thin, but if it is allowed to put its shots on the same spot it just has to see you first and you'll never know.

Edited by Tolkien, 20 June 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[East Indy]

Dock Steward, on 20 June 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

Hypothetically speaking, if MWO implemented a recoil system that only affected ballistics, the PPC, and maybe Missiles, but NOT the other energy weapons, would that be a problem?

Good question.The only reason why I think sparing lasers would be incomplete is because players are motivated by efficiency, and would seek an alternative to PPCs even if it wasn't as effective -- like, the psychology is that strong.

Penalties wouldn't have to be draconian. With a big enough 'Mech, you could carry four large lasers and use them frequently in pairs, but firing 3 or all 4 simultaneously would push you away from your target, and usually wouldn't be worth it. Similarly, reserving banks for Jenners or Swaybacks would tame some of the temptation of loading 'Mechs up with medium lasers.

[MustrumRidcully]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Wow, more perfect example of how dumb the fluff is and why it should be ignored. Not saying nothing should be done about convergence and pin point accuracy but recoil in an energy weapon is just dumb.

It's not an energy weapon, despite using an energy slot. It is a particle accelerator. Particles have (kinetic) energy, but they are not energy, unlike a Laser, that shoots Photons, which is all energy (or should I say Force).

There is of course nothing realistic or practical about the PPC.

[MoeX]

Disagree. I love taking a chassis that is considered undepowered, finding a loadout and a playstyle that fits and beating the crap out of Fotm-Builds.

[topgun505]

I disagree. Even if the weapons are perfectly balanced you will still get a majority of users who try and min/max as much as possible.

Look at just about ANY mech design in CBT. Very few were truly min/maxed to be uber-efficient. Because most units were designed with combined arms in mind ... thus why you see machine guns frequently even though they do very little vs mech units ... but they devastated infantry which is why you take them with you. Mechs were meant to take on ALL types of threats ... not just mech targets. Also many designs were limited by the technology available at the time of production ... or certain weapons were used because of arms deals reached by that company with a particular faction, etc. The explanations are many but the end result was that rarely was a mech EVER as effective as most of the units we come up with in the mech lab.

The OP is correct. There is very little reason for a lot of these chassis to even be in MWO because you can make others fulfill so many varied roles the others aren't needed.

I wouldn't be against limiting customization but I seriously doubt the powers that be will ever consider it. The amount of whining you would see from all the min/maxers at the mere suggestion would blow PGIs forum servers to the moon.

RG Notch, on 19 June 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

As long as weapons aren't balanced you will never get variety. All you will get with less customization is more of whatever chassis is "best" for the meta at that point. But don't let that stop you from posting the 10,000th thread with the same silly idea. Balance weapons for variety.

[Shadowdragonne]

WARNING: Really long post.

East Indy, on 20 June 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Why would armies run around in impractically giant robots? Reality got left behind a long time ago.

Exactly true- there is no limit on weapons simply because BT started out with the flawed concept of fusion plants providing magically huge amounts of energy without ever needing to be refueled and only the speed of the mech is affected by the size of the powerplant. I'm sorry (especially to the person who thinks particle cannons are not real- google is your friend) but particle cannons need HUGE amonts of energy to do what the game wants them to do. This fact more than just about anything makes things unbalanced. It shouldn't be possible to run 9 medium lasers in a medium 'mech or 6 ppc's in an Assault 'mech simply because after maintaining the fusion process (takes energy), spinning up and maintaining speed on the gyro (which takes constant power as every movement will deplete the energy in the flywheel) and powering the myomer bundles for movement (takes power), sensor suite (takes power), life support for the pilot (takes power), maintaining heat sink efficiency (takes power to move the heat to the heat sinks in some cases - otherwise the arms and legs would have separate heat stacks from the torso) there really can't be that much left over to power the weapons. Hence you still see projectile weapons in an age with PPC technology. Oh, and dont forget the jump jets, if installed.

Nothing has 100% efficiency, to get the joules to burn through armor on 'mechs you need to provide more joules. CO2 lasers have an "unusually high" efficiency of about 30%, meaning the rest of the input energy is lost, mostly through heat.

Convergence, no heat penalties except for possible shutdown (and if you are very unlucky, getting blown apart) and the fact that even with 3050 tech, we are all essentially driving clan omni-mechs, when added to an MMO based on a flawed game concept and that is basically nothing more than outdoors Solaris VII style melee matches equals min/maxing to the hilt to WIN.

Possible Fixes:

Use moa and ballistics (where applicable) to determine accuracy - the further away the target is, the less likely you will hit all in one spot much less one hit location. Even precision sniper rifles require bracing and calculations out the wahzoo to put shots in the exact same spot. Yes, there are snipers who can almost magically do so simply from skill, but they are the exception, not the rule. Snipers are also extensively trained.

Bring in the TT heat rules - a very simple fix that will affect targeting, movement and balance. Heat affects electronics badly, equipment gets stressed and can fail and people pass out. Having your pilot black out and sit there with a still running 'mech makes him an even bigger target than one shut down from heat - and when that happens having the 'mech still show up on thermal vision is a good idea (haven't checked to see if they do yet). In either MW2 or 3 I purpose built a 'mech with 5 or 6 PPC's on board. There was an earth shattering kaboom when I alpha'd them (although I might have run the heat up a bit first, it's been a while). I also giggled like a schoolgirl for a good two minutes.

Get rid of magical gyroscopes that alow an Atlas to climb near vertical mountains and walk along impossibly narrow ledges.

Make it possible to fall down in a 'mech- getting knocked down only when dead is silly. If I charge your 'mech, I should have a chance to knock you a$$ over teakettle or get knocked on mine own butt when I bounce- mass counts, use it. Getting up from prone is easy(ish). Getting a 'mech up from supine is tougher. If I walk on a narrow ledge or bridge, can it support the weight? What if I run? Land from a jump?

Harder to do would be to make walking and running 'mechs some sort of balance contest. I dont think running full speed in circles while twisted fully left so you can orbit your target (who must then spin in a circle to play catch-up) should be a penalty free activity. These are upright 20+ton machines - the human balance system isn't a magic self correction system. I still trip just walking myself. Add in being 12 meters or so in the air guiding a 20 ton metal robot using your own biological balance system? It should be possible to fall down. As I said, hard to program in any useable way but it is still an idea.

Get rid of full customization. We are not driving Omni-mechs here. It should be possible to do some customization (possibly with a variety of penalties) and maybe allow for custom models of existing 'mechs, but the 'mech construction rules for TT were just as broken as any MMO. Don't even allow full customization for Omni's. Its been a while but iirc there were limits as to what could be placed in the swapable slots.

As an example, you have a 'mech with an AC standard in the arm. Replacing it with an energy weapon should be tough - in reality you would have to run entirely new power to it, you wouldn't gain back some of the mass of having an AC there as it would be additional bracing to deal with recoil and you would have to completely alter the targeting software to stop it from trying to take ballistics into account when firing the now LOS weapon. Probably have to modifiy the heat system as well since lasers have a higher net "internal" heat emission. Then we get to modifiying the armor to account for the new shape....... Now try to put a bigger AC in that same slot. Ammo runs change, additional bracing for the extra recoil etc. ad nauseum. Yes, that is the "extra critical slots" but these are not lego's^™.

Really I could find all kinds of things needing attention. Nothing built is easily modified after manufacture with completely different parts.

Changing the missions to actual missions rather than capture the flag or kill 'em all melees. The LRM boat is useless for an infiltration mission where you lose points for firing your weapons or damaging other 'mechs. Make the missions realistic, where you need the light 'mechs for recon, the medium 'mechs for strikes and heavy 'mechs for fire support. Assault 'mechs are just that - assault 'mechs. Thats what they do. Hanse Davion wouldn't send an Atlas to do recon, why should we? If blue team has the mission goal of getting to point x and "retrieving item z" and then get back out without engaging the enemy, red team has to prevent anyone from crossing a certain perimeter and therefore has to patrol said perimeter looking for invaders, when blue team takes out red teams Lance A in a firefight, blue team loses points because they didnt stick to the mission. Red team gets bonus points if they stopped them cold, less points if not, and loses points if they get through without making contact.

Bring back "fog of war". The map shouldn't tell you where everything is. Put in a lat/long system and give the players a mission brief with locations listed in there (make the nav comp porgrammable to input these locations) and have a possibility for error. A camp 3km away from where "intel" thought it was is a real thing - again, recon 'mechs*. So is expected force levels being somewhat off. Each mission doesn't absolutely have to be 8x8. I would be happy trying a recon mission 4x12 - even 2x14. I don't understand the 16 player limit but if it's a hard limit, oh well.

*- also makes the UAV module much more useful if it does what it should, makes sensors and ecm that much more important and makes the players think, the best part of all.

Make the maps larger.

Everything that goes into a 'mech should take up critical slots. Everything.

Add rearm and repair.

/off soapbox

This is entirely long enough, and I am sure those who only care about their stats will completely disagree with me, but hey- my 0.02 c-bill worth

Shadowdragon

Edited by Shadowdragonne, 20 June 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[WarRats]

MoeX, on 20 June 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Disagree. I love taking a chassis that is considered undepowered, finding a loadout and a playstyle that fits and beating the crap out of Fotm-Builds.

I do this all the time as well. I even run stock mechs a lot. It doesn't work to bad when solo dropping and sometimes up to 4 man group. But 8 man is the land of the min/maxers. If your happy always playing by yourself or just a couple friends then the balance probably is not to bad for you.

But if you want some variety while playing with a big group then some changes have to be made.

I would also assume the higher your elo the more likely you run into min/maxers. The mechs use the cheese for a reason, it makes it easier to win. More winning gives them the higher elo.

I would assume at the low end of elo any chassis is valid and the matchups are much more competitve.

[tenderloving]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Why would energy weapons have recoil?

You are accelerating a mass (even though it's extremely small) to nearly the speed of light. A PPC as described would kick like hell as you are throwing a mass that approaches infinity out of your mech.

[Fate 6]

Jestun, on 20 June 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

Utterly false.

If you're going to say I'm completely wrong, you could at least ATTEMPT to come up with a reason why. As far as I've seen, the only thing customization limits would hurt are the cheese mechs. I don't have a single loadout that would be significantly affected by any limitations.

Note: I'm not saying no customization, I'm saying some limits are good. No more PPCs in medium laser slots, no more AC20s in AC5 (or machine gun) slots, no more LRM20s in SRM6 slots. I think putting a PPC in a LL slot, or AC10 in an AC5 slot, or LRM10 or 15 in an SRM6 slot could be reasonable. Right now we practically have omni mechs, and we will never get balance when the ACTUAL balance of the game is based completely on hitboxes due to this omni mech-esque setup. Stalker and Jagermech are tiny compared to other mechs of similar tonnage. CTF isn't very large either, to be honest. Even the Atlas is seeming small these days as I stare them down in my YLW.

EDIT: The only reason limiting customization would hurt the game is if weapons are not balanced - if they aren't, there will be FOTM chassis. BUT HEY, WE HAVE THAT NOW. Right now, 3 assaults and 2 heavies dominate the game. Why take a Hunch when you can fit a second AC20 on a Jager going the same speed, and have almost identical (if not better) hitboxes and more armor? It's the lack of limits on hardpoints that result in chassis abuse. If weapons are balanced, and we have customization limits, then mechs will be run based on playstyle and role, and we will have variety as a result. Until then, we will only see mechs with the best hitboxes. RIP Awesome, the only mech that should be able to boat PPCs.

Edited by Fate 6, 21 June 2013 - 02:10 PM.

[Riptor]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 June 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

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.


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.


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.

Allright here we go.

First of all you should note that i wasnt giving feedback on the OPs idea. Frankly i think that OPs idea is impossible to push through since the game was build the way it was from the beginning, changing it halfway through is imo impossible.

Examples like sonys Star wars galaxys have shown that you do not replace your established system halfway through.

PGI made their bed now they have to sleep in it.

My argument was based solely on the opinion that just because there is a handfull of "Boats" in battletech lore that somehow boating was the norm or "encouraged".

Wich couldnt be farther from the truth.

Mechs in BT lore had not only to deal with other mechs you know.. they had to deal with infantry, vehicles, Battlearmor, protomechs, VTOLs, dropships, aerofighters....

How are you going to fight a Vtols when you boat medium lasers?

How are are you fighting waves of infantry if all you boat are ppcs or gauss rifles? You want to know how many infantrymen of a squad you can theoretically kill in a single turn in tabletop with five PPCs? FIVE. (ofcourse thats a simulation of the squad being scattered in a 30 metre radius mind you). and the squad has over 20 soldiers. It takes your highly expensive war machine atleast 4 turns to kill a single squad of infantry that doesnt even costs a tenth of what your custom stalker would cost.

How is your AC/20 jaeger gonna deal with Aerofighters? Or Dropships? Dropships have an infernal close range firepower but rely mostly on only a handfull of long range weapons (well it used to be that case till they got upgraded with gauss rifles and ER PPCs).

So you think you will go all LRM? Be my guest.. but hows that LRM boat gonna deal against hovercraft tanks that can move so fast each turn they are nigh impossible to hit in addition to the LRMs short range disadvantages?

Okay now you say you will build a rounded out lance out of specialist.

In theory that is all nice and dandy.. but you plan goes the way of the dodo if you even loose ONE of your highly specialised mechs.

If you loose your LRM boat.. you will loose all your long range firepower for example. If your AC/20 jaeger dies you will have no way of brawling anymore. Your PPC stalker is useless against infantry and all i need to do is bring some squads next to him with a dirt cheap hover APC to take him out of the picture.

And dont get me started on the nightmare that is dealing with a swarm of battlearmor if all you have is a big guns.


As for your little comparisons:

A specialized mech can ofcourse get as close to an LRM boat as an non specialist. The difference is that while the versataile mech can fight on any range the AC/20 jaeger took damage all the way to its target without any chance to fighting back and when it arrives it might see itselfe face to face with an enemy that is still in pristine condition.

Fact is if you loose one of your specialists your whole plan gets messed up.. you loose a huge amount of firepower for that range bracket.

Loose a mech that has a balanced loadout and you only loose a fraction of firepower in any given bracket. Not only that but you are still able to deal with any situation from VTOLs to infantrymen.

So the notion that boats where the be all end all of battletech is false and people who constantly bring the couple of blackhawks or supernovas as examples as to why boating should be the norm should do some real background checks on Battletech. For every true boat there atleast exists 10 other mechs who are not boats.

Specialist can be very effective, but also hold a high risk. The rule is if you cant obliterate the enemy in a couple of turns and you loose even one machine youre usually screwed. This has been shown both in canon where mechs with balanced loadouts are the norm and even in the tabletop game where relying to much on specialists will usually bite you in the ***.

Also Mechs are to expensive in the lore then to waste all their potential in over specialisation most of them.. another reason why boats are the exception.. not the rule.

Mind you this is all from the viewpoint of the lore. In MWO boats are indeed the be all end all simply because of the game mechanics. But lore wise boats where a niche in BT

Edited by Riptor, 22 June 2013 - 05:31 AM.

[Livewyr]

HBK IIC does have ridiculous firepower.. but:

That with already having Endosteel frame, an XL (200) engine, and paper armor..

6 tons of armor- it could literally by one-shot.

(It was a clan suicide mech..)