81 replies to this topic

[Artgathan]

One thing that often gets overlooked in all of these discussions revolving around "peek and shoot" styles of game play is that "peek and shoot" is the most effective way to play. If I can fire on you, then prevent you from returning fire on me, I win. Hands down, every time.

At long range I peek and shoot with Guass Rifles and PPCs. In urban environments I peek and shoot with AC/20s, Pulse Lasers and SRMs. The only time a smart pilot will expose themselves (by leaving cover) is when they are certain they can overwhelm the enemy without taking significant damage in response. My mobility is of little use in anything that does not run over 100kph, as other players will be able to hit it with ease.

In MWO you have a limited health bar. You can't restore it, so you need to stretch it out as long as possible. Peek and Shoot allows you to do this - you deplete the enemy's health while preserving your own. There is no problem with this tactic; it will remain effective and prevalent until the end of time.

Every weapon that does not deal instant damage (lasers and anything based on 'dealing DPS') is subpar to everything that deals instant damage (unless Damage over Time weapons deal so much more damage that they're worth the risk). If I can pop around a building, fire and AC/5 (5 damage for you) and retreat before your ML has finished firing, I'm winning the battle. You have taken 5 damage, I have taken less than 5.

The problem here is not the playstyle of 'peek and shoot' - it is a strategy integral to MW:O. The problem here is, and will remain, the relative balance in the effectiveness of different weapons.

[Damocles69]

JUST NERF THE DAMN PPCs INTO THE GROUND!!!!. seriously give em the SRM treatment. after the last 2 months of hell i want them to be a joke weapon you never see a sane player using. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

[Discojaddi]

Artgathan, on 28 June 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

One thing that often gets overlooked in all of these discussions revolving around "peek and shoot" styles of game play is that "peek and shoot" is the most effective way to play. If I can fire on you, then prevent you from returning fire on me, I win. Hands down, every time.

At long range I peek and shoot with Guass Rifles and PPCs. In urban environments I peek and shoot with AC/20s, Pulse Lasers and SRMs. The only time a smart pilot will expose themselves (by leaving cover) is when they are certain they can overwhelm the enemy without taking significant damage in response. My mobility is of little use in anything that does not run over 100kph, as other players will be able to hit it with ease.

In MWO you have a limited health bar. You can't restore it, so you need to stretch it out as long as possible. Peek and Shoot allows you to do this - you deplete the enemy's health while preserving your own. There is no problem with this tactic; it will remain effective and prevalent until the end of time.

Every weapon that does not deal instant damage (lasers and anything based on 'dealing DPS') is subpar to everything that deals instant damage (unless Damage over Time weapons deal so much more damage that they're worth the risk). If I can pop around a building, fire and AC/5 (5 damage for you) and retreat before your ML has finished firing, I'm winning the battle. You have taken 5 damage, I have taken less than 5.

The problem here is not the playstyle of 'peek and shoot' - it is a strategy integral to MW:O. The problem here is, and will remain, the relative balance in the effectiveness of different weapons.

But that is the exact problem at this moment in time. As you said, the game itself promotes those one-shot high-alpha builds at this point in time. Why even bother having weapons that aren't ppcs, gauss rifles, or ac20s in the game then? Things need to be re-tweaked so that ALL weapon options are good. There should at least be some reason to take a variety of weapons on a mech, and not just live with the smug assurance that your 3ppc/1gauss highlander or 6 ppc stalker has enough of every kind of weapon to solve all problems.

Damocles69, on 28 June 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

JUST NERF THE DAMN PPCs INTO THE GROUND!!!!. seriously give em the SRM treatment. after the last 2 months of hell i want them to be a joke weapon you never see a sane player using. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

And no. All weapons should still be viable. I hate the ppc meta, but that does not mean they should be useless, just toned down a bit

Edited by Dragonfodder, 28 June 2013 - 07:01 PM.

[MechGorilla]

ThePartyProbe, on 28 June 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

LRM's are not viable for a few simple reasons, mostly relating to the current meta. With PPC snipers sticking close to hard cover and generally only peeking long enough to fire, you'll never find much of an opportunity to effectively use narc/tag without putting someone on your team in terrible danger. A scout that runs to tag/narc for you will die quickly as competitive players aren't likely to miss; especially considering the exposure times your scout or self-tagging lrm boat would have to subject themselves to for useful damage. LRM's in no way out trade coordinated PPC+Gauss fire, direct fire always wins in this; however, lrms can serve as a potentially useful tool in brawling compositions but it's still likely you'll be better off taking a long-range direct fire mech or something else that can brawl and effectively soak damage.

I would add to this that the seismic module has made it almost impossible for a scout mech to be able to tag/narc the enemy without being spotted, at which point as pointed out by ThePartyProbe, he's most likely either going to have to run (losing lock) or die rather quickly.

[Corvus Antaka]

mainly the issue is that sustained DPS from stuff like the ac/5 and 10 plus srms, flamers, small lasers needs to be more balanced vs peek and shoot dps gameplay.

4 ppc of heat is the max any mech should be able to alpha, thats 40 damage. 6 ppc destroys this by giving 60 points TWICE - 120 dmg. unitl PGI caps heat so that 4 ppc is the max you can dump, and until going over 120% or even 100% instantly blows the mech, while having a softer cap that just causes you internal dmg around the current 80-120% is in, and that dmg is enough that pushing it more than twice nukes you or something along these lines this will never change.

12 mechs, 6 ppc each with good aim and focus fire unless stopped this "meta" will ruin the game, most obviously the 3 ppc/1 gauss meta, because focus fire of dmg to 1 node guns can overcome ANY other build.

to make this game work this has to change, and a much more unforgiving heat system that leads to more balanced mechs and better brawling gameplay is really going to be needed to fix this.

heck if flamers could lock down the ppc boats better that alone would be hugely significant. theres lot of options to fix this, but mostly PGI has to let go of the idea that 6 ppc heatmax is a good idea - its always been a bad idea, and as many of us have stated since closed beta this high heatcap meta must be adjusted and the handholding of nubs has to stop, for the sake of good gameplay and balanced matches.

[Artgathan]

Dragonfodder, on 28 June 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

But that is the exact problem at this moment in time. As you said, the game itself promotes those one-shot high-alpha builds at this point in time. Why even bother having weapons that aren't ppcs, gauss rifles, or ac20s in the game then? Things need to be re-tweaked so that ALL weapon options are good. There should at least be some reason to take a variety of weapons on a mech, and not just live with the smug assurance that your 3ppc/1gauss highlander or 6 ppc stalker has enough of every kind of weapon to solve all problems.

I agree that all weapon options should be good (I would absolutely love to see every weapon in the game be viable so that we start to see more varied loadouts). My issue is that we can't blame the problem on a specific type of game play.

Lasers should do more damage (considering that you have to hold them on target) in my opinion; perhaps the DPS values of DPS weapons should also be increased to make up for their inherent weaknesses.

[Discojaddi]

Artgathan, on 28 June 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

I agree that all weapon options should be good (I would absolutely love to see every weapon in the game be viable so that we start to see more varied loadouts). My issue is that we can't blame the problem on a specific type of game play.

Lasers should do more damage (considering that you have to hold them on target) in my opinion; perhaps the DPS values of DPS weapons should also be increased to make up for their inherent weaknesses.

Exactly. It's just that I feel that an entire team built for peek-and-shoot alone should have a real problem when a brawler gets right up in their face, I've just been having trouble with that "brawler in their face" part of that statement lately

[Peter2000]

Dragonfodder, on 28 June 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Exactly. It's just that I feel that an entire team built for peek-and-shoot alone should have a real problem when a brawler gets right up in their face, I've just been having trouble with that "brawler in their face" part of that statement lately

What's worse, even when the brawler does get in their face, they don't have very much of an advantage over, say a PPC-Stalker (see the comparison of SRM to Large Laser, and Large Laser to PPC). The pinpoint alpha, ability to shoot and twist, and the heat efficiency are just too good even in a brawl.

There need to be more tradeoffs (e.g. I can murder you if you stay at 500-100m, but I'm weaker close in) to have a dynamic game where many compositions are viable.

Edited by Peter2000, 28 June 2013 - 07:35 PM.

[ACTIONRAMBO]

Awesome post! Well said! This post is right on the money for gameplay balance and has constructive feedback for PGI.

Crossing my fingers that this post helps PGI deal with balance issues.

[VasilyZaitsev]

My Flame's poor CT SRM6 is going unused (and no, not because it just took 10 PPC hits at once from behind a mountain... or maybe yes? )

[Elizander]

Being a brawler right now means you need to add at least one long range weapon in order to not be useless when your entire team decides to shoot it out at long range.

[Elfman]

I did something I rarely do today - I logged on to the forums

Why you ask - just to like this post.

I always used to play as a medium or fast heavy brawler using a mix of ballistics, med lasers and SRM's but now due to the sheer amount of PPC's and ERPPC's going around have been forced to adapt my play style.

So I mainly float around in a twin Ac/20 Jager or occasionally in a 5 large laser stalker

Tried pretty much every other mech and config out such as 2 ac/10 4 med lasers etc on a jager.

Funny thing is that in several matches last night I go abuse thrown at me from the other team (nearly all in 4 ERPPC stalkers or 2 ppc 1 gauss highlanders) for using a cheesy AC40 mech

In every match I was in the lowest tonne mech...

[Tolkien]

Bump for visibility.

The OP post is well thought out and pretty accurate. Especially the part about the AC40 jager being called a cheese mech by the 3 ppc stalkers....

I believe that pinpoint convergence is a fundamental underlying problem that needs to be addressed too via some sort of forced damage spreading mechanic, but the OP is right about the weapon balance issues on top of that.

[Phenakist]

Something you have to consider is the map layout. As it stands, ALL maps lead to sniper phases, due to the same spawning points for Team A and Team B being opposite, so of course you will always have a sniper phase if this is always the case, it just makes sense.

Make more intricute maps that negate snipers, and voila half your problem is evapourated due to a part of the map pool with no sniping capabilities. But yes I do still agree that even within brawling range, ER PCC's are a menace but it does greatly reduce the effectiveness of LRM/PPC's

[R Razor]

As a relatively new player I wasn't around to see LRM's and various other "dream weapons" before the changes were made. That being said, over the course of the past month (roughly) that I've signed up and began playing I've noted the preponderence of PPC / ER-PPC boats on the battlefield, and yes I do believe it's out of hand.

I don't think the answer is changing the heat ratings / damage ratings or even penalizing players that choose to do so by changing the allotment of XP or CB based on weapons loadout though.

Several of us were having a discussion about this very topic on the Steiner Teamspeak channel just a day or so ago and some of the suggestion I heard make good sense, specifically the ones based on engineering principles.

Consider this:

When the United States Army fielded the Stryker APC, one of the variants initially fielded carried a 120mm cannon, the same gun carried on the M1 Abrams main battle tank. Testing confirmed that the chassis couldn't handle the stresses imposed upon it when that weapon was fired in some situations. Nothing short of a massive redesign of the base vehicle itself was going to change that.

I submit that one way of balancing gameplay using current weapons characteristics may be to place "Slot Limits" on specific hard points for each mech. For instance, a in a chassis that orignially carried an AC-20 in a torso that had 1 ballistic hard point, that hard point would have that many slots available. This would still allow the flexibility to be retained while preventing say for instance the dual AC/20 Jagermechs that run around constantly..........obviously the same would apply to energy hard points as well.

Unless my understanding of the game itself is wrong, slots indicate not only physical space but also structural integrity no?

Just a suggestion, and not even one that I can take full credit for as it was brought up and tossed about by several players.

[Tolkien]

R Razor, on 29 June 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

As a relatively new player I wasn't around to see LRM's and various other "dream weapons" before the changes were made. That being said, over the course of the past month (roughly) that I've signed up and began playing I've noted the preponderence of PPC / ER-PPC boats on the battlefield, and yes I do believe it's out of hand.

I don't think the answer is changing the heat ratings / damage ratings or even penalizing players that choose to do so by changing the allotment of XP or CB based on weapons loadout though.

Several of us were having a discussion about this very topic on the Steiner Teamspeak channel just a day or so ago and some of the suggestion I heard make good sense, specifically the ones based on engineering principles.

Consider this:

When the United States Army fielded the Stryker APC, one of the variants initially fielded carried a 120mm cannon, the same gun carried on the M1 Abrams main battle tank. Testing confirmed that the chassis couldn't handle the stresses imposed upon it when that weapon was fired in some situations. Nothing short of a massive redesign of the base vehicle itself was going to change that.

I submit that one way of balancing gameplay using current weapons characteristics may be to place "Slot Limits" on specific hard points for each mech. For instance, a in a chassis that orignially carried an AC-20 in a torso that had 1 ballistic hard point, that hard point would have that many slots available. This would still allow the flexibility to be retained while preventing say for instance the dual AC/20 Jagermechs that run around constantly..........obviously the same would apply to energy hard points as well.

Unless my understanding of the game itself is wrong, slots indicate not only physical space but also structural integrity no?

Just a suggestion, and not even one that I can take full credit for as it was brought up and tossed about by several players.

The various mechwarrior games have had different levels of this implemented, ranging from none up to exactly that.

MW3 had no limitations and as long as you had the space on a mech you could put in anything you wanted.
MW4 had hardpoint types (missile, energy, ballistic, omni) and sizes (1 slot-4 or 5 slot). So some mechs with machine gun points (1 slot ballistic or omni) could not replace it with anything else, whereas other mechs that had large hardpoints could stick in several small weapons - e.g. an AC20 could be removed and 5-6 machine guns put in.

MWO is halfway between these models in that it restricts the number of weapons but not their size.

Other games like MPBT3025 have just gone with a no customization policy.

[R Razor]

Tolkien, on 29 June 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

The various mechwarrior games have had different levels of this implemented, ranging from none up to exactly that. MW3 had no limitations and as long as you had the space on a mech you could put in anything you wanted. MW4 had hardpoint types (missile, energy, ballistic, omni) and sizes (1 slot-4 or 5 slot). So some mechs with machine gun points (1 slot ballistic or omni) could not replace it with anything else, whereas other mechs that had large hardpoints could stick in several small weapons - e.g. an AC20 could be removed and 5-6 machine guns put in. MWO is halfway between these models in that it restricts the number of weapons but not their size. Other games like MPBT3025 have just gone with a no customization policy.

Not having played any of those other games I was unaware of this fact............still, I don't think it changes the premise and I do believe it would resolve a LOT of the issues I've seen thus far in my time playing this particular game.

Force people to utilize a more varied loadout on their custom mechs based on hard point type and size limitation as opposed to just type, get rid of the boating capability and you'll get rid of the reason people feel it necessary to do so themselves if only to have a legitimate chance at winning a match. Anyone that's played the original FASA table top game is likely more than aware of the fact that 6 PPC (or LL, or LRM 120) mechs just weren't feasible in the game then and they shouldn't be now.

I firmly believe that implementing something along these lines, even if not exactly as I described, would do far more to "balance" the enitre game than continual "tweaks" to various weapons systems and heat tables.

[John MatriX82]

+1 for me too..

-Srms are worthless indeed;
-the pulse lasers imho weight too much (they should be reduced to 0.75 tons for SMPL, 1.5t for MPL and 6 tons for the LPL);
-Lasers are in a good general spot*
-PPCs are balanced*
-LRMs are in a good spot too*
-LBX is worthless
-Machine guns have got a certain degree of usefulness
-Streaks will be prevented to go CT only, and this is good.
-Smaller caliber AC's aren't that bad, simply they are less effective because they generate more DPS, while current gameplay requires the least exposition time possible to enemy fire
-GR and AC 20 are in a good spot*

* Weapon systems that get broken by boating. PPCs and LRMs in particular. We should get some kind of hardpoint restriction, heat penalties won't work. You must not be given the option to boat 3+PPCs on any mech, better, many mechs should be limited to 2, only few to 3. The same with LRMs, what breaks them is the 50+ (60-70-80 boats), we should have a tube limiting factor preventing to go beyond 50 lrms and only on few mechs, the same for SRMs once they'll be buffed. Also 4+LL boats can become an issue, now they are less useful due to being overextended by PPCs, but once PPCs will get nerfed they'll be in need of tuning for boating them as well.

[Training Instructor]

+1

Sniping gets very old, and once you're in a certain MM bracket, it's very difficult to succeed in matches without resorting to it.

[Revorn]

ER-PPC in an Med-Laser-Slot Rofl
AC-20 in an Machinegun-Slot Rofl


Weapons looking nice so far, but too much of the Same. Well..... leads to 6PPC Battlemaster.

Edited by Revorn, 29 June 2013 - 04:45 AM.