40 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

Let's get radical. Make the PPC a Ballistic weapon. Then there is only one who can carry 4 and it has a 255 max engine. Problem solved.

P.S. And if a 30 point max Alpha is still to much, perhaps MWO is not the game for you.

[El Bandito]

MaddMaxx, on 02 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Let's get radical. Make the PPC a Ballistic weapon. Then there is only one who can carry 4 and it has a 255 max engine. Problem solved.

P.S. And if a 30 point max Alpha is still to much, perhaps MWO is not the game for you.

4 PPCs is 40 points of Alpha, enough to strip clean all armor from a Heavy mech.

You also forgot Jager-S and Jager-DD. They are tailor made for peek-and-shoot meta and are itching for ballistic PPCs. Hexa-PPC Jager-DD for hardcore sniping and Quad PPC Jager-S for softcore sniping.

Edited by El Bandito, 02 July 2013 - 06:48 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

General Taskeen, on 02 July 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

A Stalker 8S has only 2 ER PPC, but that's the only one

And nobody is affraid of those...the Heavy Gauss Rifle is another thing....wait thats still a Alpha of 45.....on point

[MaddMaxx]

El Bandito, on 02 July 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

4 PPCs is 40 points of Alpha, enough to strip clean all armor from a Heavy mech.

You also forgot Jager-S and Jager-DD. They are tailor made for peek-and-shoot meta and are itching for ballistic PPCs. Hexa-PPC Jager-DD for hardcore sniping and Quad PPC Jager-S for softcore sniping.

The Jager is a 65T, non-JJ based, Mech. 4 PPC's would be pushing an actual viable/useable design given a 315 max engine, save for the FB. Sure you could push one out but like the fictional 6 PPC Stalker, not really a death machine per say.

[El Bandito]

MaddMaxx, on 02 July 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

The Jager is a 65T, non-JJ based, Mech. 4 PPC's would be pushing an actual viable/useable design given a 315 max engine, save for the FB. Sure you could push one out but like the fictional 6 PPC Stalker, not really a death machine per say.

Here is the thing about peek-and-shoot PPC sniper in current meta.

1. It does not need JJs. Which is partly why Stalker are king of sniping ATM. Only the select few can reliably poptart now.

2. It does not need to be fast. Sniper Stalker speed is around 55-60kph most of the time. Jagers can go 60-70 kph with Std 255-265 engine and can use XL if more speed is needed since it's side torsos are not a blimp.

3. It is vital to have high elevation arms. In other words, Jagers are built for it.

Quad PPC Jager will be spammed a lot more than even CTF-3D if such configuration is available. It is only 5 tons less (even less since 3Ds have JJs) weight but that is more than compensated by the high elevation arm.

A sniper that goes 82 kph? Imagine that with PPCs on the arms. Where do I sign? (jk, I hate PPC spamming)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7b1de73c4ae3839

Hexa-PPC Jager is bad build but as long as it can be built (yes it can), people will try it, and through luck or skill, can get some kills, thus helping to fuel communities rage against PPCs.

Edited by El Bandito, 02 July 2013 - 07:28 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

GODzillaGSPB, on 02 July 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

I read this every once in a while and at least several times in each topic regarding boating, or proposing a fix to boating. "Boating is okay because mech x is designed as a boat!"

Like the Longbow with its LRMs and the Awesome with its PPCs! Right?

There are two arguments against it, one from the gameplay point of view, one from the eyes of the developers:

1.) A Stalker is not an Awesome. Yes, it's true!

2.) Hey there PGI, I heard you want to make money...

So there you have it. My 5 cents to the annoying "mech x does it" argument. Flame-on.

You appear to have somewhat missed the point of the annoying "mech x does it" argument. There are lots of threads and posters on this forum arguing that boating is bad. Not specifically - although they use the rage-example - the Stalker boating PPCs or (during LRMhell patches) LRMs. Just "boating is bad". Usually from a "but 'balanced' mechs are good in TT/Canon" argument. This is a seriously dumb argument because it's, y'know. Not true.

Boating is good Mechwarrior/Battletech. The huge lists of canon boats you see in those threads are used as evidence for why some of the TT fans here are lying when they claim boats are bad, evil, anti-BT scourges who should be punished. A synergistic mech, of which a pure boat is the extreme example (like, you know, the Jenner and Swayback that'll be getting nerfed along with PPC Stalkers by heat penalty) are simply good mech design.

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.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gaan Cathal, on 02 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Boating is good Mechwarrior/Battletech. The huge lists of canon boats you see in those threads are used as evidence for why some of the TT fans here are lying when they claim boats are bad, evil, anti-BT scourges who should be punished. A synergistic mech, of which a pure boat is the extreme example (like, you know, the Jenner and Swayback that'll be getting nerfed along with PPC Stalkers by heat penalty) are simply good mech design.

How does it bork the Jenner?
6 Mediums are the limit given, and that is the most it can carry. And tbh, not 100% sure the .5 second firing delay hurts the HBK so much as helps it (though, TBH, on the ledge about the head laser..... I DO prefer to tie it in with the torso ones. Might be time to simply shrug and swap in a TAG and be multi-useful for my team.) as the arm lasers are usually on a differing fire channel, and it might help it's heat balance by waiting a tic. (a marginal help, but hey, silver linings and all)

The Stalker on the other hand IS the prime example of taking Boating to the extreme, where it abuses the Meta. (and hey, same can be said for the Nova and Warhawk Primes). And ruins the game because it becomes the "go to" and mandatory build. Which is boring.

Another "optimal" use of the chassis is designed around engagement ranges, preferably a long Range and a Short range ( I would agree, too many range variables in the end is not efficient design) such as the Stalker H (not optimized, just using a stock example) where you had 2 LRM 20, and at close range 4 medium lasers and 2 SRM6 giving effective firepower at both engagement ranges.

I would suggest that maybe toning down the rhetoric (apparently, because I don't think the Stalker PPC boat is good for the game I am a liar? nice), and see there are more than one way to build an effective mech. Without ,Metaraping in the process.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 02 July 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

How does it bork the Jenner?
6 Mediums are the limit given, and that is the most it can carry.

Fair point, forgot about the quoted limit. Point stands that it's a boat though.

Bishop Steiner, on 02 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

The Stalker on the other hand IS the prime example of taking Boating to the extreme, where it abuses the Meta. (and hey, same can be said for the Nova and Warhawk Primes). And ruins the game because it becomes the "go to" and mandatory build. Which is boring.

Another "optimal" use of the chassis is designed around engagement ranges, preferably a long Range and a Short range ( I would agree, too many range variables in the end is not efficient design) such as the Stalker H (not optimized, just using a stock example) where you had 2 LRM 20, and at close range 4 medium lasers and 2 SRM6 giving effective firepower at both engagement ranges.

The problem isn't that it's a boat though. The problem is that it does enough damage to one- or two-shot a compartment with far too little effort. If PPCs, for example, followed the 5 pinpoint + 5 trail damage model that's been suggested elsewhere there would be no problem at all with the 4 PPC Stalker. There's no problem with the 4 LPL Stalker (infact, it's now completely ****) or the 5 LL Stalker and they're boats.

Bishop Steiner, on 02 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I would suggest that maybe toning down the rhetoric (apparently, because I don't think the Stalker PPC boat is good for the game I am a liar? nice), and see there are more than one way to build an effective mech. Without ,Metaraping in the process.

You've missed my point. I'm not defending the current 4 PPC Stalker (although it's not the Stalker that's the problem there). I'm also not calling you a liar unless you have argued that boats should be punished/disallowed because they're "Just not what Battletech is a about." In which case you are because [big list of canon boats].

[Bishop Steiner]

Gaan Cathal, on 02 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Fair point, forgot about the quoted limit. Point stands that it's a boat though.



The problem isn't that it's a boat though. The problem is that it does enough damage to one- or two-shot a compartment with far too little effort. If PPCs, for example, followed the 5 pinpoint + 5 trail damage model that's been suggested elsewhere there would be no problem at all with the 4 PPC Stalker. There's no problem with the 4 LPL Stalker (infact, it's now completely ****) or the 5 LL Stalker and they're boats.




You've missed my point. I'm not defending the current 4 PPC Stalker (although it's not the Stalker that's the problem there). I'm also not calling you a liar unless you have argued that boats should be punished/disallowed because they're "Just not what Battletech is a about." In which case you are because [big list of canon boats].

I would agree the Jenner is still a boat, not gonna get hit with the NerfHammer. As for the PPC model, I am not against it, but have said let's wait til after the heat and other methods to see, as I think it might (or might not) be TOO harsh a penalty for the K2 and such.

Problem is it's hard to test it as needs be, with and without the HP limitations. I think with them, it would be unneeded, but with them, might be a good idea, particularly if the Heat Fix isn't much of a fix.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Gaan Cathal, on 02 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

You appear to have somewhat missed the point of the annoying "mech x does it" argument. There are lots of threads and posters on this forum arguing that boating is bad. Not specifically - although they use the rage-example - the Stalker boating PPCs or (during LRMhell patches) LRMs. Just "boating is bad". Usually from a "but 'balanced' mechs are good in TT/Canon" argument. This is a seriously dumb argument because it's, y'know. Not true.

[...]

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.

I'm sorry...but I really don't get it. This is exactly the kind of post I was adressing with this topic!

I know that boating is "good" in terms of effectiveness. And I know that there are mechs who are supposed to be boats. That is the whole point and centre of my startpost: It's fine for those mechs. But that does not make it universally fine for other mechs.

I added the examples and explained them in detail. Didn't you read the post? The Awesome as a ppc-boat is - in my opinion - fine because it brings some disadvantages that the Stalker PPC boat does not have! The minimal exposure to fire a broadside for instance, or the shape and frontal target profile which is far better on the Stalker!

The following also shows...

Gaan Cathal, on 02 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Boating is good Mechwarrior/Battletech. The huge lists of canon boats you see in those threads are used as evidence for why some of the TT fans here are lying when they claim boats are bad, evil, anti-BT scourges who should be punished. A synergistic mech, of which a pure boat is the extreme example (like, you know, the Jenner and Swayback that'll be getting nerfed along with PPC Stalkers by heat penalty) are simply good mech design.

[...]

That you did not keep up with the current state of affairs (which I'm not going to critisize you for, not everyone has all the time to read the forums everyday), so let me help you out here:

Even PGI understands that some boats are meant to be! The Hunchback 4P for instance will get a special treatment and can still fire the immense barrage what is it's 6 medium lasers in the right torso WITHOUT a heat penalty!

And I bet it'll be the same for those awesome variants who come stock with 3 ppcs or 3 erppcs. Because that is the whole idea - something that has been noted by others and myself a bit further up the topic: To shape mechs into a design philosophy, to give them their niche. Awesome - the ppc-boat. Hunchback 4P - the laser boat. Or the Stalker - the jack of all trades (lasers, lrms, srms).

Currently such a design philosphy is more or less absent from the game. The Stalker is the much better laserboat than the Hunchack, the much better ppc-boat than the Awesome and the much better LRM-boat compared to the Catapult. I think this just feels wrong.

But again, this is my personal opinion, as always.

[Jestun]

Worse are the people who think boating as a whole is bad because of a small handful of builds.

Some of them actively try to nerf *all* boats with no thought whatsoever to what that would do to balance (except that that handful would be nerfed).

[GODzillaGSPB]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Worse are the people who think boating as a whole is bad because of a small handful of builds.

Some of them actively try to nerf *all* boats with no thought whatsoever to what that would do to balance (except that that handful would be nerfed).

...but we're already past this because even PGI was able to see in shades of grey rather than just black and white.

[Jestun]

GODzillaGSPB, on 03 July 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

...but we're already past this because even PGI was able to see in shades of grey rather than just black and white.

As long as they continue to ignore the black and white suggestions that's fine.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

As long as they continue to ignore the black and white suggestions that's fine.

Agreed.

[MaddMaxx]

El Bandito, on 02 July 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Here is the thing about peek-and-shoot PPC sniper in current meta.

1. It does not need JJs. Which is partly why Stalker are king of sniping ATM. Only the select few can reliably poptart now.

2. It does not need to be fast. Sniper Stalker speed is around 55-60kph most of the time. Jagers can go 60-70 kph with Std 255-265 engine and can use XL if more speed is needed since it's side torsos are not a blimp.

3. It is vital to have high elevation arms. In other words, Jagers are built for it.

Quad PPC Jager will be spammed a lot more than even CTF-3D if such configuration is available. It is only 5 tons less (even less since 3Ds have JJs) weight but that is more than compensated by the high elevation arm.

A sniper that goes 82 kph? Imagine that with PPCs on the arms. Where do I sign? (jk, I hate PPC spamming)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7b1de73c4ae3839

Hexa-PPC Jager is bad build but as long as it can be built (yes it can), people will try it, and through luck or skill, can get some kills, thus helping to fuel communities rage against PPCs.

I was wondering what all the fuss about PPC's was then last night I finally got the answer, and why your post would seem to have some merit in how they actually work.

"Stop just standing around FFS!" was what was yelled over the Team over Text chat. I laughed to myself as I had just rounded the corner of a building looking to check our right flank. A quick torso peak showed that buddy was indeed right.

4 Mechs were all standing dead still, out of cover, scanning for incoming PPC fire I guess. Well , what do you think happens when "any boat" in range would do when they find them like that? Kill them and create more QQ on the Forums is what.

So is it really the weapons systems alone that cause the issue, or perhaps there may be some additional add-ons as well.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 July 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

GODzillaGSPB, on 02 July 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

1.) A Stalker is not an Awesome. Yes, it's true!

Some Awesomes are meant to be a PPC-boat, this is correct. But the weapons are placed on the body so that an Awesome would have to expose itself fully in order to fire them all together. It is shaped like a brick-wall and can easily be hit. It is a PPC-boat, but there are disadvantages that balance the build. The Stalker just has to stick it's upper heat out, peek, shoot, retreat. The current meta in a nutshell.

A Stalker is also not a Longbow. Only a Longbow is a Longbow. The Longbow pays for it's LRM-capabilities by having HUGE arms. It's a big-fat target, unlike the rather sleek Stalker.

Flame on, I shall. First thing right off the bat, the Stalker is sleek?!?!?!? In what universe is this?!?!?! Stalker is one of those elephant sized dongs that if you get on the profile is impossible to miss. Second thing, you assumption as to the design philosophy of the Stalker is based on what?

As an engineer, based on the lore and the in-game specs, I would say that it was designed as a multifunctional assault vehicle, capable of using direct and indirect fire weapons, built for sustainability in the field (heavy energy weapon loadout). With the "ears" placed at the height they are at, it's meant to fire over obstructions, either with indirect missile fire or direct fire energy weapons. It's a mobile turret, move it into position and fire. The 3F has 6 energy weapon slots, 4 missile slots, which means it was designed to have the ability to fit 6 energy weapons.

Using the Longbow or Awesome as a premise to your argument makes no sense. First, the Awesome has a similar loadout, other than the 8Q, as the stalker, 5 tons lighter, and produced by a different corp than the Stalker as an Assault variant. The longbow had multiple missile slots, but it also has energy hardpoints for close range defense, and in theory could also mount large energy weapons as well, sacrificing missile capability to do so.

Your whole argument is based on spurious assumptions and personal bias, therefore invalid...

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 03 July 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Hythos]

I'm against weapon hard-points. I have accepted how they are handled with MWO as it's a fair system. However, I am adamantly against hard-point size-restrictions, as this detracts even further from the spirit of Battletech because it doesn't allow a player to configure their mech, with how they want to play. (Yes, I would have a 20xSmallLaser Jenner if I had a choice, but it wouldn't be fair.)

I am against multiple weapons increasing heat beyond their normal level. Again, not part of Battletech, and is not physically possible by terms of "fire 1, generate x heat; fire 2, generate >2x heat".

I am against firing-penalties for using multiple weapons, whether like (meaning identical or same type) or by "alpha'ing"

I am fine with imprecise convergence with all direct-fire weapons at any range; consider what would we expect to see with Targetting Computers. And, even once we get TC's, how much complaining will there then be, because not everyone will have them (vs currently, anyone has access to all weapons)? - Clans *WILL* be pin-pointing 45dmg with ease.

Boating is fine.
Linear heat, is fine.
Alpha-strikes and weapons-groups, are fine.
Convergence, is problematic.

[Aim64C]

Gaan Cathal, on 02 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Fair point, forgot about the quoted limit. Point stands that it's a boat though.

Each mech is going to be receiving its own arbitrary limits - unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly:

http://mwomercs.com/...te-june-112013/

"An example:
Mech Model: Hunchback-4P
This Mech (known as the Swayback) is capable of firing 9 energy weapons all at the same time. There are 6 energy hardpoints in the pod on its shoulder, one on each arm and one on the head. The most common build for this Mech is to boat it with Medium Lasers.

We take into consideration that the 6-pack pod is intended to be fired all at once and a player should not be penalized for this. It is for this reason that we would set the Medium Laser threshold to 6; meaning that firing 6 MLs simultaneously will NOT suffer from a heat scale penalty. The 6 MLs will generate the standard amount of heat currently in the game.

The heat scale penalty kicks in when the player fires 7 or more MLs and for each ML fired beyond 7, the heat scale increases. The breakdown would look as follows"

I'm not sure which interpretation is worse, though. That medium lasers on the whole would be set at a threshold of 6 because of the "swayback" or that each mech would have its own weapon thresholds.

Hythos, on 03 July 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I'm against weapon hard-points. I have accepted how they are handled with MWO as it's a fair system. However, I am adamantly against hard-point size-restrictions, as this detracts even further from the spirit of Battletech because it doesn't allow a player to configure their mech, with how they want to play. (Yes, I would have a 20xSmallLaser Jenner if I had a choice, but it wouldn't be fair.)

Actually, battletech has some stupidly complex rules regarding the customization of battlemechs.

Engines from one mech can't be taken out and used as engines in another mech (without serious refitting and modifications). Mounting different weapons can be anything from an involved stay at a mech bay to a factory/depot level refit.

A Gauss Rifle may cost 600K C-bills (or is it 800?) - but the refits to put it into a BlackJack may require a total of over 1000 man-hours at a depot-level service - which means it may cost you 6M C-bills just to have the damned thing put on.

You might be looking at 200 man-hours at an intermediate service level to install an AC5 in the place of that AC2 - much lower costs... but substantial changes get involved. You can do them - but PGI could easily justify going with insane C-bill costs to refit a mech (10M C-bills to refit from a standard to an XL engine, 8M C-bills for double-heat sinks to be added, etc).

[Hythos]

Aim64C, on 03 July 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

Actually, battletech has some stupidly complex rules regarding the customization of battlemechs.

Engines from one mech can't be taken out and used as engines in another mech (without serious refitting and modifications). Mounting different weapons can be anything from an involved stay at a mech bay to a factory/depot level refit.

A Gauss Rifle may cost 600K C-bills (or is it 800?) - but the refits to put it into a BlackJack may require a total of over 1000 man-hours at a depot-level service - which means it may cost you 6M C-bills just to have the damned thing put on.

You might be looking at 200 man-hours at an intermediate service level to install an AC5 in the place of that AC2 ...

Technically, that's MechWarrior (RPG) and Battletech Campaigns where time, Rearm&Refit is a factor. Because with MWO we (yet) have no concept of time (IE, preparation for extended battles with repairs, secondary engagements, battle-continuation) - AND because everything is now fully repaired at the end of a drop - why couldn't someone spend those many hours to refit and equip their 'Mech with what ever equipment they wish, however ridiculously difficult or time-consuming it may seem (on paper, or in the RolePlay universe).

[Demuder]

Every boating thread boils down to the same arguments and it becomes evident that boating per se is not the problem. It's the combination of boating and instant pinpoint convergence that is a problem in the game. Simply imagine how things would be different if these two rules were in effect:

1. in order to gain convergence to a point for all your weapons you need to keep your reticule immobile for 1 second and you lose convergence (abstracted as "knockback") for a second every time you fire a weapon or weapon group.
2. if you fire one weapon only, it always lands in the center of the reticule but you lose convergence for 1 second after that - meaning that any silly macro chain firing in rapid succesion wouldn't work.

Suddenly, boats wouldn't be that much a problem, snipers would still be able to snipe but not decimate everything, brawlers would enjoy long brawls, etc etc. Sure the game might get slowed down, but even then, the fix would be easy by simply tuning damage up a bit.