1084 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Might as well ask for this while I'm here...

MGs still need buffing. It doesn't necessarily need a damage buff (some would certainly argue for it though), but it primarily NEEDS a reduction, and particularly REMOVAL of its cone of fire. This is the only weapon that suffers from it... and as Bryan said in an AtD once...

http://mwomercs.com/...evs-34-answers/

Bryan Eckman @ said:

Zyllos: With many discussions on convergence of weaponry, has there been any discussions on why/why not more variability should be added to weapon fire, thus spreading the damage more across a target?

A: We’ve removed randomness from weapon firing in favor of skill.

Sure this statement talks about convergence, but yet, the MG is the only seemingly "no skill" weapon since it has the ROF. This weapon is the only one that must be MAINTAINED over its target.. more than a PPC/laser/LRM to be effective with. This is still the worst weapon in the game, next to NARC. Even the awful SPL got a buff that at least made it somewhat viable. You can't say the same for the MG, despite all the buffs it has received.

Also, LBX is still a disaster, and still needs refinement, in the form of a much tighter spread and/or damage/ROF buff to differentiate it better than the AC10. Right now, it's still worse than the UAC5 and the AC10 and does not have a proper use.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 July 2013 - 04:46 AM.

[Aim64C]

Gulinborsti, on 16 July 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Well, I read the threads you mentioned.

I only agree in one point: It usually takes very long for PGI to fix things that are obviously broken or unbalanced.

But every feature they implemented turned out to be well planned ahead and finally - after a lot of strange tweaking in every possible direction - turn out to be working fine. It worked for ECM,

Wait... what?

ECM is still a broken system. Largely because it's overpowered, for one. Also because the concept of information warfare is so horribly, mindlessly one-sided. http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

There's little to no focus in the game's mechanics on gaining and denying information. ECM largely means virtual invulnerability to LRMs or a Klingon cloak for scouts.

BAP has, essentially, no function in the scouting role.

Other factors, such as concealment (Which -should- prevent a number of passive contacts we currently get) don't work. A mech hiding in a grove of trees doesn't get a penalty to attempts to detect it unless BAP is up and running.

It's a half-baked system.

Quote

it will work for the movement changes

Another half-baked idea, to be blunt. Speed should scale to the slope exponentially with anything below an 8-10% reduction in speed being ignored as able to be compensated by the drive components.

Right now you just slam to a stop with virtually no warning. It just pushes people even further into the heavy and assault meta where you stand around and don't do anything.

Quote

and I think that their plans to remove certain boating issues with the improved heat mechhanics might turn out to be good decision.

It is no different than the others. Half baked.

I've taken up a different side project that will be to, essentially, make a gameplay and technology demonstrator for a more modern translation of battletech to a real-time simulator-esque environment.

I'll be focusing on the capabilities of OpenCL and massively parallel architectures (especially for AI and collision detection), as well as more advanced approaches to kinematics.

I'll also see if I can work in a bitcoin-like algorithm that resolves from the conclusion of each multiplayer game, which would allow for a completely decentralized and robust tracking of player statistics through leagues (to include RPG-like skill-tree carry-overs).

MWO was a nice idea. The project, however, has been so horribly derailed from its original goals and has been implemented in so many wonky ways that it's just not going to amount to anything other than a cult game.

Quite a few of us, for a while, now, have been playing and supporting MWO for what it could be rather than what it is.

That changes once the game 'launches.'

The reality is that I highly doubt the game will be at all in a state that will draw in new players. It will be "call of duty robots" with all kinds of weird nuances that no one cares to stick around for. Currently - it's a horribly stripped-down MAG.

Quote

It is not us to decide how things will work in MWO, however, it is our responsibility as beta players to provide constructive feedback on every step PGI makes once it's introduced.

*shrug*

Sure - it's PGI's game. They can make it operate however they want to.

It's our responsibility to provide constructive feedback, period.

The problem is that PGI has gone ahead and done things that quite a few of us have said would be bad ideas. Then they turn out to be bad ideas.

This heat-scaling one is a perfect example. It was not an uncommon suggestion on the forums, but it was always struck down by the player base because it was one of the most senseless and arbitrary of all the proposals for addressing the issue of weapons loadouts that instantly vaporize mechs (or portions of them).

This is going to turn into the case of EA making SimCity an always online game (because Diablo III didn't teach them). The community said: "Bad idea. Horrible idea. Don't do it. It won't work."

What did EA do? Made it an always-online game.

What happened? Over half the people who purchased the game couldn't log in to play it and the issue has still not been completely resolved.

Numerous ideas were given for bringing ECM back under control - from introducing a more complex IW component that made things like Narc, BAP, and the Command Console somewhat useful; to changes to the function of ECM so that it wasn't "rally-round-the-Atlas."

And BAP is only kinda-sorta-not-really useful as a result of the direction PGI decided to go.

How they haven't fixed splash or other issues in this time frame is beyond me. They're working slower than a group of volunteers on a mod project.

Or if they are working faster - it's on everything but the gameplay... which should have been pretty well hammered out by the time it came to implementing CW into the beta to patch up before officially launching.

At this rate, I'm honestly expecting PGI to miss their launch date, or to launch with an embarrassment to MechWarrior. I'd prefer they set back another year to straighten things out than to reduce any hope of a MW title appearing within the next decade to zero.

[Deathlike]

Namais, on 16 July 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Rather than follow my instincts and join the number of players who think ECM and IW in general are poor - I've got to ask. What do you find nice or enjoyable about using or countering it?

I struggle to glean much gameplay milage from "equip or do not" and "equip a counter or do not".

The funny thing is... I used to use a 3L and it HAS to have ECM.

Now I'm using a Jenner-D, and it HAS to have BAP to counter ECM.

That is simply not a solution that makes sense to everyone. If it's a must have (like PPCs in the current meta, and also Seismic), then there's a problem.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 July 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Kraven Kor]

The RANGE of Seismic is not the problem.

The simplicity of it, and the fact it gives so much information for so little effort, is the problem.

Keep the range as it is, and do the following:

1. Seismic can only detect moving mechs which are on the ground.
2. Seismic only works if you are not moving
3. Seismic takes about a second to find a target in its area.
4. Seismic does not give precise location.

This makes it so seismic tells you approximately where the enemy is and how many there are and which direction they are going, but not their precise location, has a delay to the information (the detected target is already past where its dot shows on the map, since seismic only locates moving mechs.)

The problem with Seismic is it gives you too much information, too quickly.

[MustrumRidcully]

JohnnyWayne, on 16 July 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

You forgot "heatsinks till heatneutral".

Yes, but that is only really relevant for heat intensive weapon.

Quote

But, there is no such thing like an equation for balance issues. Equations only adress quantitive attributes (that can be expressed with an number). Qualitative attributes (e.g. how a weapon is rated in the current gameplay) are not adressed. Why? because you cant. There is no way to measure such a thing.

A weapons "rating" by the community will depend on the other quantitative attributes. Though there is the aspect of "perfect imbalance" - where a weapon particularly strong in one area is countered by a weapon that otherwise seems not so impressive. Brawling weaopns can become more interesting if they are the only ones that can counter sniper weapons. But if they can't... Well, then sniping weapon are the only interesting thing around.
Or another example: Reflective armor becomes more interesting if Lasers are the dominant weapon type. ECM becomes more interesting if LRMs are more powerful than other weapons.

[Kunae]

Jakob Knight, on 16 July 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

As others have noted, if the whole point of these tweeks is to cut down on the number of overgunned configurations, why would you want to increase the base heat of PPCs and ERPPCs (nerfing normal usage of them) while decreasing the penalties from scaling (boosting overuse of them on a mech)? Seems just the opposite of what you'd want, especially since mechs using them as intended (a CPLT-K2 sporting 2 ERPPCs) can't handle the heat as it is.

Seems completely 180 degrees from what you'd want, if this was really about balancing.

No. Raising the heat for individual weapons would get them back to where they were before PGI buffed them. That is the point. People aren't asking for a nerf, they want a buff reversed.

In comparison to pretty much all other weapons, PPC's in MWO are better than every other weapon in the game. Let's get them back to their canon heat-levels and then we can see if there's some other part that needs to be fixed.

PGI's problem is that rather than do something as simple, and logical, as this, they'll throw on some broad-brush complicated system which punishes everyone, rather than addresses the issue.

And the issue is that they reduced the heat on PPCs and ERPPCs, in the first place.

Edited by Kunae, 16 July 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

Of note - I don't think the 2.0 damage should be added to SSRMs.

[IceSerpent]

JohnnyWayne, on 16 July 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

But, there is no such thing like an equation for balance issues. Equations only adress quantitive attributes (that can be expressed with an number). Qualitative attributes (e.g. how a weapon is rated in the current gameplay) are not adressed. Why? because you cant. There is no way to measure such a thing.

The fact that you (apparently) don't know how to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to do. The only weapon in MW/BT game that can't be balanced "on a napkin" is flamer due to its CC capabilities.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Aim64C, on 16 July 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

Wait... what?

ECM is still a broken system. Largely because it's overpowered, for one.

Maybe you haven't played an ECM light lately...
ECM is situationally useful some of the time, largely a 1.5 ton paper weight the rest of the time.

[Kraven Kor]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 16 July 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Maybe you haven't played an ECM light lately...
ECM is situationally useful some of the time, largely a 1.5 ton paper weight the rest of the time.

Exactly.

ECM was a hard counter with no counter, and it was OP and terrible, though I generally liked the "intent" of the system.

Then they added BAP, which is now a hard counter to ECM, and now ECM is next-to-useless.

The truth is not so black and white, though; ECM still helps against LRM's (unless they use TAG.) And it is still a minor inconvenience for BAP equipped mechs as you still get choppy targetting in the 120m to 250m range or whatever.

[Sephlock]

Quote

Seismic Sensor Ranges are being adjusted. Current values are 180m for basic and 250m for advanced. This is down from 200m and 400m respectively.

I didn't even use it that much (only on my dragons), but...

[Wriath]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Awesome
Oh man, look at this stock setup that runs 3x ppc's. I guess the bad hitboxes just weren't enough.

[Wales Grey]

Wriath, on 16 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Awesome
Oh man, look at this stock setup that runs 3x ppc's. I guess the bad hitboxes just weren't enough.

No man you don't get it, it uses more than one of a single weapon, therefore it is a boat, and must be nerfed to save MWO from stagnation! #whatpgiactuallybelieves

[Wriath]

Well ya see, we're gonna give the medium lasers 6 because of the swayback's design limitations something something six lasers something something it makes sense. but the ppc awesome (already considered by most a crap mech) oh god no, we gotta STOP THAT THING!
I also feel that I should say, that other than this issue. the patch looks pretty great and the heat nerfs are probably going to do the game a lotta good. I'm just ******** because I love awesome.

[Shakespeare]

So, my first game since patching: dropped solo and encountered 5, count-em, 5, SRM mechs.... 2 splatcats, a treb, a stalker, a cent. In river city. And what do you know, my team still won. I piloted a traditional 4SP, and actually was effective in battle.

Splat cats and other Triple-6 mechs are not gods. Only machines. And they can be killed, even en masse.
It was the splash problem causing splatcat domination, not the raw damage number. 2.0 feels juuusstt right.
Thanks for putting a little umph into the brawling game, guys!

[Team Leader]

Victor Morson, on 12 July 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

The Downfall of PGI, Part Deux:

hahahaha... too accurate!

[ObsidianSpectre]

Added complexity without added depth. Nice.

They really couldn't have taken any of the simpler solutions suggested? I understand why convergence is off the table, but what about straight heat, or projectile speed, or anything else?

[Wales Grey]

Finished up a brace of matches, net change in player behaviour as a result of the #yoloswag #doesnotfix #paulsidiotidea: none. SRMs make brawling better, but PPC/gauss is still top dog.

[Geminus]

The new heat scale is crap. Its a product of the players who whine that everything is "OP"
Anyone who builds a 6 PPC stalker and alphas with it is not a smart player and it is not a viable build. The sacrifice in speed and heat built by that build is its own penalty. That's why the weapons have heat build up, the heat build up is its own penalty, you have to balance and plan or it.
If I build a mech that fire 3 Large lasers, Im going to build it smartly, im going to give the appropriate heat sinks and balance the speed, armor etc.
I have encountered 6 PPC stalkers, I flank them, they are slow. I concentrate on maneuvering around them and let them shut down, and then kill them.
This is a penalty on top of a penalty that all ready is place.
So for everyone who cries about "boats" let me give you a tip,
A boat specializes in ONE thing. LRMs long range, SRMs short range, PPCs long range, etc etc. Fight them in the way they do not specialize in. Attack LRM boats up close. SRM mechs from a distance. you should be happy when players "boat" they are giving you the stragey to kill them. Stop standing 800 meters away in the open and cursing the OP LRM mech, take cover, move in close. coordinate with your team mates, that what their there for.

I cant say enough how crap this. When I buld a mech a build it with a role in mind and I build it to fit that role. my victor, 1 Gauss, 3 LLs. No other weapons cause this what suits my play sytle, I want the weapons in my arms and im not a big fan of missles, I loaded the mech with heatsinks to balance the 3 LLs and I put a gauss cause it dosnt generate heat. thats my heat managment. I do less damage then i could because instead of packing the mech with every damn weapon it could hold, I put in heat sinks to disipate the heat from the 3 LLs and make it viable. i cant shoot forever but its playable.
But now the comrades at PGI have told me that 3 LLs is 1 LL to many. That 1 LL makes my build OP I guess.
From now on ill just ask them if my builds are ok first. Maybe I should do 1 LL, 1 ML and 1 SL, that way i wont offend anyone and be OP.
Im so close to walking away and taking all the money I spend with me.

Edited by Geminus, 16 July 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[Geminus]

I dont think people understand that this is a team game and people are supposed to specilize in certain aspects to be succesful members of the team.
This is the worst thing that they have done, This is supposed to be about customizing a mech to fit your play style, insted they are just slowely adding more and more restraints into a system that has been working just fine since the 80s.
I spend alot of money on this game because I love Btech and I want to support them so they can make a great game, but they make it hard. They are un comunicative about a lot of big issues, they dont listen to their founders who gave them money sight unseen. they need to remove this feature.

Edited by Geminus, 16 July 2013 - 12:43 PM.