82 replies to this topic

[SgtMagor]

I would make melee an important part of the game, I think it would add so much to mech combat, than just the standard pew pew.

[Syllogy]

Get $10,000,000.00, get a license from Microsoft, and start your own game company.

Problem solved.

Until then, Bob will comfort you:

[Odanan]

@John Matrix: agreed with pretty much everything, except for changing pulse lasers weight. I find the TT weight/criticals sacred.

In fact, I think the other stats like damage, range and heat should be kept as close as the TT rules are - if possible exactly the same. The only really flexible attribute, in my opinion, should be Rate of Fire. (the devs managed to balance the lighter autocannons by greatly increasing the RoF - that was a very good decision)

Thinking well, having both 12 vs 12 and 8 vs 8 maps would strain the matchmaking even more... what's the solution?

Turret and power plants: I find the idea of having real "objectives" (instead of just plain "bases" to capture) very good. This would add much flavor to the game. Maybe a new game mode where each team has a number of buildings to protect?

[M0rpHeu5]

Odanan, on 03 August 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

@M0rpHeu5: agreed with everything except the MW4 thing (I really hate how MW4 handled weapons and equipment).

I am not talking about the same system. I am talking about a mix of the MWO and MW4 systems.

[Bishop Steiner]

except the AWS-9M (just the first off the top of my head) carries it's SSRM ammo in it's Left Leg.

And if we go by "how does it get from point a to point b.... in most mechs, there is no way the torso ammo could feed to weapon in the lower arms. Where exactly do you place the ammo feed on a Cataphract for it's arms? How do you reload a bunch of missiles to a Commando's forearms?

Also, then what, Legs are solely for Jump Jets? (Excess room to stuff our endo only?) Let's face it, SHS are NOT getting used, so HS are out of the picture. So For non jumping mechs, the Leg Criticals become dead space, and actually a penalty.

Also, in all fairness, following this reasoning, then the crits for Endo and Ferro should be required to be in ALL locations of a mech, as an Endo Steel skeleton isn't just bulky in one or two spots.

Just sayin.

[Odanan]

Thunderklaws, on 09 August 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

But didnt they break heat to start with by messing with RoF?

They did... but the way to fix this is not by changing every weapon heat attribute.

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

except the AWS-9M (just the first off the top of my head) carries it's SSRM ammo in it's Left Leg.

And if we go by "how does it get from point a to point b.... in most mechs, there is no way the torso ammo could feed to weapon in the lower arms. Where exactly do you place the ammo feed on a Cataphract for it's arms? How do you reload a bunch of missiles to a Commando's forearms?

Also, then what, Legs are solely for Jump Jets? (Excess room to stuff our endo only?) Let's face it, SHS are NOT getting used, so HS are out of the picture. So For non jumping mechs, the Leg Criticals become dead space, and actually a penalty.

Also, in all fairness, following this reasoning, then the crits for Endo and Ferro should be required to be in ALL locations of a mech, as an Endo Steel skeleton isn't just bulky in one or two spots.

Just sayin.

That's the only stock mech I know that has ammo in the legs... maybe there are other, but I can say 99.99% of the mechs have ammo in the torsos (which is stupid, if you consider the TT rules for critical hits).

What I don't like is that, in MWO, it is mandatory to put ammo in the legs. If ammo in the legs was good, don't you think after 400 years of mech warfare, people would start to build mechs that way?

[Sug]

Odanan, on 03 August 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

Here is my list:

I want to play that game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 09 August 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

That's the only stock mech I know that has ammo in the legs... maybe there are other, but I can say 99.99% of the mechs have ammo in the torsos (which is stupid, if you consider the TT rules for critical hits).

What I don't like is that, in MWO, it is mandatory to put ammo in the legs. If ammo in the legs was good, don't you think after 400 years of mech warfare, people would start to build mechs that way?

STK-5M: NARC Ammo in Left Leg
But those are the only 2 I know of.

And TBH, I largely agree, as does my OCD.

I dislike leg weapons, ammo, and tbh, even to a degree JJs. I don't think a Mech should be able to mount all their JJs in their legs, because putting rockets on the calves of an inherently unstable, vertically biased walking/flying brick would be just such a good idea. I would only allow like 1/3 of the total JJs in a mech into the legs, and those are not so much for actual thrust, but maneuvering. But then, i also evenly distribute my Endo throughout my entire chassis when designing them, and Ferro likewise.

[Odanan]

Syllogy, on 09 August 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

Get $10,000,000.00, get a license from Microsoft, and start your own game company.

Problem solved.

Until then, Bob will comfort you:

Bob is Meat Loaf. With teats.

[MisterFiveSeven]

Odanan, on 03 August 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

So, you won the jackpot lottery and you decided to buy PGI.
Now with the power of decision, what would you change to make MWO a better game?
*snip*

I was literally thinking the exact same thing yesterday lol.

[Storm Fox]

Freaking amazing job OP! I LOVE these ideas and 100% support PGi acting on getting them into the game.

Well done!

[John MatriX82]

Odanan, on 09 August 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

@John Matrix: agreed with pretty much everything, except for changing pulse lasers weight. I find the TT weight/criticals sacred.

In fact, I think the other stats like damage, range and heat should be kept as close as the TT rules are - if possible exactly the same. The only really flexible attribute, in my opinion, should be Rate of Fire. (the devs managed to balance the lighter autocannons by greatly increasing the RoF - that was a very good decision)

The problem with my idea of lowering their weight is that some weird numbers pop up. Like LPL@ 6 tons, MPL @ 1.5 tons and SPL @ 0.75 tons. The problem with those weapons still is weight, while heat burden isn't a tremendous issue, but it is since you don't go around with 1 MPL, you at least want to use 2-4 of them; speaking of a Jenner or a Cicada, you trade 4 tons over when you can go ML, have more DHS and/or speed and/or armor, to get back half the range, major heat burden, probably less speed to employ hit and run tactics and so on. Lowering some weight would help making them more useful; if weight has to stay the same, then I see only another solution (that screws TT ideals either way): increase the damn range to be closer to non-pulse counterparts, with similar heat. You would then waste those extra tons only to get a shorter beam duration, which is a great thing, but you'd still have to find those extra tons and sometimes it's not that easy.

Right now what bothers me more is that whenever I have 7 tons, a PPC is better, no matter his heat; a ML is better over a SPL, and when I have to employ a SPL why bother, a normal SML does a similar job with less heat and half the weight.

Odanan, on 09 August 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Thinking well, having both 12 vs 12 and 8 vs 8 maps would strain the matchmaking even more... what's the solution?

Another problem now is to find 4 extra players to do 12 mans vs 12 mans. I wonder how that queue is now, i bet it's quite deserted, even before finding 8 mans was rather high, now it's going to be even more painful.

From a matchmaking standpoint I unfortunately think that they should separate them, so you can select 12, 8, or casual, but I fear their server handles only 12vs12 right now.

Odanan, on 09 August 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Turret and power plants: I find the idea of having real "objectives" (instead of just plain "bases" to capture) very good. This would add much flavor to the game. Maybe a new game mode where each team has a number of buildings to protect?

In my books i'd turn Assault in what I described above, you have 2 bases, each base is heavily defended; mean: one or two lights would be wasted in no time by the automatic defenses. But there is one or two secondary obj (that can be a power plant or a firing control station or both in two different places), that's way less defended. When any enemy tries to attack it you are alerted, once they destroy either the power plant or the firing control station they "unlock" the main base, so that you have both the time to fall back and games would be more tactical, this especially for the bigger maps.

Conquest I'd make it similar to battlefield conquest.. when you obtain one of the 5 objectives for your team, that is a drop point for re-spawns. Yes, respawns.
You can have in queue 4 mechs (or more whatever), when your team has more than 1 base and you die, you select on which spawnpoint you can drop from an orbital dropship (that would be greatly immersive performing an orbital drop!).

If a spawn point is contested, you can't spawn in there; a team that controls or contests your allied spawns may get the victory because your allies can't get back into the map, because dropping is prevented. Spawn points could stay undefended like they are now in the actual conquest. Maybe I'll add that the central one have a mech repair bay, so that's the focal point of the action because if you hold it, your team can save up some respawn tickets.

The game ends up when one of the two teams runs out of tickets, or when one team controls all the spawn points and hunts down the enemy till its last mech, or time ends. That would be sooooo cool, but I'm pretty sure that several hardcores don't even want to hear talking about "respawns".

[Odanan]

John MatriX82, on 10 August 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

The game ends up when one of the two teams runs out of tickets, or when one team controls all the spawn points and hunts down the enemy till its last mech, or time ends. That would be sooooo cool, but I'm pretty sure that several hardcores don't even want to hear talking about "respawns".

I'm one of those guys who don't even want to hear "respawns".

But, thinking again, it would do no harm to have a "team deathmatch" gamemode with respawns... eventually. Or at least the so called "dropship mode", where you have 4 mechs to play.

[John MatriX82]

Odanan, on 10 August 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

I'm one of those guys who don't even want to hear "respawns".

But, thinking again, it would do no harm to have a "team deathmatch" gamemode with respawns... eventually. Or at least the so called "dropship mode", where you have 4 mechs to play.

It's always a game mode, and that would be absolutely more different than assault with two or 5 bases, and that would make sense to employ those 4 mechbays at full..

[Urdnot Mau]

Odanan, the KDR of my TBT-7K is 3.92. It's a good mech. But i agree with you about some thing. Specially the heat thereshold and maybe hardpoint sizing. The problem about hardpoint sizing is, for example, the HBK with an AC 20. It's a huge weapon and it's difficult to decide what to do about hardpoint sizing in those examples of customization. One other thing is that Assaults with PPC+Gauss combination will still be very recurrent.

[John MatriX82]

Urdnot Mau, on 10 August 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Odanan, the KDR of my TBT-7K is 3.92. It's a good mech. But i agree with you about some thing. Specially the heat thereshold and maybe hardpoint sizing. The problem about hardpoint sizing is, for example, the HBK with an AC 20. It's a huge weapon and it's difficult to decide what to do about hardpoint sizing in those examples of customization. One other thing is that Assaults with PPC+Gauss combination will still be very recurrent.

I'd do it like this.. atm if you want to build an HBK around the AC 20, the 4G results to be fairly inferior to a 4H. Basically the latter can bring a 4th medium laser or 3 sml+2ML, with a slightly smaller hunch.

With an hardpoint restriction system the 4G could be the only HBK AC20 or GR capable, while the 4H could be limited to AC10/LBX10, this would make it a more respected mech.
About 2 PPC 1 GR, you could limit it with hardpoints as well, at the same time you could allow mechs like AWS 8Q and 9M to be the only ones to be 3 PPC (or ER PPC) capable -this without any heat penalty-, limiting the rest of the variants to a max of 1 or 2 PPC via hardpoints.. instantly 4G would be more respected, the same for the Awesomes..

[Odanan]

John MatriX82, on 10 August 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

I'd do it like this.. atm if you want to build an HBK around the AC 20, the 4G results to be fairly inferior to a 4H. Basically the latter can bring a 4th medium laser or 3 sml+2ML, with a slightly smaller hunch.

With an hardpoint restriction system the 4G could be the only HBK AC20 or GR capable, while the 4H could be limited to AC10/LBX10, this would make it a more respected mech.
About 2 PPC 1 GR, you could limit it with hardpoints as well, at the same time you could allow mechs like AWS 8Q and 9M to be the only ones to be 3 PPC (or ER PPC) capable -this without any heat penalty-, limiting the rest of the variants to a max of 1 or 2 PPC via hardpoints.. instantly 4G would be more respected, the same for the Awesomes..

Couldn't agree more.
Awesome shouldn't be penalized to use the stock 3x PPCs. And if other assault mechs were not able to mount 3 Large Energy weapons, the Awesome would have a niche in the sniper role (as it should be).

[Odanan]

OP updated.

(hoping to bring enough attention to the thread to make the devs at least consider some of these changes)

[John MatriX82]

Odanan, on 11 August 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Couldn't agree more.
Awesome shouldn't be penalized to use the stock 3x PPCs. And if other assault mechs were not able to mount 3 Large Energy weapons, the Awesome would have a niche in the sniper role (as it should be).

Yep, Awesomes right now are the biggest and fattier mech in the whole game, they are already "penalized" enough, being the slowest assaults of the bunch (9M and PB apart), especially now with the intro of the Victors, that can run bigger engines with somewhat better hitboxes. Even being 3xPPC capable, they'd be more used, respected and at the same time pretty counterable.. because you can hit them pretty easily.