73 replies to this topic

[Mylardis]

0okami, on 06 July 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

I got to that part and now I feel obliged to tell you that english is not my first language either.
Furthermore I would appriciate it if you would not presume I take a tone of hostility in my posts as such was never intended nor directly written in a way that should have offended anyone, let me state that if it did it was the fault of the reader and not the writer as text can be misunderstood when read if you presume hostility to be the angle of approach.

Cut it short - I got you wrong and apologize.

Quote

My starting comment ¨I am baffled by the amount of ignorance in this thread...¨ was simply stating that which was written, that I was surprised by the amount of ignorence which was present in the thread - Ignorance is a state of being uninformed, in other words a lack of knowledge which is comming out quite clear when you read the posts that are here.
It is in no way an attack at anyone but more the stating of the fact that the posts contain no knowledge - not to be misunderstood with the writers being stupid (for simplicity) but rather the posts themselves containing a lack of required information.

Again, I'm sorry for my outburst. I got you wrong.

Quote

Now moving on. The K2 was a standard layout - as in not a custom mech made by a player in this game.
The stock K2 came with 2 ppc's 2 medium lasers and 2 machine guns as its stock loadout.
This mech IS standard.

Now my point was that mechs I highlighted was the first 2 that came to mind, obviously if you decide to visit Sarna (a great site if you want some knowledge btw) then you will be able to dig up many mechs that sport PPC's aswell as more than a few that sports 2 PPC's.
Now I never claimed anything above 2 so just to clarify this once more - there were many stock mechs that made use of PPC's and quite a few Heavies made use of them in pairs.

Perhaps I need to clarify. I know Sarna well, and I admire the work put into that site. If we can agree on the fact that basically no mech has more than 2 PPC's as standard (Awesome left aside), and that those mechs sporting 2 PPC's tend to be found in heavy or assault class, I'm fine with that.

What I tried to point out (and failed) is that most standard mechs between 3025 and 3050 tend to try to achieve a somewhat balanced layout which often leads to one primary weapon (PPC, Gauss, AC) backup by secondary armament. Of course, there are some dedicated "boats", especially when it comes to missiles, but most mechs are not about 1 weapon in great numbers.

Quote

I think you are misunderstanding me, this was not directed at you, but at many of the people in the community.
Also I believe that the mere idea of expecting PGI to limit say the MG spots on the K2 to only field MG's would be sort of counterproductive as they took time off to actually make the K2 (as the only old chassis btw) change its visuals depending on what Balistics you put in the spots.
I do not assume to know nor do I try to presume anything yet I can not help but feel that you are directing alot of hostility towards me resulting in a waste of energy that you could use better at something else.

PGI has invested time in that feature. If you re-read my posts you will see that I don't actually propose limiting the hardpoints to one specific weapon per build (then we wouldn't need hardpoints), but to a weapon size. Sticking to your example, I don't see a problem switching a MG with an AC2 or AC5 - I do think it's wrong that you can swap it for an AC20, though (at all times tonnage and crit space provided). That's where I would like to see a change, but as easy as possible (small and large weapons is probably enough, no need for a medium class of weapons).

Edited by DasAmok, 06 July 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Mylardis]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 06 July 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

It is a team game requires a plan and a solid team. I am sorry most of you complaining are in a low ELO and get all the boats, making my only advice:




GET FRIENDS, join a group learn to function as a team and get a VoiP, yeah yeah you shouldn't have to group you shouldn't have to have a VoiP but really this game is about team play not the solo person.

Sound advice, Eric. Of course one cannot argue against that advice.

I can just speak for myself: My connection, my location and my available time put great limits on my gaming. If I tried VoIP during playing, my ping would be over 200.

Apart from that, I am a casual player, and cannot always commit as much time as I would like to. I believe that good game design works for casual and regular players alike - ELO is actually a good idea, just with bad execution. If it worked, players like myself would have fun playing the game (at least as long as some other problems mentioned in this thread were solved, too).

At the moment I feel run over, though. I desperatly want this game to be fun, but getting matches with 90% PPC's and being matched with new players against teams is not a lot of fun. That's the whole point of my opening post - I agree it is a lot better with a team, but that does not justify the way the game feels at the moment.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

DasAmok, on 06 July 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Sound advice, Eric. Of course one cannot argue against that advice.

I can just speak for myself: My connection, my location and my available time put great limits on my gaming. If I tried VoIP during playing, my ping would be over 200.

Apart from that, I am a casual player, and cannot always commit as much time as I would like to. I believe that good game design works for casual and regular players alike - ELO is actually a good idea, just with bad execution. If it worked, players like myself would have fun playing the game (at least as long as some other problems mentioned in this thread were solved, too).

At the moment I feel run over, though. I desperatly want this game to be fun, but getting matches with 90% PPC's and being matched with new players against teams is not a lot of fun. That's the whole point of my opening post - I agree it is a lot better with a team, but that does not justify the way the game feels at the moment.

See but the original design philosophy was targeted at the hardcore mechwarrior fans and to provide a sim environment. Now with the changes here and there it is moving albeit slowly towards all fans. While I fall into the more hardcore zone, I do not think they expected to see the turn out of such a large varying playerbase.

So I welcome some changes and disturbed by others but they have changed coarse and are trying to please all.

[Dracol]

In regards to the comments about R&R. Although it helped balance by making meds a more economical choice it promoted some really negative behaviors.

Such as:
-people dropping into matches with scripts to move their mechs every so often, but not actually particapating
-complete dismemberment of opponents so their repair was extremely high
-last mechs alive running and hiding so as not to get a higher repair build
-light mech squads doing base cap runs to gain bills as fast as possible

It was these conquences IMHO that led to r&r being removed and for the devs to comment that they will not return to the concept.

[Mylardis]

Dracol, on 06 July 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

In regards to the comments about R&R. Although it helped balance by making meds a more economical choice it promoted some really negative behaviors.

Such as:
-people dropping into matches with scripts to move their mechs every so often, but not actually particapating
-complete dismemberment of opponents so their repair was extremely high
-last mechs alive running and hiding so as not to get a higher repair build
-light mech squads doing base cap runs to gain bills as fast as possible

It was these conquences IMHO that led to r&r being removed and for the devs to comment that they will not return to the concept.

I agree. R&R sounds like a great balancing tool at first glance, but in reality it doesn't only promote the bad behaviours you mentioned, but is also prone to become a balancing problem of its own.

PGI was right to take it out, imho - better balancing ideas have been thrown into discussion by many players.

[Sasha Volkova]

DasAmok, on 06 July 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Perhaps I need to clarify. I know Sarna well, and I admire the work put into that site. If we can agree on the fact that basically no mech has more than 2 PPC's as standard (Awesome left aside), and that those mechs sporting 2 PPC's tend to be found in heavy or assault class, I'm fine with that.

What I tried to point out (and failed) is that most standard mechs between 3025 and 3050 tend to try to achieve a somewhat balanced layout which often leads to one primary weapon (PPC, Gauss, AC) backup by secondary armament. Of course, there are some dedicated "boats", especially when it comes to missiles, but most mechs are not about 1 weapon in great numbers.

Completely agree with you on that.
I personally try to promote a diverse loadout sometimes, by running my Cent-A with an AC/10, 2 M lasers and an LRM10 ofc upgraded with various things such as an XL and Artemis, but the mech itself is a joy to pilot.
I am perfectly aware that it will never be considered for competetive play - but it is alot of fun to play on ¨hard-mode¨ once in a while. Not to mention completely possible if one chooses when, how and where to engage.
Ehm, I got derailed, pardon for that.
I remembered something btw, a clan light mech with 2 ERPPC's - http://www.sarna.net...dder_%28Puma%29 - I only post this as it makes me chuckle a bit over just how sick the minds of the makers of that thing must have been :b

DasAmok, on 06 July 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

PGI has invested time in that feature. If you re-read my posts you will see that I don't actually propose limiting the hardpoints to one specific weapon per build (then we wouldn't need hardpoints), but to a weapon size. Sticking to your example, I don't see a problem switching a MG with an AC2 or AC5 - I do think it's wrong that you can swap it for an AC20, though (at all times tonnage and crit space provided). That's where I would like to see a change, but as easy as possible (small and large weapons is probably enough, no need for a medium class of weapons).

Yes I saw that, my mistake for not being more clear in my choice of words, what I wanted to point out was that PGI implemented the visual changes for the Gauss aswell, and that is considerably different compared to the other AC's though the AC10/20 (perhabs even the 5?) share the same visual so limiting those would not be a ¨waste of time¨ for PGI if they were to restrict it somehow.
However the question when discussing the possibility of limiting hardpoints is always the same - just how much do you limit things.
In other words, exactly how do you plan on making the individual mechs achieve a solid niche by doing so.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

OKay after trolling through record sheets I found the Banshee carried a Guass and 2x PPC

More important the Warhawk (Masakari)Prime had 4x ER PPC so be prepared since this is a 3050 clan mech.
So the question is do we get used to the PPC crap now or do we nerf clans before they launch, understand I do not encourage boating it lost its fun a long time ago.

Heat needs a bigger role overall both PPCs heat needs to be reverted when they did a fix because HSR wasn't in yet and we need to see heat punishment in some way be it hurt movement random internal crits or shutdowns whatever the fact is the argument is that mechs shouldn't boat or they need limited hardpoints.

Well if we limit hardpoints do we only want to ever see Warhawks on the battle field?
Oh and PGIs purposed boating fix with heat wouldn't work on the Warhawk so then we will have fans crying out in QQ hatred because 1 mech can fire 4 ER PPCs without worry.

[Gremlich Johns]

Your first mistake - starting out in a slow assault mech. Should have gone with a forgiving medium instead and learned the finer points of mech piloting. Maybe Assaults are not your mech class. I almost always pilot a medium (usually the HBK-4G(F)) and have the most fun in it - once got 800 points of damage with it. use the trial mechs in the training grounds too. that can save a lot of heartburn if you don't learn to change your weapons groups when you first drop in a "real" match.

[Angel of Annihilation]

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

A hexa PPC Stalker can dish out 60 points of damage

A very uncommon build that will shut down even a Stalker after a single shot. To put it bluntly, it is a gimic build that isn't practical or particularily effective over the course of a full battle. More commonly is the Quad PPC build which is still hot but can sorta be practical. In this case, it would likely take 3 CT hits and if you let him just shoot at your CT 3 times in a row, your doing something wrong.

Additionally, they are going to put some extreme heat penalities on Quad builds that should make them very uncommon.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

This is the point we disagree. Although your example may be correct (I haven't checked the math, but I just assume you know your numbers), heat is nowhere near the TT.

Fact is that between 0% and ~95% heat you do not have any penalties in MWO. Heat does not impair you. It doesn't lower you speed, it doesn't affect your aim, it is just a statistical value.
When overheating, the worst penalty is a shutdown, and some very minor internal damage since the last patch. That's it. In theory, you can make your ammo explode by repeatedly overheating and overriding, but it really doesn't happen often, does it?

So basically, heat matters absolutely nothing most of the time. It can shut you down when you reach maximum, and that's it. That is very far away from TT rules.

So, in conclusion, you may be right that the build up of heat is different (as are the speeds in general - the computer game is a FPS, it is faster than a TT) - the consequences of heating your mech are near zero, though. That's why I disagree with your statement.

What you say is true but the fact remains that everything in general runs hotter in MWO. Weapons pretty much retain the same heat as table top but fire 3 times faster whereas single heatsinks disapate heat at the same rate in table top but double heat sinks only disapate 1.4 heat, not 2.0 like they should. This being the case, many heat neutral builds in table top (zero heat generated) are not even close to heat neutral in MWO. In table top, these heat neutral builds such as say a Dual ER PPC build using 16 DHS wouldn't ever have to worry about the heat penalites you describe from TT.

However, I think the difference in MWO is that you have a huge heat pool that instead of forcing you into shutdown and like severe damage if you tried to fire Quad PPCs on anything less than 20 DHS, allows you to fire several bursts before even reaching shutdown threshold.

Many have suggested changing heat to TT standards and decreasing the heat pool substancially. Basically you would have a very small heat pool that cooled very quickly. Too much heat all at once like say firing 4 PPCs simultanously takes you instantly to a 30 second shutdown and probably damage where as firing only say 2 PPCs in link would be sustainable indefinately. This might work and might actually be a better simulation of TT rules.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

I agree, customizing needs to stay. Will not argue that. It should be limited, though, balancing lore and fun gameplay. It is not really hard to say "a MG slot can't hold an AC20", I believe.

I am not so sure. For example lets look at the new Battlemaster coming out. It traditionally mounts 2 MGs in the ballastic slots on the arms however the arm is obviously capable of managing the weight of a Gauss rifle if they changed the mountings so why should it be limited to MGs only? Or how about the Quickdraw which traditionally only mounts Medium Lasers as its heaviest armament. Do you restrict their energy mounts only to medium or small lasers? Basically if you limit customization like that, you can easily create a less fun enviornment really quick.

Also lets look at your example on a Catapult. Yes, they can absolutely mount a Gauss or AC/20 in the MG slot however to do so they pretty much can't mount anything else. Is that a bad thing? To me no, rather it is just a trade off that can actually lead to a less efficent mech in alot of circumstances.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

I love mixed set ups, too. I like driving a HM with Gauss, 3 MPL and a LRM20 - a build most people consider stupid. I have had many good rounds with it, averaged at a 2.1X KDR over many rounds.

Honestly don't see a darn thing wrong with your build because it is effective. It is very easy to mount a Gauss and 3 PPCs with one JJ on a Heavy Metal and have good games with that build which is why people gravitate to it. However that doesn't mean it is the only effective build or even the most effective build. In fact mounting a bigger engine, learning the use all FIVE jump jets and using a balanced build opens up tactical gameplay opportunities you couldn't even imagine existed with the afore mentioned build. Most people are just too lazy to learn to do this however and that is why we have EZ-mode builds.

[YueFei]

You're looking at this the wrong way. See Homeless Bill's solution:
http://mwomercs.com/...oats-and-clans/

This game was built on the basis of the TT rules, which has damage striking multiple armor panels, spreading out the damage. Thus boating in the TT is still balanced and not overpowered.

The problem in MWO is that when you boat a bunch of pin-point damage weapons, the *convergence* is what makes all those weapons strike the same armor panel, two or three-shotting mechs.

Remove that ability, and you fix the game. It's that simple. You can still get perfect accuracy and perfect convergence... if you fire your weaponry in smaller groupings, so that the target being struck has time and opportunity to maneuver and twist and turn, which will spread out the damage... just like in the TT game.

Forget restricting the hardpoints, that won't help at all when Mechs like the Warhawk / Masakari show up, with 4 Clan ER PPCs dishing out 60 damage pin-point alphas which you are already aware of first-hand how quickly that kills mechs. Spread out those 60 points of damage, though, and it's alot less scary.

Forget about heat penalties, too, that won't solve ballistic boats with stuff like twin AC/20, or stuff that's coming down the road like UAC/20's...

[Mylardis]

0okami, on 06 July 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

In other words, exactly how do you plan on making the individual mechs achieve a solid niche by doing so.

I do not believe I have a perfect masterplan for that. What I do believe is that their are no niches whatsoever at the moment, judging by the mechs and setups played in most matches.

If I have to try, I'll stick with the "large" and "small" hardpoints already suggested by many players. The system has drawbacks, but it still allows for many different builds, doesn't break stock builds and even manages niches like the Awesome.

It's not perfect, but I believe it to be the system with the least drawbacks - as long as it is combined with significant changes to heat (more on that in my next posting). Apart from that, one of the other readers brought in an idea which might make a amall/large hp system nearly perfect (arm mounted weapons). I will comment on that in a few minutes.

Eric darkstar Marr, on 06 July 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

OKay after trolling through record sheets I found the Banshee carried a Guass and 2x PPC

More important the Warhawk (Masakari)Prime had 4x ER PPC so be prepared since this is a 3050 clan mech.
So the question is do we get used to the PPC crap now or do we nerf clans before they launch, understand I do not encourage boating it lost its fun a long time ago.

Heat needs a bigger role overall both PPCs heat needs to be reverted when they did a fix because HSR wasn't in yet and we need to see heat punishment in some way be it hurt movement random internal crits or shutdowns whatever the fact is the argument is that mechs shouldn't boat or they need limited hardpoints.

Well if we limit hardpoints do we only want to ever see Warhawks on the battle field?
Oh and PGIs purposed boating fix with heat wouldn't work on the Warhawk so then we will have fans crying out in QQ hatred because 1 mech can fire 4 ER PPCs without worry.

If it sounded as if there were no PPC boats in the whole BT universe, then you got it wrong. I know there are some builds and mechs which resemble the current meta even in TT or books.

But: They are a minority, and I strongly believe that there is a reason for that. We should go with the majority.

To pick up your example: The Warhawk is the prime example why I suggested not making one change (HP limitation or heat) alone, but both. I agree with you that just making hardpoints small or large not touching the heat system will just lead to 90% Warhawks in all matches.

[Mylardis]

Gremlich Johns, on 06 July 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Your first mistake - starting out in a slow assault mech. Should have gone with a forgiving medium instead and learned the finer points of mech piloting. Maybe Assaults are not your mech class. I almost always pilot a medium (usually the HBK-4G(F)) and have the most fun in it - once got 800 points of damage with it. use the trial mechs in the training grounds too. that can save a lot of heartburn if you don't learn to change your weapons groups when you first drop in a "real" match.

If you are talking about me, then you misunderstood. I have played all classes and nearly all mechs. I have just seen that I do best in heavys or assaults, that's why I use them mostly.

I have had some nice rounds in mediums and lights, and enjoy them occasionally, but for most of the time I drive larger chassis.

Viktor Drake, on 06 July 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

A very uncommon build that will shut down even a Stalker after a single shot. To put it bluntly, it is a gimic build that isn't practical or particularily effective over the course of a full battle. More commonly is the Quad PPC build which is still hot but can sorta be practical. In this case, it would likely take 3 CT hits and if you let him just shoot at your CT 3 times in a row, your doing something wrong.

Additionally, they are going to put some extreme heat penalities on Quad builds that should make them very uncommon.

Taking the single Stalker in a 1vs1 you may be right. If I get near enough (which you normally don't, provided the enemy player is not absolutely incompetent), I do win some of these fights. But there were 4 of those plus 3 Highlanders in that game. And tbh, that isn't really rare, is it? And even if the player is not that good, he only needs to get lucky twice - I have to be lucky many times to close the gap and then utilize my greater mobility.

So if one of them can't core you alone, 2 or more mechs can. You can of course say "you shouldn't be seen by so many mechs at the same time", but we all know that the current meta is that way. Most people sit and wait and then start alphastriking - the whole gameplay lacks a lot of mobility due to this meta.

Quote

What you say is true but the fact remains that everything in general runs hotter in MWO. Weapons pretty much retain the same heat as table top but fire 3 times faster whereas single heatsinks disapate heat at the same rate in table top but double heat sinks only disapate 1.4 heat, not 2.0 like they should. This being the case, many heat neutral builds in table top (zero heat generated) are not even close to heat neutral in MWO. In table top, these heat neutral builds such as say a Dual ER PPC build using 16 DHS wouldn't ever have to worry about the heat penalites you describe from TT.

However, I think the difference in MWO is that you have a huge heat pool that instead of forcing you into shutdown and like severe damage if you tried to fire Quad PPCs on anything less than 20 DHS, allows you to fire several bursts before even reaching shutdown threshold.

Many have suggested changing heat to TT standards and decreasing the heat pool substancially. Basically you would have a very small heat pool that cooled very quickly. Too much heat all at once like say firing 4 PPCs simultanously takes you instantly to a 30 second shutdown and probably damage where as firing only say 2 PPCs in link would be sustainable indefinately. This might work and might actually be a better simulation of TT rules.

You are right, it might work. From a game design point of view it is ok to have a larger heat pool, I believe, though - from a BT/Mechwarrior point of view though filling this pool should have consequences. E. g. slowing and becoming more cumbersome, affecting aim or many other things - it just shouldn't boil down to shoot 15 weapons in 4 seconds and still carry on, in my opinion.

Quote

I am not so sure. For example lets look at the new Battlemaster coming out. It traditionally mounts 2 MGs in the ballastic slots on the arms however the arm is obviously capable of managing the weight of a Gauss rifle if they changed the mountings so why should it be limited to MGs only? Or how about the Quickdraw which traditionally only mounts Medium Lasers as its heaviest armament. Do you restrict their energy mounts only to medium or small lasers? Basically if you limit customization like that, you can easily create a less fun enviornment really quick.

Also lets look at your example on a Catapult. Yes, they can absolutely mount a Gauss or AC/20 in the MG slot however to do so they pretty much can't mount anything else. Is that a bad thing? To me no, rather it is just a trade off that can actually lead to a less efficent mech in alot of circumstances.

Your input might even work with my idea. I agree it sounds ridiculous that a beast like the Battlemaster should not be permitted to carry anything larger than a MG in his arms.

Combining that with my idea, one could say that a merge of

- small and large hardpoints (and weapons) in general, and
- arm hardpoints are always large per definition
- much greater heat penalties

might work - that way it's realistic, doesn't break stock, encourages a variety of builds and prevents mass boating.

Just to finish this of: Taking the Battlemaster, he has 3 HP in each side torso, designed to mount a ML each. A PPC must be a lot larger than a ML, so their is much validity in saying you can't exchange all of those ML for PPC.

But, a Battlemaster's arm is most definitly strong enough to carry each weapon - so provided it only has 1 balistic HP in the arm, I wouldn't mind that one to be large so you can exchange the MG for an AC or Gauss.


Does that sound more balanced?

Edited by DasAmok, 07 July 2013 - 03:09 AM.

[Max Liao]

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

Just to get it straight, I am a tabletop player, I have played all BT computer games (yes, I really am that old!) and I have read all novels. But no, I do not believe that a mech sim should be a TT clone.

What I do strongly believe, as someone working in the software industry, is that games should be one thing: fun!

If the BattleTech universe isn't fun for you maybe you shouldn't play a game that's supposed to be set in the BattleTech universe.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

2) What I would not change

Most people start off by saying what part of the things I listed above they want to change, and how. I want to try a different approach by saying what I would not change:

Convergence is something many players complain about. Compared to novels and tabletop it is wrong, as computers or your dice decide if and where you hit your enemy.

But: MWO, or any mech sim, is neither a TT nor a novel. It is a computer game, a pvp game at that. There has to be a measure of human factor in the game to make players actually want to play it. The easiest way to achieve this is by creating a (partly) skill driven competition. I strongly believe that trying to solve the problem by introducing methods employed by first person shooters (adaptable crosshair) or anything like that will break the game, it will take away the fun, the goal to become better.

Convergence is 'partly' skill based, but it adds in a randomized factor to represent the difficulty of hitting at longer range.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

And, to be quite honest, we are talking about 31st century technology - the computers should be more advanced than today, shouldn't they? I know that in the novels the authors used the workaround of bad computers or too much processing load to keep a Kai Allard-Liao from headshotting every opponent. That's fair enough - but this is a game, not a book.

It needs aim to matter or it will become boring, so not fun - something no game should because nobody will play it.

This is a game based on an established universe, if an elite MechWarrior of the 3st century cannot have pinpoint accuracy then neither should we. A simulation is meant to simulate what it means to be a MechWarrior in THAT universe, not in ours.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

Customization is another thing some people complain about. Yes, considering TT rules and the novels, IS mechs should not be customizable (only in very narrow margins).

But: Come on, don't kid yourself, you know it to be true - it is fun trying new builds, optimizing builds or just hanging around in mechlab fiddeling with some new paint. Nobody wants to give that up.

I do.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

I don't, you don't.

Yes I do.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

And of all BT history and lore methods imaginable, hardpoints seem a sound solution to the problem of achieving balance while not ignoring lore (and still giving clans an enormous adavantage in the game - they simply shouldn't have hardpoints and should be able to mount anything anywhere, space and tonnage provided).

Long story short, if you insist on TT and novel rules in a computer game, it will fail.

The they need to implement a system that doesn't let you replace a machine gun with an AC/20. Also, changing out similar weapons is one thing, but replacing an engine, internal structure, etc. should be out.

Anyone ... ANYONE ... can create a 'Mech better than stock/TRO 'Mechs. There's really no challenge in designing a better 'Mech *yawn*. The challenge is in playing the 'Mech assigned to you (or the Medium Mech that you choose) and playing that to the best if its and your ability.

Let people customize for Solaris matches. Whatever, have fun with that. For CW customs should be severely limited.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

3) What needs to be changed

{...snip...}

I generally agree with all of your #3.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

4) Conclusion / TL;DR

At the moment, MWO is pretty far away from TT or novel lore. It doesn't need to be 100% canon and it shouldn't, since computer games are not TT. Plus, computer games have different technical and logical rules to follow.

Yes it should. canon is more than tabletop rules, it includes fluff and feel from the novels. Sure, using RNG to figure out hit rolls does not translate in any measure to a semi-skill based video game, but conical fire is the video game version of a to-hit modifier for ranger and movement.

DasAmok, on 05 July 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

But: All games should be fun - I, like many others, want a new, fun Mechwarrior game. The solution is not one change, but a few: Heat, hardpoint restriction and matchmaking need adjustment.

Convergence and customization, though not canon, are good for the game and should stay that way.

They may be good for Random Robot Shooter Online, but they should not be part of a MechWarrior/BattleTech game. Either stay true to the IP or create your own IP, don't steal the IPs name then make your own IP anyway.

[Lyoncet]

I've also seen recommendations along the lines of letting "large" weapons go into "small" hardpoints, but at a 2 hardpoints: one weapon ratio. That let's the Battlemaster and Thunderbolt both carry an AC or Gauss in the left arm, which seems totally reasonable. Although I don't know if I like that idea on the whole that much since it's still more open to mega-cheese and head-scratching builds. TBH I think I like the "...and one of whatever on the arm" stipulation since it works well, makes sense, and just feels right.

As for YueFei's point, I do like the idea of lessening accuracy on larger alphas. And it's well within both the bounds of TT and shooter tradition. Incentivising staggered fire and disincentivizing 60-point pinpoint alpha (while still letting you do it if you want, but at a penalty) seems totally reasonable on just about every front.

Plus I like the idea of getting a little homage to TT targeting in there without actually removing aim as a vital component of the game.

[Hot Kid]

I see two big mistakes in this thread:

1. This ain't Battletech!
2. They already got your money dude!

1.
We can call this game "15 minute-brawl with some sort of battlemech-like robots.". It is a FPS, made for the mass-market. So many of the elements, which made Battletech a great tabletop are simply not in the game: Relevance of Terrain, Infantry, Close-Combat, Other vehicles, political background, economical-backgrounds etc.

If we combine that with the absolut stupid amount of customization you can use it simply isn't a serious game. It is a fun little shooter, not more.

2.
PGI don't care. They don't care for lore, background or depth of the game. They care for money! It is a simple as that. So why should they change anything if enough people are willing to pay for a half-made game a lot of money?

You could solve this whole thing pretty easy:

- If you got shoot down in battle and your team loses: You lose your mech.
- If you lose your mech, you can get/buys one by your Faction or your company.
- The new mech would be based on your overall performance in all games and be mostly lights and mediums.
- Heavys and assaults should be rare for the factions.
- You can make small, but pretty costly customs to your mechs (Doubleheatsinks, color etc.) but most of the mechs should be stock.
- You should get some stocks depending on your faction (i.e. Catapult K2 nearly only for House Kurita)
- If you shoot down a mech and your team wins the game, your faction may be able to salvage the mech (depending of the kind of destruction) and you can buy it for a discount.

etc.

The list goes on and on, but i think the idea is clear.

But like i said: PGI already got your money dude.

[Tangelis]

Dracol, on 06 July 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

In regards to the comments about R&R. Although it helped balance by making meds a more economical choice it promoted some really negative behaviors.

Such as:
-people dropping into matches with scripts to move their mechs every so often, but not actually particapating
-complete dismemberment of opponents so their repair was extremely high
-last mechs alive running and hiding so as not to get a higher repair build
-light mech squads doing base cap runs to gain bills as fast as possible

It was these conquences IMHO that led to r&r being removed and for the devs to comment that they will not return to the concept.

It is true that R&R brought some negative behavior and I totally agree with you on those 4 points, but was it any different than ECM abuse awhile back? Alpha strikes today? I didn't see PPC's, LRM's or auto cannons anywhere near being removed from the game because they had balance issues or borked mechanics and everyone and their uncle complaining about them. R&R was no where near perfect and I even agree that in the state it was it needed to go back to the drawing board. However, the principal concept of R&R has its merits because it brought consequences to running each and every single mech boat or min/max load out we see half the known universe complaining about thread after thread while not prohibiting them. A powerful build should indeed be expensive to field, especially when destroyed. But when there is no expense and no cause for concern what so ever it's no surprise the game is dominated by what has been labeled as "cheese builds". I hated what R&R brought to MW:O for those exact same 4 reasons you state above. It was terrible to be honest, but the concept was a good one.

[Urdnot Mau]

I wish PGI was as mature as you, DasAmok. This game feels like a generic FPS as new patches are introduced. It has everything the be the best mech sim, but i think PGI is does not know how to take advantage on that. Anyway, i also think that the way to force a change is to make people come here to the topics and complain about the current meta (or express their feelings of dislikeness) or just point out their imparcial impressions of the game, much like you did.

[3Xtr3m3]

Best Of Both Worlds Suggestion

Community Warfare.
Mercs Vs Mercs is Unlimited Customization.

House Vs House is Weapons locked on Houses Variants. Everything else from engine to ammo to heat sinks customizeable.


Question is Are Clans Houses or Merc units? Meh. Maybe both.

Your Thoughts?

[3Xtr3m3]

Lot of good thoughts in this thread. Keep it going

[Hohlfrucht]

@ DasAmok

At first i wanted to write a long answer to your post, because you make some valid points here. Then i saw you ingame (not 15 minutes ago) in your HGN-732 with 3 PPCs and a Gauss Rifle, along with the other 7 dudes in the exact same mech, with the exact same loadout and just thought "oah, what the heck, he is just full of **** anyway....".