18 replies to this topic

[zazz0000]

I'm all for reducing boating and increasing diversity, at least for the sake appeasing the community that is fed up with high-alpha builds. My understanding is that the new scale is made just for that.

The system however has a number of known issues, like quad-ac2 bug, several over-nerfs, like massive ac40 penalty, medium laser, and (imo) LL limit of two.

The system is also very easily circumvented by a decent player. With .5 second counter, launching 4 PPC's without a penalty is easier than shooting a LPL.

The proponents of the system claim that it causes more weapon-diverse builds. Fair enough, I buy it.

BUT

Wouldn't a hard point size limit achieve the same thing??

Let alone... well... make the game more diverse? Take a common powerhouse build like quad-ppc: there are 32 mechs that can currently run this build. To different effect? Sure, but still...
If only say, 4 mechs could run it, those mechs could also have other limitations and quirks which would make such builds vulnerable in other ways (think Awesome).

Without a hardpoint size limitation it's getting less and less appealing to get different chassis. Why bother with HBK-4P over BJ-1X (or other way around)? Why take any AWS over VTR? And aside from Misery, all STK are really almost the same...

I know PGI is reluctant with hardpoint limits, but can they at least meet us 1/5 of the way, and make the heat tweak values unique to chassis? AWS can shoot 3PPC penalty free, RVN gets penalized for a single AC20... Something that would be less... less... weak than what this new system brings?

[Volthorne]

No, it wouldn't have had the same effect, because then all the cheese-boaters would have just migrated to the chassis that was still able to pull off their desired flavour of cheese. This takes care of that problem too.

Edited by Volthorne, 17 July 2013 - 08:07 PM.

[zazz0000]

Right, but the idea is that the said chassis would not be optimal for the said cheese.

Example: Cicada 2A can run quad PPC. But it would look something like this: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2fb6019b3a8c14d

[YueFei]

There are stock mechs that are boating PPC/Gauss, so unless PGI never releases those mechs, hardpoint restrictions will not solve the problem, it will only make players migrate to those stock mechs.
Boats are legitimate builds. In TT, in a stack of boated weaponry, each one would strike different armor panels (including a high chance of hitting arms/legs). That's what makes them balanced compared to a build with multiple different weapons.
Problem is that in MWO, all those weapons strike the same spot. If you mix a set of weaponry, each with different speeds, different spreads, various burn times, different cycle times... you've got to aim each set and fire them individually, which spreads out the damage you deal time-wise and space-wise, and gives the opponent a chance to twist and turn to catch damage on their arms (and maybe legs if they've got jump jets).
The problem really is a matter of all those boated weapons firing at the same time and hitting the same spot. Any kind of solution must involve treating either of those two effects, or both. Otherwise, it breaks the damage/armor model we've derived from TT. If we're not going to address that, then we should ditch the TT damage/armor model, and come up with something new.

[El Bandito]

The new heat scale is a mess, really. It didn't hurt the chief offenders but hurt those builds that were not even problem in the first place.

[xRatas]

YueFei, on 17 July 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

There are stock mechs that are boating PPC/Gauss, so unless PGI never releases those mechs, hardpoint restrictions will not solve the problem, it will only make players migrate to those stock mechs.

Those mechs could be nerfed in other fashion then. Let them boat 4 ERPPC with targeting computer, but give them some other handicap, like torso that twists only 30 degrees per side. It would be easy then. Also remember, all weapon systems should still be balanced in releativity to each others, there should be no godlike PPCs anyway.

Edited by xRatas, 17 July 2013 - 10:43 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

YueFei, on 17 July 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

There are stock mechs that are boating PPC/Gauss, so unless PGI never releases those mechs, hardpoint restrictions will not solve the problem, it will only make players migrate to those stock mechs.
Boats are legitimate builds.

Boats remain legitimate builds.

Just have to watch your alpha strikes

[El Bandito]

I'll take 4 PPC Awesomes anyday over 4 PPC Stalkers.

At least most canon boaters such as Awesome, Annihilator, Thunder Hawk, Devastator, King Crab, Nova, Super Nova, Warhawk etc... all have low slung arms and are forced to expose their torsoes to shoot a full salvo--therefore vulnerable to retaliation.

Only notable exception is Kraken (Bane) but no one cares about that mech and the game is better off not including it.

Edited by El Bandito, 17 July 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[zazz0000]

YueFei, on 17 July 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

The problem really is a matter of all those boated weapons firing at the same time and hitting the same spot. Any kind of solution must involve treating either of those two effects, or both. Otherwise, it breaks the damage/armor model we've derived from TT. If we're not going to address that, then we should ditch the TT damage/armor model, and come up with something new.

I like where your heart is, and I'm a proponent of convergence, but this does stray from the original idea of the thread.
Hell, we can have both can't we??

Also, canon builds that boat, like [color=#000000]ANH-1G (ER-PPC, 3xGauss), for example, have pretty significant drawbacks (in Annihilator's case, 32.4 km/h). With some amount of tactic that thing can be taken down no problem, no?[/color]

Edited by zazz0000, 17 July 2013 - 11:14 PM.

[YueFei]

xRatas, on 17 July 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Those mechs could be nerfed in other fashion then. Let them boat 4 ERPPC with targeting computer, but give them some other handicap, like torso that twists only 30 degrees per side. It would be easy then. Also remember, all weapon systems should still be balanced in releativity to each others, there should be no godlike PPCs anyway.

Limiting torso twist wouldn't help. High Alpha snipers are shooting at targets far away and with low LOS rates. I have driven a Stalker 5S with quad PPC, it doesn't need lots of torso twist anyway.

The PPC itself is not necessarily an overpowered weapon. Most people will agree that the heat should go up, and projectile speed reduced, but that's about it. Fit a single PPC into a mech, and use it by itself, and it's far from overpowered. It does what it is supposed to do, deliver 10 points of damage to a single location at long distances.

And if we were to use the same balancing mechanisms as TT, in conjunction with the damage/armor model from TT, then even a huge stack of PPCs would be balanced, because each PPC would likely strike a different armor panel, spreading the damage out.

Nobody freaks out over the Hunchback-4P's 9-medium-laser 45-damage alpha strike. And that's because the damage gets spread all over the target unless the target isn't moving. Similarly, no one would freak out over a quad PPC alpha strike dealing 40 damage, if that damage were spread out across different components on a mech.

Either that massive alpha strike has to be stretched out space-wise, or time-wise, or both, or the pin-point nature of it will break the TT model we're using.

Homeless Bill's solution is nice because it still allows instantaneous snap shots, but when you take a shot like that, it spreads out space-wise.

PGI's heat scale solution is trying to force players to stretch out their shot time-wise, giving the victim mech a chance to move and twist. The problem with their solution is that it is convoluted and unintuitive. If it isn't heavy-handed enough, pin-point snap-shot alphas are still possible. If it's too heavy-handed, then snap-shots with everything you've got becomes impossible. It really is inferior to Homeless Bill's proposal. The only thing it has going for it is perhaps ease of implementation.

[YueFei]

zazz0000, on 17 July 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

I like where your heart is, and I'm a proponent of convergence, but this does stray from the original idea of the thread.
Hell, we can have both can't we??

Also, canon builds that boat, like [color=#000000]ANH-1G (ER-PPC, 3xGauss), for example, have pretty significant drawbacks (in Annihilator's case, 32.4 km/h). With some amount of tactic that thing can be taken down no problem, no?[/color]

You're right, I wouldn't mind having both! But I'd only support hardpoint restrictions *after* a proper solution to weapon boating is implemented. That way, PGI can release canon boats, and those boats won't be overpowered, they'll already be balanced.

Once the Clans come out, it will be even cheesier, with mechs dying even faster. It'd be nice to get a gameplay mechanic that solves that problem before it arrives.

[xRatas]

YueFei, on 17 July 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Limiting torso twist wouldn't help. High Alpha snipers are shooting at targets far away and with low LOS rates. I have driven a Stalker 5S with quad PPC, it doesn't need lots of torso twist anyway.

That was an example of what could be done, not the end all solution, mind you.

Convergence change would be ok too, I'm not really against that. Although not hittting what you aim for is quite drastical change to gameplay really, not sure if it is good or bad. At least it will make battles more stationary. But I'm still saying best way to fix boating is to disallow it by design.

Besides, clan mechs at 3050 can hit single location with all their firepower in TT.

[YueFei]

xRatas, on 17 July 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

That was an example of what could be done, not the end all solution, mind you.

Convergence change would be ok too, I'm not really against that. Although not hittting what you aim for is quite drastical change to gameplay really, not sure if it is good or bad. At least it will make battles more stationary. But I'm still saying best way to fix boating is to disallow it by design.

Besides, clan mechs at 3050 can hit single location with all their firepower in TT.

If you check out Homeless Bill's system, you will find that it still lets you get precision fire. Perfect convergence for shots that you fire in a staggered fashion. This gives a targeted mech time to maneuver to spread the damage, but if you are a good shot, and the mech being hit doesn't twist and turn to the right angle, you can still land your shots into the same armor panel. Note that this gives the mech being struck a chance to successfully shield the location being hit, at least that much is in his control.

Under his system, it's only when you fire off a massive salvo of weapons, that the convergence is lost. It's not a cone-of-fire, it doesn't randomize your shot's direction. It will work just as well far-away as close-up. So it still allows a big alpha strike quick sniping, because your weapons fire travels in parallel lines, so it's still accurate, just not focused into a tiny pin-point. And brawlers can still fire off massive alpha strikes, but these will also strike multiple panels on the target mech.

This provides a mechanism to have the kind of gameplay that PGI advertised... with a gradual degradation of the mech as parts of it get picked off and blown away. Instead, right now we have heavies and assault mechs that can 3-shot each other. This kind of gameplay still takes skill, and it's still competitive, it's just not the style of gameplay that alot of players thought they were signing up for.

If anything, Homeless Bill's system raises the skill cap. Any fool can get a couple lucky alpha strikes and win. I'm a mediocre player, but every once in a while, I'll manage to 3-shot someone in 8 seconds with PPC and Gauss. But if I was forced to track and fire multiple shots in succession and try to land all of those into the same location against a twisting and turning target? I wouldn't get so lucky. And a more skilled player, who can consistently make his shots, and times his moves and twists to spread the damage I'm dealing, he'll beat me every time.

[GODzillaGSPB]

I also wrote about the economical view on hardpoint limitations earlier. People brought up mechs like the Longbow to find an argument for the LRM-Stalker. "But the Longbow does it, it's a regular LRM-boat." Yes it is.

If PGI one day want to release the Longbow - or other mechs - they need to habe some niches in the game left for these new makes to make sense and fill out. Who wants the Longbow as an LRM-boat, seriously? The Stalker already can do it and has a much sleeker frontal profile.

It's hard to convince PGI from a players standpoint, but the economical problems that come with "multi-role"-mechs due to the super-liberal hardpoint system is something they should be able to understand. If they want to sell in the future, they better do something about it.

[Demos]

xRatas, on 17 July 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

Besides, clan mechs at 3050 can hit single location with all their firepower in TT.

Only with a targeting computer (which affects only ballisitc and energy weapons, not missiles and costs a lot of extra tonnage) and with a decreased probability of hitting the target...

Edited by Demos, 18 July 2013 - 01:36 AM.

[xRatas]

Demos, on 18 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

Only with a targeting computer (which affects only ballisitc and energy weapons, not missiles and costs a lot of extra tonnage) and with a decreased probability of hitting the target...

Yep, rolling 8+ with 2D6 using Masakari (standing still, clan pilot, light cover and slow moving target) has reasonably good chance of blowing up a section from any other than light mech (60 point damage to single location, and there is no doubled armor). And lights die with a salvo of 4x15 hits anyway, no matter where they land.... And those hit quite easily on fast targets too, with the said targeting computer. Clan pulse lasers with TC used to be crazy, but they got nerfed even in TT too.

Edited by xRatas, 18 July 2013 - 02:05 AM.

[Fooooo]

xRatas, on 17 July 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

That was an example of what could be done, not the end all solution, mind you.

Convergence change would be ok too, I'm not really against that. Although not hittting what you aim for is quite drastical change to gameplay really, not sure if it is good or bad. At least it will make battles more stationary. But I'm still saying best way to fix boating is to disallow it by design.

Besides, clan mechs at 3050 can hit single location with all their firepower in TT.

The idea you have is sound imo, and is already somewhat in game, its just not as noticable as it should be imo.

It would be somewhat like in say WoT. Where a large slow tank will never get a faster more agile tank off his rear end. (bar having a 360degree turret, which in MWO we do not have.)

Or like say an IL2 vs a 109. (slow tank vs fast fighter) Once the 109 is behind you, you will never escape or get another frontal shot on him....

Granted the aircraft example is not exactly perfect in regards to MWO, but the mechs that could boat massive upfront dmg would be the slow tanks.

Basically it goes back to the old idea that the faster mechs can "outrun" the big alpha mechs turning circles / torso twist, and once behind, well that slow tank is dead unless helped.

So 1 variant of a stalker might have 10/15 degrees of torso twist (like a nova sorta), max speed of 32km/h and a turning speed of.....well I don't know, a slow rate of turn... . However it can boat 4/5 ppcs easy.

Another would have 50degrees of twist, higher max speed, but cant boat 4/5ppc. It would need a quirk that makes PPCs generate 50% more heat or something on this variant. (because energy hps include ppcs so you cant really make a stalker variant for lasers with good twist, without opening up ppcs to that variant as well.....)


But anyway ill stop there......

[Lykaon]

YueFei, on 17 July 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

There are stock mechs that are boating PPC/Gauss, so unless PGI never releases those mechs, hardpoint restrictions will not solve the problem, it will only make players migrate to those stock mechs.
Boats are legitimate builds. In TT, in a stack of boated weaponry, each one would strike different armor panels (including a high chance of hitting arms/legs). That's what makes them balanced compared to a build with multiple different weapons.
Problem is that in MWO, all those weapons strike the same spot. If you mix a set of weaponry, each with different speeds, different spreads, various burn times, different cycle times... you've got to aim each set and fire them individually, which spreads out the damage you deal time-wise and space-wise, and gives the opponent a chance to twist and turn to catch damage on their arms (and maybe legs if they've got jump jets).
The problem really is a matter of all those boated weapons firing at the same time and hitting the same spot. Any kind of solution must involve treating either of those two effects, or both. Otherwise, it breaks the damage/armor model we've derived from TT. If we're not going to address that, then we should ditch the TT damage/armor model, and come up with something new.

You are 100% correct on the cause of the actual problem it's pinpoint alpha strikes not PPCs or Gauss rifles themselves.

However the solution to this problem is either completely rework the armor mechanics to suit this damage dealing model.
Or..
Rework a convergence mechanic.

now the problems...

It's way to far along in development to rework a core game mechanic so the armor system we have now is the one we will have.
And a convergence system seems to be beyond the abilities of the development team to achieve without some serious code-Fu and a whole lot of time.So essentially we will also be stuck with our current pinpoint damage model.

So what does that leave us?

Heat mechanics and hardpoints that is about all the devs have left to them.

By using hardpoint limits we take the boating concept and limit it to specific boat mechs.This allows the developers to directly address boating mechs and not have to deal with something as isoteric as a concept of boating.

By instead going down the heat system route the developers are trying to devise an all encompassing system that effects every mech Boat or not.It is fairly obvious to me that as this heat mechanic sees more revision the potential to "nerf" non offending mechs and mech builds grows with each revision.

Now as for your belief that mechs like a Devastator (with it's 2X PPC and 2X Gauss) and other mechs like it would present a problem even with hardpoint restrictions.

There are actually three other resources available to balance out these potential monsters.

One: Art redesign to create inherent flaws in these monster boats.

Two: Engine rating limits to not allow for the best Alpha + best Mobility possible.

Three: Chassis quirks to give these mechs more design flaws (if needed) to balance them.

Let's analyze the Devastator.

In it's basic configuration it has a 300XL and as it is depicted a very wide torso.Already we see a weakness with this stock Devastator.

The Devastator also has those PPCs mounted low in the R/L Torso and the Gauss barrels also align at about waist level.This means that to effectivley shoot all 4 weapon this mech must crest over cover to waist level covering only the mech's legs and exposing those huge torsos to incoming fire.

So if the Devastator had an engine size cap of 300 and had design quirks that slowed acceleration and deceleration along with slow torso rotations this Devastator would crest terrain and alpha huge and then take longer than any other mech to drop back into cover.The slow torso reaction prevent the Devastator from easily twisting to spread damage.

So you have a mech with the best one hit damage potential and this comes at a price.Huge body segments,slow ground speed and limited firing arcs.

If the Devastator is the Rock then a light mech is the Paper with it's capacity to dance around behind the Devastator.

Currently we can build the best alpha strike on the chassis that have the best combination of characteristics.There are nearly no trade offs just take the best and put it on the best and there you have it the best mech with no real down side.

[Lykaon]

YueFei, on 17 July 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Limiting torso twist wouldn't help. High Alpha snipers are shooting at targets far away and with low LOS rates. I have driven a Stalker 5S with quad PPC, it doesn't need lots of torso twist anyway.

The torso twisting limitation is not intended to hinder the mech's ability to shoot at long distances it is for quite the opposite.

By having poor arcs the alpha strike monster has a wider than average "rear" that it can not effectivley defend from a quick and agile attacker.