1084 replies to this topic

[Jakob Knight]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 July 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

The deal with convergence is that it's coupled with group fire and alpha strikes, which makes aiming easy for everyone. Think about how much more difficult it is to land 4 shots in a row on the same target then it is to land a single shot. Convergence + Group Fire gives you the computer guided abilty tol and 4 shots at one spot.

People that want convergence changed want this "easy-mode" aspect removed. They don't want to make the game harder for skilled players, they want to reward skilled players, people that can actually manage to fire a shot every 0.25 to 05 seconds and hit the very same spot every time.

The problem with that is that the stated problem is that players feel they shouldn't die quickly to massed heavy fire, not that the grouping system is flawed. No one is complaining about being able to group five flamers together, but instead that five PPCs core out their mech. People able to continuously hit the same spot shot after shot will achieve the exact same results, and so the problem stated would not be solved, and we'd have the same calls to change the game again. Again, convergence isn't the issue, and as long as players want a game where you have to aim your weapons for effect (as all the voices raised in opposition to LRMs have stated since pre-Beta) you'll have the problem of players able to strike with precision. The alternative is to remove precision aiming from the game, resulting in missile-type weapon usage for all weapons.

I still feel the problem is one with heat and shutdown not being the great danger it is supposed to be. This is what needs to change....shutdown should be all but a death sentence.

[Tombstoner]

Pht, on 17 July 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

I think your sarcasm here might have been missed by a few people.

Unfortunately i was being serious but trying for a light tone. jamming gremlins are just as valid as mystery heat.
i'll try and make up something to justify it.... The field strength generated by 2+ GR fire leads to a % chance to magnetized parts requiring a short period of degaussing/ unjamming.

i'll put money down that this is the go to solution in the future once a 85+ tone mech with 4 ballistic shots one in each arm and torso hits the field.

o and hows the ac-20+ gauss rifle combo working out for people or have they just moved over to 2x gauss?

[reign]

Tombstoner, on 18 July 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Unfortunately i was being serious but trying for a light tone. jamming gremlins are just as valid as mystery heat.
i'll try and make up something to justify it.... The field strength generated by 2+ GR fire leads to a % chance to magnetized parts requiring a short period of degaussing/ unjamming.

i'll put money down that this is the go to solution in the future once a 85+ tone mech with 4 ballistic shots one in each arm and torso hits the field.

o and hows the ac-20+ gauss rifle combo working out for people or have they just moved over to 2x gauss?

If you mean on the ac-20 jaggers, i have seen 3 types
XL engines - more heat sinks 2 ac 20
2 Gauss
some of the 6A Jaggers are Gauss 2 srm 6 2srm 4

Mine has the middle of the 3 options 2 gauss 40 rounds 2 small lasers.

[Wraith511802003]

Artaire, on 18 July 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

This is pretty much what I was trying to say aswell, heat is a factor that doesn't really effect you until you've actually shut down, which is completley against TT rules. They should have implemented this instead of the current system, and just changed the stat slightly on the supposed OP or boated weapon. It would also make flamers useful if heat was scaled as it should, as a slight change in heat could be the difference between you running away from your enemy/ destroying them, or your ammo detonating.

It makes heat management an actual skill, as it was ACTUALLY intended.

I WILL SAY THIS SLOW FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TROUBLE< THIS IS NOT TT, TT IS NOT VIABLE FOR MMOG STYLE FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS>

[Wraith511802003]

arghmace, on 18 July 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

I've never played TT but I've always found boats to be boring. A mech with multiple different weapons is much more fun to play.

Simple make all weapons the same stats just look different and then we can all run around the same but diff-rent and the game will be dead in a month. Really the problem is that brawlers want to walk up and fight with no chance of death and the snipers want to snipe with no chance a brawler is able to close distance in the open.
Many don't understand mechs and weapons have different roles to play in a team. Couple that with the entitlement mentality that cause i am here I must have what i want and BAM you got ****** game mecahnics

[Geminus]

Gulinborsti, on 18 July 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

It were actually those particular "boats" (aka max alpha damage one shot killers) which screwed up the gameplay for many players, including myself and most of the people I am playing with.

It might be a personal flavour if someone likes balanced loadouts or specialized builds, but all the different playstyles should be viable options. The late PPC / AC20 frenzy forced people to join in or get wasted -> fail.

The new heat penalties might not have been the best solution, but it seems to works in a way that I see more different tactics, loadouts and playstyles again. I hope it stays this way and the game develops even further away from "SniperWarrior:Online".

If you were "forced" to get an AC20 or PPC to be able to play, im sorry but you need to examine your play style. I own 60+ plus mechs, I dont run one single AC20. i dont like them. I have mechs with PPCs, but my most succesfull mechs dont use PPCs at all. I have a wide varity of mechs that are successfull builds and dont run PPCs or AC20s or Gauss.
So you may speak for yourself when you say that you can not be competivie without those weapons on your mech, wchich means its time to examine your builds and your tactics.

[Geminus]

Jakob Knight, on 18 July 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

The problem with that is that the stated problem is that players feel they shouldn't die quickly to massed heavy fire,

I'm a soldier, I can tell you first hand that you don't get to pick how the enemy kills you. And this statement, im sorry, is stupid.
So as a player out to destroy the enemy mech, do you personally aim at the foot, then the other foot, than an arm, and then a side torso, and then back to a foot so that that way you dont kill your oponent to quickley?

Edited by Geminus, 18 July 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[Jakob Knight]

Geminus, on 18 July 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

I'm a soldier, I can tell you first hand that you don't get to pick how the enemy kills you. And this statement, im sorry, is stupid.
So as a player out to destroy the enemy mech, do you personally aim at the foot, then the other foot, than an arm, and then a side torso, and then back to a foot so that that way you dont kill your oponent to quickley?

Oh, I agree. Heavy weapons are called that for a reason, and when faced with incoming fire from these weapons, expecting it not to be fatal quickly is rather unrealistic. PPCs, AC/20s, AC/10s, and Gauss Rifles were all feared weapons originally precisely because they were big weapons that could kill quickly, but as a tangent to that, they had high costs to the mech mounting them in the form of size (crits), weight, and heat generation. Facing massed weapons of these type should, reasonably, be one of the things a mechwarrior will dread on the battlefield. but also something they should have planned counter tactics for in case they ended up in that situation.

Right now, we have alot of players who never played the original games, and somehow think MWO should be a brawlfest where mechs charge at each other and beat on the opposing side for a long time until one drops. The concept that they can be quickly dispatched if they step out into the open isn't one they like, as it doesn't allow them to play 'the way it should be'. At the same time, the game itself is set up where the balances these weapons were built upon have been changed without regards to actual scale in order to promote MWO to a lower standard of gamer who doesn't like to be bothered with complicated gaming mechanics in order to be successful.

End result is what we are seeing. Players complaining about whichever weapon happened to have killed them last, and builds using weaponry that would have resulted in their death in the original material (and hense never be built except as a suicide, last-ditch defense option). Until players are told to think up their own solutions to tactical and strategic problems, and the game mechanics on heat and ammo are changed to make both more dangerous than they are currently, we're going to keep having the same problems over and over again.

[Geminus]

Jakob Knight, on 18 July 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Oh, I agree. Heavy weapons are called that for a reason, and when faced with incoming fire from these weapons, expecting it not to be fatal quickly is rather unrealistic. PPCs, AC/20s, AC/10s, and Gauss Rifles were all feared weapons originally precisely because they were big weapons that could kill quickly, but as a tangent to that, they had high costs to the mech mounting them in the form of size (crits), weight, and heat generation. Facing massed weapons of these type should, reasonably, be one of the things a mechwarrior will dread on the battlefield. but also something they should have planned counter tactics for in case they ended up in that situation.

Right now, we have alot of players who never played the original games, and somehow think MWO should be a brawlfest where mechs charge at each other and beat on the opposing side for a long time until one drops. The concept that they can be quickly dispatched if they step out into the open isn't one they like, as it doesn't allow them to play 'the way it should be'. At the same time, the game itself is set up where the balances these weapons were built upon have been changed without regards to actual scale in order to promote MWO to a lower standard of gamer who doesn't like to be bothered with complicated gaming mechanics in order to be successful.

End result is what we are seeing. Players complaining about whichever weapon happened to have killed them last, and builds using weaponry that would have resulted in their death in the original material (and hense never be built except as a suicide, last-ditch defense option). Until players are told to think up their own solutions to tactical and strategic problems, and the game mechanics on heat and ammo are changed to make both more dangerous than they are currently, we're going to keep having the same problems over and over again.

I think that we are two of the about 10 peopl that get it. I try to be someone who is pleasent on the forums, but this has got me so charged up and pissed of. Im sorry to all who think that im being a Dillweed, but this just really eats at me

[Master Q]

Geminus, on 18 July 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

I think that we are two of the about 10 peopl that get it. I try to be someone who is pleasent on the forums, but this has got me so charged up and pissed of. Im sorry to all who think that im being a Dillweed, but this just really eats at me

You don't get it, you're just being a know-nothing Dillweed. Sorry to put it like that but since you brought it up, it should be said.

You're a "soldier", whatever you think that means. It doesn't mean you understand diddly-squat about game balance and fun factors. I'm sure that in soldiering, a mass of snipers makes for a hellish area.

In this game, the mass of sniper setups combined with bad map design combined with some very bad game-design choices has resulted in the playerbase desperate to see BALANCE. Right now, a set of brawlers against a set of sniper-spam builds is not a question of skill. A set of mixed mechs, some sniper/longrange and some brawlers against a set of sniper-spam builds is not a question of skill.

The question is that of balancing the game properly so that each situation is a test of skill instead of a test of merely which group ran the most "optimal" builds with more pop-tarts and high-rider chassis on their side.

Here, watch this video:
http://www.penny-arc...ncing-for-skill

And this one:
http://www.penny-arc...-designer-pt.-2

And while we're at it, another thing we saw with the introduction of the Jagers and the AC40 builds:
http://www.penny-arc...ode/power-creep

A little perspective and understanding goes a long way. There are game design principles behind why people are saying allowing perfect, pinpoint convergence at all times is such a big problem for a game with a combat model like Mechwarrior.

[Smoke Dancer]

Gropuing weapons into families makes sense and prevents people doing things like taking an 1 LRM 20, 1 LRM 10 and 1 LRM 15 just to avoid the alpha penalty. I also think that smaller missile packs should have the same rate of fire as the big ones - to do otherwise is to give srm 2 and lrm 5s a damage buff over the heavier more heat demanding cousins.

[Jakob Knight]

Master Q, on 18 July 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

The question is that of balancing the game properly so that each situation is a test of skill instead of a test of merely which group ran the most "optimal" builds with more pop-tarts and high-rider chassis on their side.

The problem with this statement is that each player has a different concept of what a 'test of skill' is. To some, it's a question of how accurate your shooting direct fire weapons is. To others, it's how well you can calculate the trajectory, keep aquisition, and manage range enough to use LRMs effectively. To still others, it's how well you engineer your mech to do the job it's supposed to be doing. To still others, it's about how well they can manuever their mechs to avoid combat altogether and remain unseen to the enemy. To still others, it's about how much damage they can do to the enemy while avoiding damage themselves. To still others, it's how many kills you get. To still others, it's about how long they can go toe-to-toe in the face of their enemy. To still others, it's about how silly and pointless you can make the game for others. To still others, it's about how many of their teammates they can betray. To still others, it's about how much attention they can get from the devs.

To say you want the game to only be a test of skill, you have to reach agreement on what skill is, with good reasons for your definition. A group with more optimal builds and/or more 'pop-tarting' mechs, as you call it, demonstrate a test of skill just as much as one in which pilots must manage heat or keep their targets in their sights the entire time a weapon is in play. They are just different skills, and disregarding them doesn't make this any less true.

Similar fact with 'fun factor'. I am fairly confident many people would not find my way of playing MWO 'fun', because their idea of fun is different than mine. Likewise, I don't claim my idea of 'fun' is for everyone. Thus, trying to say 'fun-factor' is a requirement to understand this game is a pointless and short-sighted statement without grounding.

So, until we have an agreement on what is a 'challenge of skill' by all who play MWO, I'd say we're going to be barking up the same tree every time someone brings it up as a reason to change things.

[Master Q]

Put it back on you Jakob:

When ONE sort of mech build is dominating the battlefield, and matches come down to "which of the teams had more builds of that type on their team", we know something is broken.

8 skilled players in brawlers vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead brawlers.

a 4/4 split brawl/sniper team, skilled, vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead other team.

Lather, rinse, repeat. The game mechanic is broken.

[Dimento Graven]

Jakob Knight, on 18 July 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

The problem with that is that the stated problem is that players feel they shouldn't die quickly to massed heavy fire, not that the grouping system is flawed. No one is complaining about being able to group five flamers together, but instead that five PPCs core out their mech. People able to continuously hit the same spot shot after shot will achieve the exact same results, and so the problem stated would not be solved, and we'd have the same calls to change the game again. Again, convergence isn't the issue, and as long as players want a game where you have to aim your weapons for effect (as all the voices raised in opposition to LRMs have stated since pre-Beta) you'll have the problem of players able to strike with precision. The alternative is to remove precision aiming from the game, resulting in missile-type weapon usage for all weapons.

I still feel the problem is one with heat and shutdown not being the great danger it is supposed to be. This is what needs to change....shutdown should be all but a death sentence.

Those are quite a few of us playing BattleTech since inception that find a "battletech" game allowing 'mechs to fire 4 to 6 PPC's multiple times in a row breaking the immersion factor of the game. Allowing an almost 'willy nilly' use of PPC's where it becomes almost "spray and pray" is conceptually stupid.

Adding a heat affects scale would mitigate some of that, and, a heat affects scale would be a more balanced approach than what we've got which as mentioned by others seems to be more of an 'alpha-penalty' and not a thoughtful response to a situation that breaks the 'immersion' of the game.

[Dimento Graven]

Wraith511802003, on 18 July 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

I WILL SAY THIS SLOW FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TROUBLE&lt; THIS IS NOT TT, TT IS NOT VIABLE FOR MMOG STYLE FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS&gt;

I will say this for those who have trouble with comprehension:

Not having ANY heat scale affects table, AT ALL, is silly.

Being able to shoot 4 to 6 PPC's simultaneously, 3 times in a row before over heating is silly. Being able to do it ONCE is silly.

Add in heat affects that gradually creep up as our heat grows, increasing movement penalties, increasing random drifting of the targeting reticule (I refer to something along the lines of Borderlands 2, and their sniper target reticule drifting randomly, based on your skill and the 'accuracy' rating of the weapon), increased chances of ammo getting cooked off, increasing chance that we'll randomly shut down.

What we have now is, for all intents and purposes when looking at the core BattleTech universe, broken.

You have "on", you have "shut down", and you have "over ride shut down, internal damage at heat beyond 100%".

Wouldn't you rather you and your enemies have to manage heat, skillfully, rather than just fire fire fire until shutdown, press O, wait a 20 seconds, fire fire fire fire, rinse and repeat...

This having the heat scaling would affect all 'mechs. For example those fast little Ravens, Spiders, Commandos, Jenners and Cicadas that are so difficult to hit. Most of the people I've observed (including myself when I play my lights) run around at between 80 and 90 percent heat once the battle is engaged. Firing streaks plus medium lasers, after about 10 to 15 shots you have to THEN start worrying about heat. With a heat scale affects table implementation, after about 4 or 5 shots, that Raven starts slow down. After 4 or 5 more shots, it's really slow, really inaccurate with its fire, and maybe having ammo explosions, blowing off legs (where most Ravens keep their SSRM ammo).

Again, the affects are more meaningful to more 'mechs, a heat scale affects table is a balanced solution affecting everyone.

[Tombstoner]

Master Q, on 18 July 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Put it back on you Jakob:

When ONE sort of mech build is dominating the battlefield, and matches come down to "which of the teams had more builds of that type on their team", we know something is broken.

8 skilled players in brawlers vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead brawlers.

a 4/4 split brawl/sniper team, skilled, vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead other team.

Lather, rinse, repeat. The game mechanic is broken.

This happens because the brawler team is deliberately taking mechs with built in deficiencies.
This is what happens when you have exceptional harsh penalties on brawler builds i.e. no damage potential over400 meters
then fight people with no range issues. The game also lacks great brawler builds. remember the game changed when stalkers came our and we can carry 4 erppc'. this didn't happen with the atlas cause no variant can carry 4 er ppcs. to my knowledge .

When a mech that is a superb brawler comes out, people will be calling for nerfs to what ever weapons the OP brawler uses.
it all comes down to hard points. give me 12 energy slots and 12 MPL and i'll gut you before you torso change. 6MPL...6MPL cool shot....6MPL.....6MPL 144 damage in 7 seconds..... to your back yea id call that OP. http://www.sarna.net...28Black_Hawk%29

[Dimento Graven]

Geminus, on 18 July 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

I'm a soldier, I can tell you first hand that you don't get to pick how the enemy kills you. And this statement, im sorry, is stupid.
So as a player out to destroy the enemy mech, do you personally aim at the foot, then the other foot, than an arm, and then a side torso, and then back to a foot so that that way you dont kill your oponent to quickley?

Well the question is, is it massed fire from multiple 'mechs? That's not unreasonable.

Is it 'massed fire' from a single 'mech firing upwards of 6 PPC's simultaneously, repeatedly, while suffering no SUBSTANTIAL penalty of their own? That's silly.

[Jakob Knight]

Master Q, on 18 July 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Put it back on you Jakob: When ONE sort of mech build is dominating the battlefield, and matches come down to "which of the teams had more builds of that type on their team", we know something is broken. 8 skilled players in brawlers vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead brawlers. a 4/4 split brawl/sniper team, skilled, vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead other team. Lather, rinse, repeat. The game mechanic is broken.

Hmm...you are assuming much. A skilled brawler team will approach the sniper team using cover to deny the sniper team the range. Once in the short range their weapons require, I don't doubt that 16 AC/20s or 48 medium lasers will leave those sniper mechs pretty much broken over the landscape. Granted, if the brawler team attempts to charge the sniper team straight in, there will be a lot of casualties on the brawler team because they are playing the sniper team's game. The trick is to know what your strengths are and what the enemy also has, and not to play their game unless it is yours too.

Finally, please note that if long-range mechs could not destroy short ranged mechs running at them across long range before the short ranged mechs got into their blindspots, there would be little point in having long ranged mechs (as was the case for a while). This is not an indication of anything broken except that the burden is shifted to the brawler to find ways to get into their range rather than on the snipers to maintain it (which is virtually impossible).

The only thing broken is that pilots can overheat their mech past the mandatory shutdown point with little or no penalty, reducing heat buildup to a minor concern. When heat buildup becomes the major, crippling concern it should be, we will see overgunned units drastically drop off while reasonable long-range mechs would still have kill capability. Unfortunately, the Devs will likely not take this route, as it violates the video-game aspect they want for MWO, and so we will see this nerf and that 'adjustment' taking the game farther off left field.

[Morlokk]

Geminus, on 18 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

If you were "forced" to get an AC20 or PPC to be able to play, im sorry but you need to examine your play style. I own 60+ plus mechs, I dont run one single AC20. i dont like them. I have mechs with PPCs, but my most succesfull mechs dont use PPCs at all. I have a wide varity of mechs that are successfull builds and dont run PPCs or AC20s or Gauss.
So you may speak for yourself when you say that you can not be competivie without those weapons on your mech, wchich means its time to examine your builds and your tactics.

That's pretty much dead on.

I say this though. Even with these new heat restrictions you have to be a little more careful with your builds, but again with the right build and tactics any mech can do well.

Edited by Morlokk, 18 July 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[Truthstar]

How about you rollback to a year ago; things were much better then