73 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

If you're in the game industry, maybe you have a better feeling for this than I do, but what do you think would happen if the game had no group-fire, and you had to fire each weapon separately.

Many MMOs use global cooldowns so that you can't trigger too many powers at once to overwhelm your enemy. MW:O seems to have the same problem, and it has side effects, too:
In MW:O, you can equip multiple copies of the same "power" (=weapon). Most MMOs don't allow this (Startrek Online is one of the few that does allow it, but only to a limited extend, and they also use special cooldown mechanics to keep this in check). But M:WO does allow it.
The result is that it's really the easist to just stack on one single weapon, rather than mix weapons:
1) Cooldown is the same
2) Range is the same
3) Lead time required (if any) are the same
4) Time to hold weapon on target (if any) are the same.

With forced chain-fire, attributes like time to hold on target or lead time required becomes less of an issue when mixing weapons. If you need to aim separately for a weapon, adjusting for a different lead time then the previosu weapon is not that hard (it still is a bit harder then having all the same, but group fire wasn't an option for you before, but it was one for the one with the boat.).
Next thing you can try is standardizing recycle rates. Not every weapon needs to have the same recycle rate, but they should be compatible to each other, for example a longer recycle time is always a multiple of the next-shorter recycle time, so you can have a firing rotation like Weapon A Weapon A Weapon B Weapon A Weapon A Weapon B.

Forcing chain fire could be done with a global cooldown.
If we actually must leave alpha strike as an "instantly firing all weapons" feature, we could keep it a special button as now, only allow it to be activated every 10 seconds or so and disable chain-fire.
The global cooldown could be weapon specific (one could argue that lasers don't need one at all, but Gauss, PPC and AC/20 definitely need one.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 July 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[RogueJello]

Read through the topic, lots of interesting points made. I personally have been playing the game since the 2nd box came out, with the Warhammer on the front, and played all the computer games.

Personally for me the fun has always been building my own mechs. Frankly most of the mechs in the technical read-outs are poorly done, and suffer from a variety of issues. In some cases the mech's load-out is a result of the mech's artwork, which was taken from another source. In other cases it seems that the mech was a joke to begin with, such as the Charger.

I think that serious restrictions on how a mech can be built, or direct adherence to only TT builds rewards the hardcore players who know all the mechs from the TT, but provides an additional roadblock to new players. Even if they were to allow for completely unmodifiable mechs, you'd still see people piloting only those TT mechs which were the most efficient, making for any even less interesting game than what customization allows for.

Rather, I think that the solution needs to lay in a better balancing of the actual weapon systems themselves such that there are real trade offs between taking a PPC, AC/20, MG, or LRM. Having played this game from the closed beta it's clear that simple tweaks to these weapons are often enough to change which weapons are viewed as the "Best" weapon to take, to the exclusion of all others. Right now people seem to have focused on the PPC, before that it was LRMs, before that medium lasers, etc.

Personally I suspect that the devs have come to the same conclusions, and are slowly moving towards a more balance solution, as each patch features slight tweaks to the various systems. Balance is hard, so I'm not expecting an over night solution, but rather something worked out over several months, or even a year or so.

[Mylardis]

Hohlfrucht, on 08 July 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

@ 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....".

I'm sorry, you must be mistaking. I do not own a Highlander 732, and I do not play such builds. I think I remember that game, I was playing with my wife (Faye Durrick) and we both laughed at your name, so it was either a Dragon Slayer, a Yen or a Quickdraw - H you saw me in, since those are the mechs I'm currently playing while waiting for the Victors.

EDIT: If I remember correctly, that was Canyon, and my team was full of Highlanders, you're right. I was the Quickdraw, though.

I'm looking forward to your long answer now.

Edited by DasAmok, 08 July 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[KalebFenoir]

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

Ok, so before anyone asks, yes, this is my first post. I have been reading for many months, but have refrained from opening any topics. The urge to do so has become greater during the last few weeks, and reached a boiling point yesterday.

What happened? Well, I took my Dragon Slayer for a ride, did 22 damage and got hit twice (and died). Yes, I can see your urge to say "l2p, noob". That's exactly what the opponents (5 Stalkers, 2 Highlanders and 1 Atlas) said.
I believe I'm not more than a medicore player, and I refuse to say I don't need to learn. But I'm not completely stupid. If ELO is actually functioning the way it is intended, then those "pros" where matched with me because my score contributed to a somewhat "equal" match.

After that (repeated) experience I started thinking about this game. 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!

So this is basically a thread which aims to give my opinion on the game and steal the best ideas of many others on these forums (kudos to you all) for making it the game we all want to play.

Dear reader, you have arrived here and are thinking "oh what the heck, this is too much text"? Then stop reading, there will be more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Getting started: The facts in MWO

I'm not going to stretch this out, it has all been said many times, so let's make it short:

• There are many heavy and assault mechs in every match
  
• There are many PPC's, Gauss, and to a lesser extent, AC20 in every match
  
• Of all mechs, Highlanders and Stalkers seem to dominate
  
• You can fit any weapon in any hardpoint, as long as you have enough spare slots and tonnage
  
• As boating is not restricted, weapons are boated - it is easy and efficient
  
• Heat is not a serious problem
  
• Alpha damage is preferable to continued DPS, as long as you are a "competitive player" (no, I resist the urge to start ranting - judging by the grammar of many of these "competitive players", they are no older than 15)
  
• Your aim decides where you hit (ping, hit detection and other problems left aside for the sake of discussion)

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.

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.

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 don't, you don't. 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.

3) What needs to be changed

Like many others, I believe some things can not stay the way they are if this game is to suceed.

Of all things, mech type balance needs to be adjusted. If you check the books, the TRO's, the TT rules, all of them agree on one fact: medium mechs are the workhorse of all forces. Lights should be common too. Heavys or assaults should be rare, very rare. Take the Awesome as an example. In the German version of BT, the mech is called "Todesbote", which translates to "Harbinger of Death" - when you read one the few novels actually containing a fight with one of those beasts, the author takes that name very literally. The other warriors fear that mech, because of 3(!) PPC's and 80t assault class - both are incredibly rare. It should be that way in a BT based computer game, too. Matches should contain mediums mostly because it is no way imaginable in the BT universe having 4 lances of assault only mechs fighting all over the universe at all times. It also eliminates scouting as a role, as many others have already mentioned. More important though, it is boring seeing the same matches with the same mechs and the same loadouts all the time - boring is not fun. Bad for a game.

I don't have a conclusive and working solution to this problem. Many have suggested R&R - I liked that idea at some point but I think PGI was right to take it out of the game so it can attract more players and not build enormous roadblocks for newbies. Another possible solution is weight balancing, but that would not change anything since 4 Stalkers would be matched to.... 4 other Stalkers. I could imagine forcing groups to consist of 3-4 Mediums, 1-2 lights, 1-2 heavys and 1-2 assaults. It would make more players choose other weight classes. I don't really like the idea of forcing too much in a game, since it's always prone to reduce the fun in the game but I don't have a better solution - do you guys?

PPC's (and to a lesser extent, Gauss and AC20) are the other thing which needs changing. I don't know how Michael Stackpole or any other author in the BT universe would react if you told them. But honestly, medium mechs sporting 2 PPC's as standard, even Spiders running around with PCC's? That is plain and simple stupid.

Try to think back - PPC's are actually a quite rare weapon. A few mechs have 1, usually as "the big gun", e. g. the Battlemaster. Two famous mechs wield two of these frightful cannons (Marauder and Warhammer). And just one mech in this timeline sports a whopping 3 PPC's: The Awesome. The same applies to Gauss and AC20. All three of these weapons are fairly uncommon and are not boated on a regular basis.

So we can conclude, MWO is not Battletech when it comes to weapon balance and distribution. I myself prefer more "lore-like" builds, balanced around one major weapon backed up by secondary weapons. But that's just me - fact is, most players do quite painfully obviously not prefer such builds.

There have been many solutions offered by many players, starting from adjusting other weapons to make them more interesting (SRM) than PPC/Gauss/AC20, or ending with limiting the game to stock only (in general, or as a game mode).

Again, no solution is perfect. I strongly believe that just tweaking some values will not change anything. If the heat of PPC's (or when firing more than X at the same time) is raised, players will drop one of their PPC's for some extra heat sinks and continue to play. It really doesn't matter whether it's a 50 or 60 damage alpha - you are dead after two, one way or the other (at least in an assault class mech, you're still dead in a light or a medium after 1 alpha).

Tweaking other weapons is desirable anyway due to a number of other reasons, but it will not solve the problem. Even if some players persistingly claim otherwise, as long as your opponent is not absolutely incompetent, you will not get near enough to use those buffed SRM before he has alpha'ed you twice. It has been mentioned in other threads - you should balance around the best players, not the worst. And if you do, that's the conclusion - better SRM will not render PPC/Gauss/AC20 invalid.

Two solutions seem to have the least bad side effects: hardpoint limitation (small, medium and large weapons; or any other way preventing sticking six of the most rare weapons on one of the most rare mechs in the whole BT universe) and greatly increasing heat penalties. I strongly advise on not choosing one of these, but both. It doesn't break stock build rules (and makes the Awesome desirable again, despite it's profile as major drawback) and actually adds more thinking, tweaking and trying out to the game. Just think back - applied to the current MWO scale, your mech should already lose top speed at something like 20% heat when considering TT rules - it doesn't need to be that tough a penalty, but heat should matter significantly.
That, in turn, raises the level of simulation and therefore encourages players to adapt, become better and think more - it makes the game more entertaining, more fun. As long as convergence stays untouched, as stated above. Boats are still there, but limited to a few chassis with drawbacks, encouraging balanced lances, builds and tactics involving using what you have (not sitting on a ridge sniping for 5 minutes). And it still leaves enough customization options to make mechlab fun.

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.

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.

I actually agree with everything you've posted. The only thing that I would change to allow for is MINOR customization. I run a CN9- AL, and while I feel it's against the spirit of the mech to load a PPC into the arm (as so many who run the mech would want to), I don't mind merely upgrading the lasers to ER or Pulse. I think of them as merely software changes within the mech, and a small bit of hardware. A good way to keep people from mounting the stranger weapons in their mechs. Missiles would be limited by the number of doors on the launcher, etc, weight permitting.

I still think though that Gauss shots, ACs and PPCs should have some kind of 'drift' when you fire them. Not enough that they'll be far off target, but just enough that when you THINK you're going to ping a cockpit, you're not. Because if you read BT lore and play the tabletop, it's ungodly hard to aim one of those things at a head. But yet, Play 5 minutes of MWO, and you'll see pinpoint headshots from max range. Something is WRONG there. Those weapons are meant to be heavy hitting, but awkward to aim by their sheer size and sometimes spread (AC/20 I'm looking at you.) You're not supposed to get a headshot unless by fluke, you actually managed to ping them. Not EVERY single time you fire.

Edited by KalebFenoir, 09 July 2013 - 03:33 AM.

[Hohlfrucht]

DasAmok, on 08 July 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

I'm sorry, you must be mistaking. I do not own a Highlander 732, and I do not play such builds. I think I remember that game, I was playing with my wife (Faye Durrick) and we both laughed at your name, so it was either a Dragon Slayer, a Yen or a Quickdraw - H you saw me in, since those are the mechs I'm currently playing while waiting for the Victors.

EDIT: If I remember correctly, that was Canyon, and my team was full of Highlanders, you're right. I was the Quickdraw, though.

I'm looking forward to your long answer now.

I was pretty sure i read your name next to HGN-732. But i got no problem with admitting that i am wrong. There were 8 HGN-732 in that game (Yes, it was Canyon) and i was switching through spectator mode a lot, because i couldn't believe they all had the same build (which spreads like cancer now).

Glad my name made you laugh. Made me laugh aswell when i heard it for the first time, which is why i took it for online gaming.
Guess i have to make good on that promise now (d'oh):

I have never read any of the Battletech novels, nor did i ever play the tabletop game. I did however play several Mechwarrior videogames, such as Mechwarrior 3, Mechwarrior 4 and even Mechwarrior 3050 (SNES). Despite enjoying the single player campaigns very much, i never became invested in the battletech universe so i don't know much about the lore. The little i know, i've read on wikipedia. I do have a lot of experience with multiplayer gaming and i am studying computer science, so i do know a thing or two about software development.

You have made a lot of valid points. The observations you listed as "The facts in MWO" are undisputed and i have made the same oberservations.

I agree that Convergence is not the issue some peoples on the forums make it out to be. I have to be in control of aiming (more or less) directly, even if it makes the game feel like a generic First Person Shooter at times. Skill has to be one of the biggest factors in a multiplayer game, or it becomes either boring or frustrating to play.

I agree that Customization needs to be a part of this game. Experimenting with different builds is a big part of the fun i am having with this game, just like i did in Eve Online. More restrictions in this area would probably result in even less variety.
I don't agree with your thoughts on mech type balance. As i have already stated, i have never read any of the novels or played the tabletop game. Therefor i don't care if a medium mech is supposed to be the most common mech type. It does not affect my immersion factor or whatever if i see 5 Assault Mechs and 2 Heavy Mechs close to my Cockpit. I don't think "Wow, how would any house afford 7 Stalkers at once?". I just don't care. I love playing heavier mechs and i want to continue playing heavy mechs, since that is what i always liked most about Mechwarrior: heavily armed, slow paced, deadly warmachines on two (or more) feet.

It is sad that medium mechs are so rare, but i don't think restrictions are the way to go here. The reason you don't see that many medium mechs is simple: they die too fast. The current Alpha Warrior Meta just obliterates medium mechs. I used to play a Hunchback when i first started with MWO, but its just no fun to walk around a corner and face instant death from a 4+ PPC salvo. That doesn't even give you time to react and battles between big, heavily armed, slow moving robots should not be over so soon. On another note, i have heard PGI wants to invent a mode where you can choose your mech after you dropped. If you force groups to consist of a finite number of Assault and Heavy mechs, there will most definatly be a lot of flaming and crying before the match even started: "But i want to play my Atlas now, i had to play light mech for the last 3 matches!!!111" - "Too bad, i already locked in my Stalker, suck it!" - Player disconnected.

Weapon balance is the way to go, i think. They have to find a way to break the Alpha Warrior Meta, without destroying too many other builds along the way. Some suggestions of rising overall heat generation that i have read on the forums, would also affect players who did not join the Meta so far. And i think that would be wrong. I would change the way PPCs work:

• 0 - 200m no damage at all
  
• 200 - 500m they do 5 Damage
  
• 500 - 800m they do 10 Damage
  
• 800m+ they do 2 Damage

Or something along those lines. I just thought of some numbers and didn't do the math on them, but i think the general idea should be clear. I know thats probably not lore anymore, but i don't think that should matter. This game is not only meant for die hard Battletech fans and has to make some adjustments if it wants to appeal to peoples outside of that small group.

Hardpoint limitations might be a way to deal with the current meta, but i fear that cutting down on customization is not the way to go here. I would try a less restrictive approach first and save that idea as a last resort.

[itsapainfulworld]

I feel that boating in some areas should be reduced, as well as the spaming of high level weapons on light and medium mech. However, I think tactics should be touched upon, along with the downsides and counters for said tactics. For example:

LRM Boats: LRM boating in general can be a type of alphameching (that's a term, right?), but the Catapult, and possibly the Awesome, are designed for it in at least one variant. I haven't purchased any Assaults, but with my (limited) experience with the Catapult, I've found LRM boats are only as successful as their teamwork. Heat is an issue when providing near constant covering fire (as long as ammo holds), thus you are highly reliant on your choice of position, and on your team to keep the enemy away and provide locks. If an enemy mech gets past or your team gets overrun, your likely a gonner. If your team has too much trouble providing locks, you're likely to be useless, unless you manage to pack in tagret assisting equipment or backup weapons. On top of it all you're likely to have skimped on armor to manage weight.

Light mechs and Heavy weapons: In most regards, I agree; THIS IS REDICULOUS!!! The only exception I can think of is the Raven 4X sporting a Gauss Rifle, or a SINGLE PPC. And in this case, the only tactical purpose is the midget sniper. If this is you, you should always stay behind cover when sniping, but also stay on the move. Never take more that one or two shots from one location, and make them count. If you use PPC or ERPPC, heat is an issue. You can take all the shots per game you want, but not too often. If you use Gauss Rifle (AC20 & AC10 are too short range to fire form safety) heat is negligible, but ammo is scarce (10 rounds per ton, on top of the Gaus Rifle's weight and size). In other words, If you decide on sniping with a light, you must focus effort on actually being a sniper, as if it were IRL sniping.

Feel free to expand upon or critic this.

Edited by itsapainfulworld, 08 July 2013 - 08:12 PM.

[Mylardis]

Hohlfrucht, on 08 July 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

I was pretty sure i read your name next to HGN-732. But i got no problem with admitting that i am wrong. There were 8 HGN-732 in that game (Yes, it was Canyon) and i was switching through spectator mode a lot, because i couldn't believe they all had the same build (which spreads like cancer now).

As you seem to mean your "8 Highlanders" literally, I assume you're mixing up the games. We did have a game on Canyon yesterday, and it did contain many Highlanders. Not 8, though.

Doesn't matter. Judging by your name you're from a German speaking country - if you're anywhere near me, pop in, grab a beer and take a look at my mechlab. You'll find some cool stuff, just not a 732. Actually, you will only find one mech combining PPC and Gauss (only 1 PPC though), and that's my Dragon Slayer. Haven't found a much better layout than sticking close to stock, yet.

Quote

I agree that Customization needs to be a part of this game. Experimenting with different builds is a big part of the fun i am having with this game, just like i did in Eve Online. More restrictions in this area would probably result in even less variety.
I don't agree with your thoughts on mech type balance. As i have already stated, i have never read any of the novels or played the tabletop game. Therefor i don't care if a medium mech is supposed to be the most common mech type. It does not affect my immersion factor or whatever if i see 5 Assault Mechs and 2 Heavy Mechs close to my Cockpit. I don't think "Wow, how would any house afford 7 Stalkers at once?". I just don't care. I love playing heavier mechs and i want to continue playing heavy mechs, since that is what i always liked most about Mechwarrior: heavily armed, slow paced, deadly warmachines on two (or more) feet.

I prefer heavier chassis, too, so if drops are restricted, I'm going to be afflicted. As you are not a hardcore BT nerd, you make a valid point by saying "I don't really mind if it's wrong compared to lore".

I just took lore as base for my conclusion. I would prefer restricted drops not only because of lore, but because of the much more diverse tactics that can be applied to a match if there are not only assaults involved.

Lore is just a justification for making this game design change which I still believe is needed. I also agree with your next statement that restricting anything is always a critical decision. I just can't think of any better way of forcing the issue.

Exept perhaps for the idea someone else posted here (pilot trees encouraging role warfare). That might work, as long as the other issues (boating, heat, etc.) have been fixed. Might be the only way making people play other mechs without forcing them.

Quote

Weapon balance is the way to go, i think. They have to find a way to break the Alpha Warrior Meta, without destroying too many other builds along the way. Some suggestions of rising overall heat generation that i have read on the forums, would also affect players who did not join the Meta so far. And i think that would be wrong. I would change the way PPCs work:

• 0 - 200m no damage at all
  
• 200 - 500m they do 5 Damage
  
• 500 - 800m they do 10 Damage
  
• 800m+ they do 2 Damage

Or something along those lines. I just thought of some numbers and didn't do the math on them, but i think the general idea should be clear. I know thats probably not lore anymore, but i don't think that should matter. This game is not only meant for die hard Battletech fans and has to make some adjustments if it wants to appeal to peoples outside of that small group.

Hardpoint limitations might be a way to deal with the current meta, but i fear that cutting down on customization is not the way to go here. I would try a less restrictive approach first and save that idea as a last resort.

Although your idea isn't bad, I think it's really tough to implement. Just imagine - you have two or more clients and a server who most probably disagree on a few things, range for example. So you need to code some sort of comparism and then let the server decide on the "real range" used for finding the correct damage value. Then that is applied to a certain section of the hit mech.

I think that might create a lot more problems then it solves. If the netcode isn't good enough to hit reliably when playing from Germany or Australia, as it is now, I don't think it could handle the extra load created by your proposel.

On the question of hardpoints, my answer to a post some time earlier still stands:

Why do you believe hardpoint restriction would cut down on customization when the game right now shows that unlimited hardpoints actually prevent diverse builds?

[Hohlfrucht]

DasAmok, on 09 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

As you seem to mean your "8 Highlanders" literally, I assume you're mixing up the games. We did have a game on Canyon yesterday, and it did contain many Highlanders. Not 8, though.

There were 8 HIghlanders in that game. I didn't mean they were on the same team. Each team had 4 of them, but not on the same lance, so i don't suspect they were dropping together. What kind of shocked me, was that they all had the exact same build from what i could see: 3 PPC, 1 Gauss Rifle, 1 AMS. We were both on the same team btw.

DasAmok, on 09 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

Doesn't matter. Judging by your name you're from a German speaking country - if you're anywhere near me, pop in, grab a beer and take a look at my mechlab. You'll find some cool stuff, just not a 732. Actually, you will only find one mech combining PPC and Gauss (only 1 PPC though), and that's my Dragon Slayer. Haven't found a much better layout than sticking close to stock, yet.

Depends on the beer *g*
But i believe you. I guess i had you mixed up with one of the other players, because i was switching views a lot.

DasAmok, on 09 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

I prefer heavier chassis, too, so if drops are restricted, I'm going to be afflicted. As you are not a hardcore BT nerd, you make a valid point by saying "I don't really mind if it's wrong compared to lore".

I just took lore as base for my conclusion. I would prefer restricted drops not only because of lore, but because of the much more diverse tactics that can be applied to a match if there are not only assaults involved.

Lore is just a justification for making this game design change which I still believe is needed. I also agree with your next statement that restricting anything is always a critical decision. I just can't think of any better way of forcing the issue.

I would love to see more diverse tactics ingame, apart from the ridge sniping that has become too common these days. I still don't think resctrictions would get people to play medium or light mechs. Those mechs have to be useful and fill a role before people will start picking them up. Which brings us right back to the problem of the current sniper meta.
If MWO had a mech type restriction from the get go, things might be different right now, i agree. But if you start implementing one now, players might get pissed. I for example don't even own a single medium mech and i don't plan on owning one right now.

DasAmok, on 09 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

Although your idea isn't bad, I think it's really tough to implement. Just imagine - you have two or more clients and a server who most probably disagree on a few things, range for example. So you need to code some sort of comparism and then let the server decide on the "real range" used for finding the correct damage value. Then that is applied to a certain section of the hit mech.

I think that might create a lot more problems then it solves. If the netcode isn't good enough to hit reliably when playing from Germany or Australia, as it is now, I don't think it could handle the extra load created by your proposel.

I must admit, I hadn't thought of that. Interpolation is already a problem as it is and my idea might even further complicate that.
On the other hand, we already have range limited weapons. LRMs don't damage mechs under 180m and explode after 1000m of flight, PPCs dont damage anything beyond 1080m etc.
Maybe my idea is somewhat salvageable if, instead of having 4 range categories, there were only 2: <200m and >800m.

DasAmok, on 09 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

On the question of hardpoints, my answer to a post some time earlier still stands:

Why do you believe hardpoint restriction would cut down on customization when the game right now shows that unlimited hardpoints actually prevent diverse builds?

Unlimited hardpoints do not prevent diverse builds. Unbalanced weaponary prevents diverse builds.
As long as there is one weapon that is clearly superior to the rest of them, there will never be any diversity in builds.
By restricting hardpoints you would surely change the current loadouts of certain mechs, but there will always be fotm builds as long as some weapons are more useful than others. You would just create different builds, but not more diverse ones.

[Mylardis]

Hohlfrucht, on 09 July 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

Depends on the beer *g*

Oh no, it doesn't. Men rule number 6, I believe: If you visit another guy, you have no right whatsoever to complain about the type of free beer for you in his fridge. You may complain about the temperature.

Quote

I would love to see more diverse tactics ingame, apart from the ridge sniping that has become too common these days. I still don't think resctrictions would get people to play medium or light mechs. Those mechs have to be useful and fill a role before people will start picking them up. Which brings us right back to the problem of the current sniper meta.
If MWO had a mech type restriction from the get go, things might be different right now, i agree. But if you start implementing one now, players might get pissed. I for example don't even own a single medium mech and i don't plan on owning one right now.

Role warfare with meaningful but not overpowered pilot trees might achieve it, but it would be a bit** to balance that out. I admit, I have no perfect solution, just the problem stands: We need matches containing all mech types.

Quote

I must admit, I hadn't thought of that. Interpolation is already a problem as it is and my idea might even further complicate that.
On the other hand, we already have range limited weapons. LRMs don't damage mechs under 180m and explode after 1000m of flight, PPCs dont damage anything beyond 1080m etc.
Maybe my idea is somewhat salvageable if, instead of having 4 range categories, there were only 2: <200m and >800m.

Sounds ok - I would nerf the damage under 200m down to near 0, though - if we accept that there is a sniper weapon, it should only be viable as such. And shouldn't be able to be boated and fired every 3 seconds, too.

Quote

Unlimited hardpoints do not prevent diverse builds. Unbalanced weaponary prevents diverse builds.
As long as there is one weapon that is clearly superior to the rest of them, there will never be any diversity in builds.
By restricting hardpoints you would surely change the current loadouts of certain mechs, but there will always be fotm builds as long as some weapons are more useful than others. You would just create different builds, but not more diverse ones.

There is some truth in that. Keeping that in mind, limiting hardpoints would have another positive effect: certain chassis which are considered "weak" could very easily be made desirable again.

That's why I still believe limiting hardpoints to be the solution with the least negative impact, notwithstanding that of course quite a few weapons need adjustments on their own, no matter if or how hardpoints are changed.

Edited by DasAmok, 09 July 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Hohlfrucht]

DasAmok, on 09 July 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

Oh no, it doesn't. Men rule number 6, I believe: If you visit another guy, you have no right whatsoever to complain about the type of free beer for you in his fridge. You may complain about the temperature.

Good rule, i like it

DasAmok, on 09 July 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

There is some truth in that. Keeping that in mind, limiting hardpoints would have another positive effect: certain chassis which are considered "weak" could very easily be made desirable again.

That's why I still believe limiting hardpoints to be the solution with the least negative impact, notwithstanding that of course quite a few weapons need adjustments on their own, no matter if or how hardpoints are changed.

It is definitely a way to get rid of the current 4x PPC Stalker / 3x PPC + 1 Gauss Highlander Meta. But i guess you would just change what mechs are played the most and not how the game is played. People will always find a way to min/max their builds. Which is part of the fun i guess. But it also means, that you have to address the problem on a different level. Boating is not the problem, finding some kind of weapon balance is. My choice of weapon should come down to my choice of playstyle. Right now it comes down to choosing between useful weapons and non-useful weapons. Hardpoint Restrictions wouldn't change that.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Hohlfrucht, on 09 July 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

Good rule, i like it




It is definitely a way to get rid of the current 4x PPC Stalker / 3x PPC + 1 Gauss Highlander Meta. But i guess you would just change what mechs are played the most and not how the game is played. People will always find a way to min/max their builds. Which is part of the fun i guess. But it also means, that you have to address the problem on a different level. Boating is not the problem, finding some kind of weapon balance is. My choice of weapon should come down to my choice of playstyle. Right now it comes down to choosing between useful weapons and non-useful weapons. Hardpoint Restrictions wouldn't change that.

See I agree that people will always find a min/max so if it is not boating or PPCs it will be LRMs or AC/2s that people will whine about.

However, I see boating in conjunction with being able to fire all the boated weapons at once as the major issue to be honest, not that you can mount 4 PPCs. For example even in TT firing 4 PPCs at once on most builds would instantly shut down the mech and actually spike the heat high enough to prehaps even cause the fusion engine to explode.

Therefore I think the devs are on the right track when it comes to heat penalites for firing large amounts of the same weapons at once. I think a pair should have normal heat, but then heat should spike exponentially which each weapon fired after two of them. For example, firing a pair of PPCs would produce 20 heat as normal. Firing 3 would produce 40 heat, firing 4 would produce 80 heat which would in turn be enough to cause a fair amount of internal damage. Fire 5 or more and you mech instantly explodes.

Implement this and people will start gravitating toward a more balanced or at least diverse build. People could still use 4 PPCs of course, but they would have to fire in pairs to keep heat manageable which in turn would help to reduce pinpoint convergence.

[Mylardis]

I give up.

I really want to play MWO and enjoy it, but my frustration is now no longer measurable.

It's bad enough with all those Stalkers around, and bad enough when even Hunchbacks, Trebs, Ravens and Jenners run around mounting PPC's and/or Gauss.

But what really broke it for me is the matchmaker. My K/D ration has dropped from some 2.4 to under 2 in just 2 months. I really don't consider myself especially good, but most matches I can't even reach 3 digit damage numbers anymore - I'm always stuck in really crappy teams against gods of aim in Stalkers. The last 15 games or so consisted of 1 win and the rest of the games getting stomped with most teammates not even achieving 100 damage.

I give up. I really do. I will take a break until the next patch. I just don't want to spend my little leisure time being frustrated while I should be enjoying playing.

Just to make it clear though - I still believe in this game, and that's why I bought the Phoenix package on my way out - Crying while at the same time taking away the possibility of solving problems (money) from the devs will not make it better, but worse.

See you Wednesday.

Edited by DasAmok, 10 July 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[Blaze32]

A simple fix to the mech class availability could be a 10% C-bill/XP boost for medium mechs, 5% C-bill for lights and heavies and no C-Bill/XP boost for the Assault class. This could be added to all mechs of the classes (founders, heroes included).

[Anjian]

DasAmok, on 10 July 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

I give up.

I really want to play MWO and enjoy it, but my frustration is now no longer measurable.

It's bad enough with all those Stalkers around, and bad enough when even Hunchbacks, Trebs, Ravens and Jenners run around mounting PPC's and/or Gauss.

But what really broke it for me is the matchmaker. My K/D ration has dropped from some 2.4 to under 2 in just 2 months. I really don't consider myself especially good, but most matches I can't even reach 3 digit damage numbers anymore - I'm always stuck in really crappy teams against gods of aim in Stalkers. The last 15 games or so consisted of 1 win and the rest of the games getting stomped with most teammates not even achieving 100 damage.

I give up. I really do. I will take a break until the next patch. I just don't want to spend my little leisure time being frustrated while I should be enjoying playing.

Just to make it clear though - I still believe in this game, and that's why I bought the Phoenix package on my way out - Crying while at the same time taking away the possibility of solving problems (money) from the devs will not make it better, but worse.

See you Wednesday.

I get the feeling. Skilled vets are being thrown under the truck to boost teams of less experienced players, instead of putting these players in a separate tier or distributing these players into experienced teams instead. I find myself fighting in a team with mechs that don't weight more than a Victor against teams with multiple Stalkers, Atlases and Highlanders.