180 replies to this topic

[Dock Steward]

Sybreed, on 19 June 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

I want to ask everyone....... in a MWO where there are tonnage limits and hardpoint sizes, what would be the 4 variants the most picked? You guys always say we'll only see the same mechs over and over and I want to know which ones.

Which ever ones are most optimal for your hypothetical meta.

Guessing, 3L, DDC, one of the Stalkers (I don't know my Stalkers very well), and Highlander (want to say the HM, but since that's a hero, probably the 732)

[tenderloving]

Dock Steward, on 19 June 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Which ever ones are most optimal for your hypothetical meta.

Guessing, 3L, DDC, one of the Stalkers (I don't know my Stalkers very well), and Highlander (want to say the HM, but since that's a hero, probably the 732)

He said tonnage limits, which hopefully would be less than 275 tons per lance.

[Dock Steward]

tenderloving, on 19 June 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

He said tonnage limits, which hopefully would be less than 275 tons per lance.

Yeah, but he didn't say what they were, so I went with one akin to the current meta.

[MustrumRidcully]

Disagree. They just made a system that contained a lot of free customization, but didn't balance every aspect of the game to fit this.

That doesn't mean we must remove or reduce customization. We just need to improve the balance.

Lowering customization has no guarantee that you don't end up walking into the same problems. Maybe people cannot turn Mech X into the uber-boat. But Mech Y might have been always designed as that uber boat. There are canonical examples of 4 PPC mechs and Dual AC/20 mechs. (In fact, there is a canonical example of a Dual Ultra AC/20 50 ton mech.). If they didn't break the original game, why do the break this game, and what can we do about it?

[WarRats]

Ok, so if all the 3Ls refits have a max speed of 97kph. Then it would still be a good choice, but there would be a reason to take a different mech. You could even still have one refit that has 2 streaks.

If you wanted more speed you would take the Spider or Jenner. At least there would be a reason to choose one of these other mechs.

There would be more ways for the developers to balence the game.

Edited by WarRats, 19 June 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Dock Steward, on 19 June 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

If weapon A is balanced, truly balanced, at quantity of 1 then it will remain balanced at quantity X. If weapon A is ever so slightly off balance at quantity of 1 then that lack of balance only becomes more apparent as quantity increases. You don't see one PPC as being off balance, but the fact that 6 PPC's are way off balance proves that even the 1 is.

Generally, this is true, if stacking weapons of similar types is guaranteed to have no synergies.

There are some, however, in MW:O.

Try to use an AC/20 and 4 Medium Lasers. That's a 40 damage alpha, just like the Dual AC/20, right?

Except... The 4 Medium Lasers are "Hit-scan" weapons that must be held on the target for 1 full second. THat means you cannot fire the AC/20 and the Lasers together, unless the target is not moving relative to you. Otherwise you need to consider the lead time of the AC/20.

THis means you have to take aim with the MLs, shoot for 1 second, and then aim the AC/20.

If you had 2 AC/20s, you would take aim and shoot only once.

This only is possible in M:WO because we have both group-fire and convergence. We kinda need convergence, unless we want to have a separate cross-hair for every weapon, but combining it with group fire means that it's better to use multiple copies of the same weapon the it is to have mixed weapons.
And mind you, I am just talking mixed weapons, not "versatile" builds that have some long and some short range weapons.


---


Boating can do two things, basically:
1) If a weapon is imbalanaced its own, it multiplies that imbalance.
2) If there is convergence and group fire, it makes mixing weapons less effective then using identical weapons. (Note this only applies to weapons that are meaningful affected by convergence or group fire. LRMs or Streaks for example are unaffected. for those, the "boating" advantage is due to the AMS mechanics.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 19 June 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Moku]

3rd person view mode should all be stock:-P

[Seddrik]

I'm not fond of using mediums, but can use them to get 2, 3 and even 4 kills in some matches. Thats ONLY with medium lasers, a large pulse and SRMs... Standard weapons and some which people complain about as being under powered. I don't even have them elited yet, BUT THEY WORK if you use them wisely and play your mech in its role!

I would say its a sad day when people are calling for changes to the game when the real problem isn't the game but the pilot's own choices and ability; but then... people do this all the time.

Its like the guy in another post complaining that his 6 MG spider can't core an Atlas' rear CT in record time... when that is not the role of MGs... Please understand the role of each weapon and mech before you demand changes to the game.


As for the one discussing mixxed weapons vs boating... I have some really good builds that are mixed that do top score. Go figure. Yes boating is easier in some ways, but it is possible to mix and match and do really well. Its not the game. Its the pilot.

Edited by Seddrik, 19 June 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[DocBach]

Moku, on 19 June 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

3rd person view mode should all be stock trial mechs

[tenderloving]

Seddrik, on 19 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Its like the guy in another post complaining that his 6 MG spider can't core an Atlas' rear CT in record time... when that is not the role of MGs... Please understand the role of each weapon and mech before you demand changes to the game.

You really missed the point of that post. Have you noticed people with Spiders with 6 MGs in their signatures? It's a jab at the devs for some idiotic claims they made a while back displaying they don't even understand their own game.

[MustrumRidcully]

Seddrik, on 19 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

I'm not fond of using mediums, but can use them to get 2, 3 and even 4 kills in some matches. Thats ONLY with medium lasers, a large pulse and SRMs... Standard weapons and some which people complain about as being under powered. I don't even have them elited yet, BUT THEY WORK if you use them wisely and play your mech in its role!

I would say its a sad day when people are calling for changes to the game when the real problem isn't the game but the pilot's own choices and ability; but then... people do this all the time.

Its like the guy in another post complaining that his 6 MG spider can't core an Atlas' rear CT in record time... that not the role of MGs so why should it be able to do that? Please understand the role of each weapon and mech before you demand changes to the game.

He's actually riffing on a ridicilous dev claim that a 6 MG Spider could core an Atlas in record time, and another ridiclious claim of a Jenner with "real" double heat sinks that would core an Atlas within 3 seconds.

He doesn't have the actual desire of coring an Atlas with 6 MGs in 3 seconds.


And if you wonder why these examples are ridiculous - it's just basic math:
- There is no possible Jenner configuration that could be equipped with weapons to core an Atlas in 3 seconds with stock rear armor. It would actually even be difficult with no armor at all. And any such build would be extreme impractical, like no armour, low speed. Worse even might be that due to the way engine heat sinks act as "true double heat sinks", Jenners belong to the mechs least affected by the DHS nerf.
- There is also no Spider that could carry 6 MGs, but even if there was, you need to increase MG damage a lot, lot more than anyone is arguing for to get through an Atlas armor in a few seconds.

[Dock Steward]

Here's the other problem. Let's say I like the way the Hunchback 4SP looks and whatnot, so I buy one of those. Let's say I'm forced to use the stock loadout because the devs decided that's how things should be. Well, what if I decide I can't hit anything with SRM's or for whatever reason I don't like them or would rather just use some LRM's? What, I have to buy some other mech, some other chassis, because I didn't know until 25 games in that another weapon might suit me better?

I don't write in the forums all that often, but I do when there is a worthwhile conversation happening. New ideas are good. Even rehashed old ideas are good. So keep them coming. I just don't agree with this one.

Edited by Dock Steward, 19 June 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[tenderloving]

Dock Steward, on 19 June 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Here's the other problem. Let's say I like the way the Hunchback 4SP looks and whatnot, so I buy one of those. Let's say I'm forced to use the stock loadout because the devs decided that's how things should be. Well, what if I decide I can't hit anything with SRM's or for whatever reason I don't like them or would rather just use some LRM's? What, I have to buy some other mech, some other chassis, because I didn't know until 25 games in that another weapon might suit me better?

I don't write in the forums all that often, but I do when there is a while-while conversation happening. New ideas are good. Even rehashed old ideas are good. So keep them coming. I just don't agree with this one.

I've never seen a reasonable post asking for SRM/LRM specific hardpoints. You might not be able to put LRM20s on each shoulder of your hunch, but LRM10s would probably fit in most hardpoint scenarios.

[Angel of Annihilation]

There are no balance issue as you discuss because everyone has access to the same builds and weapons. If your build sucks, it is your fault, not the balance of the game.

Also while there definately favorite mechs and weapon loadouts, there are enough people who have different opinions about what is the best mech, weapon, loadout that there is plenty of diversity.

Take the QD vs Dragon debates. To me the QD is clearly superior to the Dragon but you have alot of Dragon Pilots that disgree totally for various reasons. Same goes with all mechs, Heck I even see people saying the love the Awesome and it is their favorite mech hehe.

[tenderloving]

Viktor Drake, on 19 June 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

There are no balance issue as you discuss because everyone has access to the same builds and weapons. If your build sucks, it is your fault, not the balance of the game.

Also while there definately favorite mechs and weapon loadouts, there are enough people who have different opinions about what is the best mech, weapon, loadout that there is plenty of diversity.

Take the QD vs Dragon debates. To me the QD is clearly superior to the Dragon but you have alot of Dragon Pilots that disgree totally for various reasons. Same goes with all mechs, Heck I even see people saying the love the Awesome and it is their favorite mech hehe.

So you insert that laugh there at the end, which indicates that you think the Awesome isn't that great. Right after you say that everything is balanced. You should probably rethink either the beginning of your post where you claim that everything is balanced, or the end of your post where you mock an underpowered mech. You can't have both.

[Dock Steward]

tenderloving, on 19 June 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

I've never seen a reasonable post asking for SRM/LRM specific hardpoints. You might not be able to put LRM20s on each shoulder of your hunch, but LRM10s would probably fit in most hardpoint scenarios.

Perhaps my example isn't perfect, but I think my reasoning shines through. With constraints on customizing, I would have to change mechs where I would now only change weapons. This would anger me to no end. It would cost me time and money and in the end I would probably just walk away. As it is now I waste a ton of c-bills trying things out and settling on a loadout that fits my style. If I was buying mechs instead of weapons to achieve the same result, it'd be ridiculous.

[OneEyed Jack]

tenderloving, on 19 June 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

So you insert that laugh there at the end, which indicates that you think the Awesome isn't that great. Right after you say that everything is balanced. You should probably rethink either the beginning of your post where you claim that everything is balanced, or the end of your post where you mock an underpowered mech. You can't have both.

He didn't say everything was balanced. He said that if you think something is better, you can play it, too. Therefore the game as a whole is balanced. Technically, it's true, as far as it goes. You probably won't bother reading my whole post to know what I actually said, but I don't agree with him, since most people's definition of balance is this field is to be able to play generally the way they want to and still be viable. But if you're going to make a smarmy response like that, at least know what you're responding to.

[Foust]

Dock Steward, on 19 June 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Here's the other problem. Let's say I like the way the Hunchback 4SP looks and whatnot, so I buy one of those. Let's say I'm forced to use the stock loadout because the devs decided that's how things should be. Well, what if I decide I can't hit anything with SRM's or for whatever reason I don't like them or would rather just use some LRM's? What, I have to buy some other mech, some other chassis, because I didn't know until 25 games in that another weapon might suit me better?

I don't write in the forums all that often, but I do when there is a worthwhile conversation happening. New ideas are good. Even rehashed old ideas are good. So keep them coming. I just don't agree with this one.

So we are playing on the idea that we are locked to stock mechs. No customization at all.

You buy a 4SP and end up not liking its load out, and want some LRMs.

Guess its time for you to buy that 4J, comes stock with the LRMs.

Think of it like champions in league of legends, if you bought Sona and don't like playing support your going to have to buy another character to play the role you want to play.

Dock Steward, on 19 June 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Perhaps my example isn't perfect, but I think my reasoning shines through. With constraints on customizing, I would have to change mechs where I would now only change weapons. This would anger me to no end. It would cost me time and money and in the end I would probably just walk away. As it is now I waste a ton of c-bills trying things out and settling on a loadout that fits my style. If I was buying mechs instead of weapons to achieve the same result, it'd be ridiculous.

With in our conversation assumptions, you wouldn't be wasting the c-bills settling on a load out. You would know the load out you were getting with each mech you purchase. I would argue that locked stock/factory load outs would give a person more of a reason to purchase the variants beyond the elite pilot skill requirements.

In this hypothetical conversation of course.

[Dock Steward]

Foust, on 19 June 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

So we are playing on the idea that we are locked to stock mechs. No customization at all.

You buy a 4SP and end up not liking its load out, and want some LRMs.

Guess its time for you to buy that 4J, comes stock with the LRMs.

Think of it like champions in league of legends, if you bought Sona and don't like playing support your going to have to buy another character to play the role you want to play.



With in our conversation assumptions, you wouldn't be wasting the c-bills settling on a load out. You would know the load out you were getting with each mech you purchase. I would argue that locked stock/factory load outs would give a person more of a reason to purchase the variants beyond the elite pilot skill requirements.

In this hypothetical conversation of course.

Yeah, I would know the loadout, but I wouldn't necessarily know how I meshed with it. Should I find out that I don't I have to spend millions of c-bills instead of 200,000 or so to change things. Even with a different mech I might find something there that doesn't suit me, then I have to take the lesser of 2 "evils" instead of making something I'm 100% happy with.

[Sybreed]

I still think the alternate harpdoint idea is the best of both worlds... plus it gets rid of Paul's convoluted heat penalty system.

You have a small hardpoint but want to fit in a big gun? Fine, you can.

BUT!

It's gonna generate more heat, have a slower RoF, etc.

All you need is a tooltip warning you about the potential penalty for boating a massive weapon in a place where it wasn't designed for. It's a bit like putting a V8 engine in a honda civic. Sure, I guess you could (maybe?) but your suspension and breaks aren't gonna last long. That fixes all the pinpoint alpha boating and LRM boating. You can still do that, but at the cost of more heat generated and therefore you fire less often.

Plus, it makes the Awesome the PPC sniper it's supposed to be, again, since it's the only assault that can use PPCs without penalty (until other assault mechs come)

I think it is an elegant idea that deserves more merit.

Edited by Sybreed, 19 June 2013 - 09:37 AM.