740 replies to this topic

[fil5000]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 27 July 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

So the Goons WERENT the ones that organized this?

We did, Viper didn't.

[Sybreed]

Shakespeare, on 27 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Chassis variant utility was mentioned once or twice. I agree it's an issue worth discussing, but its also one the PGI seems aware of. I'm actually more concerned with the changes in their mech design process that have lead to some mechs (awesome, and to a degree the hunchback) being inferior even in their intended purpose compared to newer releases. Every mech shouldn't be good at everything, I think that's a given. (I mentioned missile tubes, for instance. Correcting/enforcing the launcher-to-tube system would help out missile-oriented chassis like the cat and treb almost immediately).

Looking forward to continuing the conversation, and finding a way we can meaningfully contribute to the future of the game, other than just playing it.

I must have missed that launcher-to-tube system part. What were you describing exactly? (Sorry you have to repeat yourself). What I find deplorable is that there is 0 incentive to do what the mech was supposed to do. Like the Treb you mentioned, which is supposed to be a fast long range harasser with some scouting utilities (when we have a decent NARC at least). I don't remember the last time I saw a Treb with a dual LRM launcher. I'm not saying they don't exist, but the PPC/SRM combo is a lot more prevalent.... and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But yeah... blame the meta.

Helmer, on 27 July 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

The #SaveMWO Townhall Audio logs are a great listen. I'm working my way through them now. Very , VERY well done. Kudos.

They must have edited the part with methane sparrow then

[Miekael]

I too would like to see more attention payed to mech quirks in general, I think it can be a great way to differentiate chassis from one another, even if they are the same weight. Another idea I liked that I read about just recently, was to have things like torso/arm speed related to the mech itself, and not based on the engine rating. It just seemed like such a great suggestion, that would allow more customization options in general for mechs willing to sacrifice top speed.

[keith]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 27 July 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

one of them used to HAVE a huge torso twist. It got nerfed because ppl cried.

pretty sure original all had 260 twist, making the cata chassis OP as hell. giving it to the chassis with only missiles so it can run and gun with missiles keeping range would not be bad. making it so players who have skill at run and gun showing their skill. this also help with the IS LRM having a min range of 180. the only thing it may break is being able to circle straf with srms. this is where we need community reps who play the game day in and out and know what they min and max a chassis with.

[Gwaihir]

Variant quirks could really go a lot further than the do now, yea. This is an example of some feedback from January or so, about really differentiating the different mech variants from each other. (Some of it is pretty obsolete at this point, being 7 months old, but you get the idea).

Stalkers
These guys need probably the most re-working of any assault mech to go distinct and have each variant be viable in it's own niche. Luckily, we have a lot of variants to work with and there are enough niches for them to all fill one well.


STK-3F

• Viability - This is the top tier stalker. It has the best (Or close enough to the best, the 5S is exactly the same + 1 AMS, and the 5M trade an energy mount for a missile mount) potential weapons loadout, by far the best torso twist range, and no real downsides. The twist range is reallly the killer. Having no articulated arms, being the only version that can even approach 90 degree twisting for that critical perpendicular walk one direction shoot in another. This variant should be the level of performance that all the others shoot for.
  
• Changes - This guy should stay as is. It's the generalist stalker that's not super specialized at any one thing, but is pretty OK at a lot of things.

STK-3H

• Viability - Currently this is one of the "bad" stalkers with the only thing going for it is that it has the most missile tubes. So a little tweaking can make this one the big bad LRM boat.
  
• Changes - 4E/6M hardpoints. 280 max engine size, 3F levels of twist (85'). Keep the laser hardpoints where they are and add 1 more missile hardpoint on each arm.

STK-4N

• Viability - The worst stalker, it has nothing going for it compared to the others. It is inferior in every way except for 6 energy hardpoints. Make this one the energy boat stalker that can do something the others can't, 3 energy in each arm for a brutal PPC sniper build. With 3 energy mounts in one arm location, you get the best pinpoint damage and eliminate convergence issues. It then has a good reason to trade off for the smaller engine.
  
• Changes - 280 engine max, 3F levels of twist (85'), 3E in each arm.

STK-5M

• Viability - One of the decent stalkers, a light mech's nightmare behind the catapult A1 due to being able to fit a lot of Streaks. It can also mount a whole load of SRMs and be a good brawler, as well as being the only stalker with a CT weapon to keep shooting after turning in to a complete Popsicle.
  
• Changes - Change the energy hardpoints to 4, 1E in each arm and 2E in the CT Have to dial back the potential firepower a bit because of the advantage a big twist range grants. Give it a high torso twist like a catapult's 140', keep the max engine size at the current 310 value. This one becomes the brawling stalker that can become a true zombie.

STK-5S

• Viability - Like it's 5M sibling, this is currently one of the decent stalkers (Although still not as good as the 3F due to torso twisting being so critical). With a couple tweaks this can be a unique brawling counterpart to the 3F and 5M.
  
• Changes - Make this the fast stalker but keep the 65' twist, with maximum 350 rated engine. The tonnage a big engine requires and the crit slots that endo steel takes up will give this one fairly unique effective fits without stomping over the other mech choices.

With the changes, you have 5 quite distinct stalkers: a generalist 3F, a more missile-boaty 3H, a precision energy focused 4N, a slower but very twisty 5M missile brawler, and a fast drive by jousting brawler in the 5S. All have a tradeoff of some sort, and they should all play quite differently from each other. I would legitimately buy all 5 of these mechs.

Awesomes
The poor awesome has had a serious fall from grace since the glory days of huge XL engines making fast laser and missile boats for all. In it's current form, it suffers from the lack of a tonnage based matchmatker, and being eclipsed entirely by atlas build, aside from the very niche possiblity of mounting 4x LRM15s, or 6 large lasers. That said, there's certainly the possibility of 5 unique Awesomes, similar to the stalkers.

The Awesome's big handicap right now, is that it's hitboxes are huge and easy to hit, which combined with slow engines and slow twisting/turning speed, means that it gets dismantled, fast. The overall goal for the awesome as a fast assault is a good one, and works well with it's current hardpoint setups and lack armor compared to heavier assaults.

AWS-8Q

• Viability - Right now, none of the awesomes are really viable. We haven't even played them in ages, really. They need tonnage matchmaking and serious tweaks first.
  
• Changes - Max engine needs to go up to 350. This will naturally increase turning speed and torso twist speed, but we think that awesomes need more than that to be competetive. It must be the most maneuverable assault mech (Oxymoron, I know) to help it protect those giant slab sides. The base twist speed and turn speed of the awesome should get pumped up to potentially even double the normal. I'm not sure on exact values here, it needs testing that we can't do. This variant, however, should focus on a much tighter turning radius than the other awesomes, so it should get faster turn speed. Hardpoint wise, this one needs no changes.

AWS-8R

• Viability - Right now, none of the awesomes are really viable. We haven't even played them in ages, really. They need tonnage matchmaking and serious tweaks first.
  
• Changes - Max engine on this variant should stay lower than the others, at 300. It's the best awesome for either SRM boating or LRM boating, and I don't think anyone wants to really bring back the 4x SRM6 + 350 or larger engined Awesome. It can get some of the modest maneuverability increases that all awesomes really need, but this one should not be a fast brawling mech.

AWS-8T

• Viability - Right now, none of the awesomes are really viable. We haven't even played them in ages, really. They need tonnage matchmaking and serious tweaks first.
  
• Changes - This Awesome is unique in having 2 energy hardpoints on each arm, so play to that strength. Boost arm speed and range of motion and torso twist range, along with a max 350 engine. No hardpoint changes needed.

AWS-8V

• Viability - Right now, none of the awesomes are really viable. We haven't even played them in ages, really. They need tonnage matchmaking and serious tweaks first.
  
• Changes - The 8V is well positioned to be a good generalist due to it's hardpoints. It should get a modest boost to it's turning, twisting range and speed, and arm mobility, as well as the 350 max engine. It's not as specialized as the others, but it will be a generally good mech.

AWS-9M

• Viability - Right now, none of the awesomes are really viable. We haven't even played them in ages, really. They need tonnage matchmaking and serious tweaks first.
  
• Changes - Bump up to a 400 max engine. This would be the only mech in the game currently that can mount one. One of the energy hardpoints should also get shifted to the left or right torso, along with a missile hardpoint going from the CT to the left arm. It's a sorta neat choice to have to choose between using missiles or energy in the CT, but the current config unduly handicaps an already not super great mech in this case. It should also get some modest increases to turning speed and twisting speed.

[Sybreed]

^^

Meh, I don't really think your fixes resolve anything. Being able to fit bigger engines in mechs just mean that instead of piloting a slow, bad mech, I'm piloting a fast, bad mech. Or instead of boating 4 SRMs, I'm boating 6. Yay I guess?

IMO, PGI needs to add special quirks to variants, such as the 8Q generating 10% less heat per PPC and being able to alpha the 3 at the same time without penalty. The 8M could have a general 5% increased heat dissipation (number can be tweaked so it's not superior to 8Q perk) or a faster lock time for streaks.

The Hunchback 4G could have a 15% decreased heat and ROF for using an AC/20 or Gauss, the 4P a 10% reduced heat on medium lasers, etc.

That would bring more to the game IMO, but I don't have ideas for all variants. IMO, PGI painted themselves in the corner with their quirks and hardpoints.

[Miekael]

Some great suggestions you got there Gwaihir, I for one agree with you about the Stalkers and how similar each chassis is. When it was first released, my unit had a short thread going with the need to know, and pretty much all you needed to know at that time was 3F and 5M. Poor Awesomes though, they got the rough life in this game.

[Gwaihir]

Sybreed, on 27 July 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

^^

Meh, I don't really think your fixes resolve anything. Being able to fit bigger engines in mechs just mean that instead of piloting a slow, bad mech, I'm piloting a fast, bad mech. Or instead of boating 4 SRMs, I'm boating 6. Yay I guess?

IMO, PGI needs to add special quirks to variants, such as the 8Q generating 10% less heat per PPC and being able to alpha the 3 at the same time without penalty. The 8M could have a general 5% increased heat dissipation (number can be tweaked so it's not superior to 8Q perk) or a faster lock time for streaks.

The Hunchback 4G could have a 15% decreased heat and ROF for using an AC/20 or Gauss, the 4P a 10% reduced heat on medium lasers, etc.

That would bring more to the game IMO, but I don't have ideas for all variants. IMO, PGI painted themselves in the corner with their quirks and hardpoints.

That would absolutely be fun, but it would also require new code changes. Of course, they wasted coding time putting in the useless ghost heat scaling, instead of just balancing weapons, so who knows!

[Wilburg]

Quincy80, on 27 July 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

This so hard.

My favourite part of the WoL Birthday Tourny was when I was fighting a mirror match in trial atlases. It took forever and in the end I was lost my right torso and all my center armour. We both overheated at least once.
The fight was all torso twisting, heat management and precise targeting. My strategy of concentrating only on the CT was a close win over my opponents choice of shooting off my right torso(reducing my DPS by more than half).

That´s exactly what never will happen with open Hardpoints. We all know how much fun it is (Trial Tournaments, 3025 Tournaments, etc.) but all take it as "Fun Events", the competitive part keeps being PPC/Gauss-Fest. That´s where I don´t see the reasonable approach ... there MUST be a way of having both: the fun of unique mechs with their pros and cons together with competitive matches. I think about something in the middle of un-modified stock mechs and efficiency-builts, something like upgraded mechs in decent manners ... (in my little world ^^)

Sybreed, on 27 July 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I must have missed that launcher-to-tube system part. What were you describing exactly? (Sorry you have to repeat yourself). What I find deplorable is that there is 0 incentive to do what the mech was supposed to do. Like the Treb you mentioned, which is supposed to be a fast long range harasser with some scouting utilities (when we have a decent NARC at least). I don't remember the last time I saw a Treb with a dual LRM launcher. I'm not saying they don't exist, but the PPC/SRM combo is a lot more prevalent.... and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But yeah... blame the meta.


They must have edited the part with methane sparrow then

That´s what I meant that people even stick SRM launchers into NARC tubes, just because they got tweaked. It´s just not reasonable, but not only because it is senseless to pulse-SRM, but also because it shows the problem of sticking "bigger" weapons where they don´t belong. Unfortunately we have no examples for ballistics or energy slots, as they don´t have "tubes" to canalize their shots. But (again in my little world) a PPC in a S-laser slot would blow it´s way through your armor with the first shot ^^

[Aware]

Wilburg, on 27 July 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

That´s what I meant that people even stick SRM launchers into NARC tubes, just because they got tweaked. It´s just not reasonable, but not only because it is senseless to pulse-SRM, but also because it shows the problem of sticking "bigger" weapons where they don´t belong. Unfortunately we have no examples for ballistics or energy slots, as they don´t have "tubes" to canalize their shots. But (again in my little world) a PPC in a S-laser slot would blow it´s way through your armor with the first shot ^^

When you think about it; it is really interesting we have a mechanic in place that limits missiles fired from a hard point yet PGI is unwilling to consider hardpoint restrictions on everything else.

[Sybreed]

Gwaihir, on 27 July 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

That would absolutely be fun, but it would also require new code changes. Of course, they wasted coding time putting in the useless ghost heat scaling, instead of just balancing weapons, so who knows!

Thanks. They could even add incentives to use varied loadouts closer to stock designs. For example:

Stalker 3F: 10% increase in ROF and decrease in heat generated for using a mix of LRMs, SRMs, Lasers.

Centurions: 10% increase in speed and ROF for using a mix of lasers, ACs and missiles.

You can still use the zombie cent or the PPC stalker, but you're gonna miss on some nice buffs.

Edited by Sybreed, 27 July 2013 - 03:51 PM.

[keith]

Sybreed, on 27 July 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

^^

Meh, I don't really think your fixes resolve anything. Being able to fit bigger engines in mechs just mean that instead of piloting a slow, bad mech, I'm piloting a fast, bad mech. Or instead of boating 4 SRMs, I'm boating 6. Yay I guess?

IMO, PGI needs to add special quirks to variants, such as the 8Q generating 10% less heat per PPC and being able to alpha the 3 at the same time without penalty. The 8M could have a general 5% increased heat dissipation (number can be tweaked so it's not superior to 8Q perk) or a faster lock time for streaks.

The Hunchback 4G could have a 15% decreased heat and ROF for using an AC/20 or Gauss, the 4P a 10% reduced heat on medium lasers, etc.

That would bring more to the game IMO, but I don't have ideas for all variants. IMO, PGI painted themselves in the corner with their quirks and hardpoints.

these are great ideas. like GD said during the meeting there is countless ways to balance the weps, there is countless ways to make the mechs better/unique. PGI has to take the time to sit down and play with numbers and maybe code some new stuff like that.

Sybreed, on 27 July 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

Thanks. They could even add incentives to use varied loadouts closer to stock designs. For example:

Stalker 3F: 10% increased in ROF and decrease in heat generated for using a mix of LRMs, SRMs, Lasers.

Centurions: 10% increase in speed and ROF for using a mix of lasers, ACs and missiles.

You can still use the zombie cent or the PPC stalker, but you're gonna miss on some nice buffs.

stuff like that makes me think of rune for armors in MMOs.

[Sybreed]

keith, on 27 July 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

stuff like that makes me think of rune for armors in MMOs.

Huh... is that a good thing?

Lol, anyway, I'd rather have that than the actual heat penalty system.

[Miekael]

Sybreed, on 27 July 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Huh... is that a good thing?

Lol, anyway, I'd rather have that than the actual heat penalty system.

Don't put it past PGI, I recall reading about "epics" at one point and time. No idea what they could possibly do with something like that, but they did throw it on the table.

[Viper69]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 27 July 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

So the Goons WERENT the ones that organized this?

They were I am merley a bystandard.

fil5000, on 27 July 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

We did, Viper didn't.

Exactly this^^

[Chronojam]

Sybreed, on 27 July 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

Thanks. They could even add incentives to use varied loadouts closer to stock designs. For example:

Stalker 3F: 10% increase in ROF and decrease in heat generated for using a mix of LRMs, SRMs, Lasers.

Centurions: 10% increase in speed and ROF for using a mix of lasers, ACs and missiles.

You can still use the zombie cent or the PPC stalker, but you're gonna miss on some nice buffs.

I saw somebody post about changes like these and a dev said that in the current framework, such boosts weren't possible. That's why Gwaihir never included anything like that in his post from above, he was under the impression that despite these ideas being great ways to tweak mech roles, it was not possible at the time (he originally wrote that a few months ago) and PGI surely had no developer time since surely they were focused on community warfare which would show up any day now :V Surprise, ghost heat instead.

Edited by Chronojam, 27 July 2013 - 06:50 PM.

[Magicbullet141]

I do not consider a 1 point heat increase for ppc/erppc an aggressive weapons balance like PGI claims to be doing.

[CeeKay Boques]

This was actually a pretty good discussion. There was some chest puffing, and some people that were pretty full of themselves picking on PGI. Most of the talking was eerily similar to the forums, a lot of practiced complaints, and well thought out dickish digs and puns, attempts to create buzz words, and few solutions. Try to curb that if you have another, imo.

That said, the solutions that did come out were pretty good.

Partnering and mentoring system. I could see people signing up for that, a new guy is assigned if you happen to be on.
One thing I didn't like on "Helping new people not be overwhelmed" was talk about dumbing down the game itself rather than the much needed documentation. This game needs a manual. A big fat, colorful probably video manual. This game needs MORE complexity to keep the competitive, and a better way to lay it out for the uninitiated. All the information you need is on the forums, but people seemed SO worried about the new player picking it up and not getting it. My kids can get it, hell Sarah got it... I'm pretty sure we just need more mentors.

If only there was this large, unified group of players bent on helping baddies. SK-Walk.

Trapping New players in their own "virtual reality" of mech freedom. That was fantastic. Scratch death machine trial mechs. Give them all the toys. Let them see the richness of it. Doing that with out confusing them would be the key. Also, smurfgrief.

Time delay instead of complex heat math would probably be ok. This is kind of how it worked in MW4. Big weapons took so long to recharge, that brawlers would come in and just DPS focus fire at close range with fast recycle weapons. Fixing the PPC and Gauss with longer recharge could be part of fixing this, as long it didn't turn into the other thing from MW4, even LONGER range fights, because you had to hide a little longer. Also, flamers meant something. Give power to flamers. Let us heat you up at close range, that will put some fear in to the stalkers eyes. (if you get that close)

Giving players the ability to at lease SUBMIT work for the game (maps, etc) was another great comment. We desperately want to share the load it seems. Give the community assignments or henpecking is what we'll do instead, I guess. Have map contests, someone will win, I assure you.


Someone broke it down in the talk to base elements:

"Long range battle is more effective than Short Range battle."

Well, This is true everywhere in the world. It is the nature of war, Bows gave Genghis Asia, and F22s and drones give US the world. I'm not sure this can or should be fixed in a war game in a way that makes this untrue.

I saw in the 12 mans, more room for flanking maneuvers that crushed sides of defensive lines, much like cavalry in to an archery line. That's what we should be going for... We need opportunities for great acts of mech heroism to be something that can work, once in a while.


I can't sign the letter because Battletech canon systems are what make this game great. (Not math, systems. If it said BT MATH, that'd be different) Someone mentioned PPC diffusers. Well what about Reflective and Reactive armor? There are lots of great modifications in TW and especially TO that have a good place in the game and can fix, or at least complicate current perceived OP issues... What you want to make stuff up? Not have anything?

The other problem is ourselves. There was a great community, right at closed beta. Now we're separated from the Devs. All this torch and pitchfork stuff why they are very careful with what they say, and why they don't say much. Two words from a dev brings 35 pages of threads from rabid fans, many of whom don't seem to be really fans, at all. The devs don't tell us much, and we don't trust them. Now we are attacking them as kindly as possible. I'm not sure how to turn that ship around, except with amazing results. "Player community" reps would need to be on the side of Mechwarrior, BTU, the Devs, Esports, and Fun. Devs are the gods here, and threatening with your tithes and so mean its cool comments isn't really a wake up call. http://kotaku.com/tw...ez-ii-934548588. I wouldn't want to communicate a lot with us either.

The big problem is that PGI is taking too long. We need CW Yesteryear. We need something else to talk and complain about other than mechanics. Bring us a Planetary league, now. Even if its not perfect. We need missions, we need bases, we need stuff to do other than collect trinkets and reputation. They need to hire about 50 more guys, or put more meth in the cooler.

Good job talking about MechWarrior guys.

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

Miekael, on 27 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Don't put it past PGI, I recall reading about "epics" at one point and time. No idea what they could possibly do with something like that, but they did throw it on the table.

This is all we know about epics. They haven't said anything since.

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

Incidentally, we cracked 600 signatures on the #savemwo letter.