24 replies to this topic

[Martis Gradivus]

WARNING: This is an amalgam of opinion, observations and suggestions.

Ok, so I have been playing this game for about 2 weeks now, and I am starting to understand it better. I don't currently play with a fixed group and basically just "PUG" games.

I have a long background in Battletech, having played since mid-1980's when all the mech sheets looked like a Chameleon mech and all we had to play were 2 map boards, the white and red Battletech book and later on the 3025 readout (and later on all the other books, addendums and TRs)

So far, I have come to observe 3 things: Long Range Missiles, the "medium" range game and min/maxing.

First, there is a gap between the board game where LRM use is concerned. In this game, it is too easy to break LOS and therefore lose the missile salvo because with the exception of 2 or 3 maps, LRMs are at a disadvantage. In the actual board game, only the AC/2 and the gauss rifle had a longer range than the LRMS, whereas in this game, except for SRMS, MGs, AC/20 and all lasers that are not ER or PPC, everything can hit out PAST that range.

Yes, I will grant that the damage is lessened, but it, IMHO, negates the whole advantage of the LRM system. Also, LRMs are the ONLY system in the game that cannot fire on their target at MAX range unless someone else has a lock on that target because the sensors can't lock on past 800M unless you have modules or a BAP.

There is also the whole "incoming missile" warning. Why? Why have it? The only people who should HAVE such a warning are those that equipped an AMS as the role of the AMS is to lock-on and destroy missiles. Make the warning only applicable to mechs with the proper gear (AMS) to give value to said gear. It would also be a good idea to look into increasing the LRM's speed from 120 m/s to 200 m/s or maybe 250 m/s. This would mean a flight at max range would take 5 seconds or 4 seconds to reach the target and would make LRMs more viable. Also, an increase from 180 missiles per ton to 240 would help alleviate some of the disadvantages to LRMs (this last point is not as important and would be a last measure addition maybe).

Second point is the medium range game. There is no such game, not in MWO anyways. In TT Battletech, a Hunchback with an AC/20 would not be too eager to shoot his target at long range since his chance to hit, his BTH, was low. Imagine if you will a running HBK firing at long range at a running AWS on a flat plain at a range of 7 hexes (210 meters). Assuming a 4/5 pilot (as most were), the chance to his his target was 8 (Base Long Range BTH) + 2 (attacker running) + 2 (AWS ran 5 hexes during the turn - assuming, I know) = 12 BTH. I know *I* would not have wasted a shot on the AWS since I would not have hit. That same AWS, however, with 3 PPCs, would have had a BTH of 6+2+2 = 10. If that AWS had been an ARC-2R, that BTH would have been 4+2+2 = 8. This is the medium game I speak of. It doesn't exist in this game because of the maps, the extended range of most weapons, and my 3rd point, min/maxers. Approaching an STK in TT was not trivial due to it being well balanced with LRMs, LLs and MLs. It could hurt you at all ranges and was particularly murderous in the medium ranges, ranges I consider from 6 - 15 hexes, or 180m to 450m. I believe that extended weapon ranges are the cause of this loss, and as such, remove a tactical aspect of the game.

Finally, min/maxers. They exist in every MMO. They max certain stats and completely ignore other stats to be a more "powerful" character. MWO is no exception. People will cram the MOST amount of firepower and armor and speed on their mech as they can and they don't pay attention to the mid ranges because, I stated above, there is no mid range in this game. They either set up for insane range sniping, or close range alphas. The game does not REWARD balanced play. It rewards kills, component destruction and kill assists. I can't really fault min/maxers because the game design is made in such a way that it is the only way to be successful. How many people have I seen running around in a BLR with 3 AC/2s on their arm? Too many. Why? It is effective. In TT Battletech, AC/2s were plinking weapons, in MWO, they are high DPS / low heat / high ammo weapons. Consider this please. In TT, a Machine Gun causes the same damage as an AC/2. In this game, an AC/2 has a 3.85 DPS and a Machine Gun only 1.00. Yes, there is the whole weight issue, but the point is still valid.

I am enjoying this game. I think it is fun, but right now it is tactically boring. I am sure with more maps and community warfare it will become more interesting. There are currently some OP weapons and mechs, and when they finally fix the hit boxes on certain mechs, it will, I am sure, change. Those same mechs will no longer go toe-to-toe with an assault and will more likely do the job it was supposed / meant to. Here then is my list of possible suggestions (I have more, but these seem to be, IMHO, the most pressing). They do need to be vetted and balanced, but they could be interesting.

1. Increase the range of the sensors to 1250 meters for mechs equipped with an LRM (the 250 range extra is to provide time to lock at max range)
2. Increase LRM speed to 200 m/s or 250 m/s to make LRMs viable when fired at long range
3. If LRM speed is determined to be too "advantageous", make LRMs fire and forget missiles. You can still break LOS (and prevent further launches) but you can still take damage from the salvo fired.
4. Increase the range of TAG to 1500m. Why does a laser get to fire at twice it's max range and not the TAG?
5. Along with the the TAG change, make it so that "tagged" mechs don't need to be locked on to be fired on. Required special missiles that cost 2x as much to buy or have added heat, like 15% more when fired to offset the advantage.
6. Remove the "incoming missile" warning for all mechs unless they are equipped with AMS. Make AMS have a greater value, and allow LRMs the same "is it coming" factor as all other weapons fired when you don't know it is coming. *This is one I really would love to see above all else*
7. Introduce the Arrow IV Artillery Missile. Those pesky light cappers will think twice about clustering together. Arrow IV from a CPLT and TAG from a RVN.......a match made in heaven.....and a whole new tactical problem / option.
8. Salvage. Once the game is done, all dead mechs are checked for intact components. Every component has a .5% or 1% chance to be salvageable, and that salvage is they accorded randomly to one of the winning players, dead or alive. An interesting way to allow people to acquire items without grinding C-Bills constantly. % can be adjusted for gameplay balance.
9. New maps, bigger maps, different objectives and the addition of the remaining mechs in ther TR2750
10. A balancing pass on mechs to prevent abuse. Example, the HSR 200-D Hussar moves 9/14 (151 kph) and has as ER Large Laser. To offset, it has all of 1.5 tons of armor. Allowing an XL engine on such a design would remove the offsetting balance and we have an OP mech. Many current mechs need such a balancing pass / review.

I am not an expert on all things Battletech or MWO, and I have not played as long as most of the long time players here, but I do have ideas, and I hope that sharing them will be a positive thing.

[Hellcat420]

lrms do not need a buff. if you were around for the lrmpocalypse you would understand why lrm's are where they currently are.

[Warge]

Welcome to the club... lot's of suggestions made. Almost none listened. PGI-style.

[Thorqemada]

LRM = Nono - the Forum would again drown in Tears...^^

Honestly, Missiles could only get better if they reworked them completely including softening up min and max range, flightspeed, lock on etc. but do not expect it as there is a deep "Missile Hysteria" around.

Edited by Thorqemada, 17 October 2013 - 03:40 PM.

[Shockwave144]

Wow so out of those 10, 6 were to buff LRMS. Ok...

Also, why on earth to people keep comparing turn-based TT games to simulation games?

[Martis Gradivus]

Shockwave144, on 17 October 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Wow so out of those 10, 6 were to buff LRMS. Ok...

Also, why on earth to people keep comparing turn-based TT games to simulation games?

I never said all the buffs were to be implemented. It's more a buffet.....take what makes sense and such. Better I offer 5 possible options than a single one, no?
As for comparing to TT, how can I not when the whole game draws it's design, gameplay and "rules" from the TT game. What other framework do I have to work with?

[Lukoi Banacek]

OP. I think you need more than 2 weeks of playing this game. Your LRM/TT bias are incredibly clear and stilt the discussion mightily.

I disagree 100% that there is no "medium range" game which you define as 180m-450m. Given the emphasis on the AC20 and LL in matches, I'd argue you're not even close to correct. Yes, there are a ton of popsnipers out there but obviously, you and I don't play the same game if you think there are no fights at these ranges. And I mean real, serious, close up brawls as units approach each other.

In TT Battletech, AC/2s were plinking weapons, in MWO, they are high DPS / low heat / high ammo weapons. Consider this please. In TT, a Machine Gun causes the same damage as an AC/2.


So? They are not an OP weapon, offer some bang for the buck, have decidedly clear limitations on use. What's the issue? They don't match your TT concept?

I point this one out in particular because it's very telling. Almost your entire commentary above is about how the game doesn't match with TT. I'd argue, that's not relevant. As has been pointed out probably....a million times on these forums, the TT ruleset will not translate directly in real time. Be it the doubling of initial armor values, the ever changing heat rules, human reflexes and convergence versus cone of fire, reticle limitations etc and all of the other arguments previously discussed, the bottom line is TT is not the point of departure anymore for this game and has not been for a long time.

I'd like to offer the following feedback to your suggestions:

1. Increase the range of the sensors to 1250 meters for mechs equipped with an LRM (the 250 range extra is to provide time to lock at max range)

No. I'd be all for a module or some kind of equipment that did this at a cost the missile boat to increase sensor range, but don't agree that simply arming LRM's should grant it. Maybe an LRM specific module that augments the "advanced sensor range" module we already have.

2. Increase LRM speed to 200 m/s or 250 m/s to make LRMs viable when fired at long range

This is an oldie but a goodie here. If I was in charge of game development, I'd look at some minor tweaks to missile speed, but I'd start with smaller increments than you do here, in order to prevent another LRM-apolocalypse as we've had previously (prior to your game experience it would seem). That being said, I do think LRM's should outrange AC2 and ERPPC. I just believe the sensors should not come free....forcing you to use a spotter perhaps etc etc.

3. If LRM speed is determined to be too "advantageous", make LRMs fire and forget missiles. You can still break LOS (and prevent further launches) but you can still take damage from the salvo fired.

No. If you lose lock, you lose the ability to track. It's part of the trade off that prevents them from being OP. Btw, you can dumbfire at a point on the ground or a non-bracketed target, just don't get the benefit of tracking/adjusting in flight. I'd like to see them dumbfire to the original targeted point or something similar to that once LOS is broken, but they already do something similar.

4. Increase the range of TAG to 1500m. Why does a laser get to fire at twice it's max range and not the TAG?

Another oldie but a goodie. I agree with this one. Why not? Another hard counter to ECM and let's be realistic....not too many places you can TAG for 1500m anyway.

5. Along with the the TAG change, make it so that "tagged" mechs don't need to be locked on to be fired on. Required special missiles that cost 2x as much to buy or have added heat, like 15% more when fired to offset the advantage.

Interesting, but I swear this seems on the surface to be something easily exploited and will be a grief mechanism. I'd like to see this on multiple furballs on Test server before passing judgment, but my initial response is to vote no.


6. Remove the "incoming missile" warning for all mechs unless they are equipped with AMS. Make AMS have a greater value, and allow LRMs the same "is it coming" factor as all other weapons fired when you don't know it is coming. *This is one I really would love to see above all else*

Interesting. Would increase the value of AMS for some people, influencing fence riders to buy it. Most competitive players probably still wouldn't bother with it because they make situational awareness a signature skill requirement to play at that level regularly.

7. Introduce the Arrow IV Artillery Missile. Those pesky light cappers will think twice about clustering together. Arrow IV from a CPLT and TAG from a RVN.......a match made in heaven.....and a whole new tactical problem / option.

I think some form of this is in the works for much further down the road. In the meantime, you have artillery strikes that do 40pts of damage a shell now. Try em out.

8. Salvage. Once the game is done, all dead mechs are checked for intact components. Every component has a .5% or 1% chance to be salvageable, and that salvage is they accorded randomly to one of the winning players, dead or alive. An interesting way to allow people to acquire items without grinding C-Bills constantly. % can be adjusted for gameplay balance.

Random allocation of benefits is a hot-garbage-esque idea. Earn the benefits. I mean if you're just going to hand out free-chicken, let's just add 5% to everyone's cbill earnings across the board, rather than have some random mechanic.

9. New maps, bigger maps, different objectives and the addition of the remaining mechs in ther TR2750

New maps are always on the horizon. New Mechs are always on the horizon. Did you not notice the influx of them this week? I don't think anyone here is going to say "noooo, no more Mechs or maps." They might ask that PGI prioritize them against the need for CW, the need for additional game modes etc however.

10. A balancing pass on mechs to prevent abuse. Example, the HSR 200-D Hussar moves 9/14 (151 kph) and has as ER Large Laser. To offset, it has all of 1.5 tons of armor. Allowing an XL engine on such a design would remove the offsetting balance and we have an OP mech. Many current mechs need such a balancing pass / review.

Since the Hussar isn't ingame and apparently isn't slated to arrive anytime soon, if at all....what Mechs do you think need a balancing pass, and in what way, after two weeks of exploring the 70+ variants we have out there (I'm sure that number is higher, I just don't feel like counting them all up, I think that's high enough to make my point).

As for comparing to TT, how can I not when the whole game draws it's design, gameplay and "rules" from the TT game. What other framework do I have to work with?

The feel of the game. The canon-lore from the novels, the TROs. The visceral feel of it from your imagination's point of view from back when you envisioned these big stompy suckers terrain each other up in a TT match. Seriously, you are pigeon holing yourself if your only frame of reference is the simplistic math of the TT games versus how the game feels and immerses you when you play it.

There is someone on here building a TT inspired game called RogueMek I believe that is basically 100% TT. You should try that out btw.

[Kazairl]

I think the OP is correct in his assertion that there is no medium range, in some regards at least. Some factors that encourage his/her opinion:

The AC20 is a short range weapon, yet it can kill at 700m. If that is short-range what is medium?

The speed at which the game plays compared with table top. When 2 mechs engage in MWO the difference between 450m and 250m is usually less than one shot given weapon recycle times and mech movement speeds.

Also on many maps, mechs are often within 180m of each other before they get a visual. Whether you put this down to good piloting or abundance of cover it can lead to the feeling that there is little direct medium range engagement. Often going from bombarding a position with LRMs to engaging at 180m with direct fire.

Medium range combat is avoided because at 400m you are in a golden zone were almost every weapon in the game is effective against you. You are easy to hit, and friendly fire is not a risk.

[Gozer]

Let me start off by saying, Way to go Lukoi. You disagreed in a thoughtful and well laid out manner. If only all forum disagreements were like that.

Actually I'm also in agreement with Lukoi on the LRM stuff. Longer Tag, good, Module for Longer sensors is good too, and the "incoming missle" warning going way without AMS I like that too.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with Gozer and Lukoi (despite starting at BattleDroids and everything since). I would like to see some small incremental increases in LRM speed. When PUGing they are most effective at 5-600m direct fire, if like me you only use 20 or 30.
What they should not do is look at the balance based on 3 or 4 "boats" in an organised team. Most weapons are OP in those circumstances.

[MustrumRidcully]

I also tend to think that the LRM mechanics are bad for the game and make it difficult to balance.

People are scared of any changes for the LRM, because we had at least 3 LRM apocalypses since Closed Beta, where LRMs did ridicilous damage or flew ridicilous angle making it impossible to defend against...

Kazairl, on 17 October 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

I think the OP is correct in his assertion that there is no medium range, in some regards at least. Some factors that encourage his/her opinion:

The AC20 is a short range weapon, yet it can kill at 700m. If that is short-range what is medium?

I don't disagree that the AC/20 might have a range too long, but don't exaggerate to much here. 700m is not an effective weapon range for the AC/20, the damage is pathetic at that range. But it's still good at 400-500m.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 October 2013 - 03:43 AM.

[Galenit]

Or just reduce the ballistic overrange from 2x to 1x like the energyweapons have ...

That would even the maxranges out and only a few weapons would do damage at max. lrm range.
ErLargeLaser, ErPPC, AC2, AC5, UAC5, LBX10 and Gauss can hit at 1000m, but only the ac2, gauss and both er-energy will do some noticeable damage at 1000m. I find it matching, one directhit and one dot weapon for energy and ballistic at that ranges, choises are what a game needs ...

To balance it more the following would help:

Up the tag-range to 1000m and the missilerange a few meters too, that there real maxrange is 1000m and not 1000m - arc like its in the moment. (1500m, but you cant look on or hold a lock on a target more then 1000m away. Or the devs can just calculate the max range that is needed by the arc they programmed to hit a mech 1000m away.)
Then increase the missile speed to 150, maybe 175 and remove the missilewarning for all mechs without ams.

Making ams better is not needed, it looks week because only a few players use it, if you have ever seen 4 or more ams working together you know what i mean ..
AMS range, its 90m, it works up to 270, that must be changed to 135/270m then.
Maybe its a way to make the commandconsole usefull by upping all ams ranges in team to 300m when a mech has the commandconsol slotted?


Maybe increase the gaussrange to 700m to make the gauss the best sniperweapon or let it stay where it is making the erppc to the best range sniperweapon then. What gives you a nother choice: longer range / lower travel or lower range / faster travel.

Edited by Galenit, 18 October 2013 - 03:59 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

The disagreement over medium range fights is largely semantics. The fact is, in my particular experience of around 4000 matches, most of the time spent fighting is well under 700m and is in fact more commonly between point bpank brawling out to about 500m typically. LL and below, prime range. Thats short to medium range. While the AC20 can reach 800m thats not where people spend the ammo as its counter productive given the rounds per ton of the ammo. Long range is largely the purview of the ERPPC, Gauss and AC2 and fights simply dont stay at those ranges for the majority of the fights ime. It takes too kuch skill and patience to stay at those ranges which the vast majority of the playerbase dosnt have nor do they build their Mechs in that manner.

The "cheese" builds capable of long range sniping also have the added benefit of usually being workable at close ranges in skilled hands which is why you still see them on competitive teams. Doesnt mean they have ten minute sniperfests typically.

[Wispsy]

I would not mind removing warnings.

[Galenit]

Wispsy, on 18 October 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

I would not mind removing warnings.

You can have your warning, you just need the tech slotted that can lock on missiles and track them for 0.5 tons.
If you put a ton of ammo in it, it will do a little more.

Maybe shared missile warnings is a thing to put in the commandconsole too?

Then it will increase ams range of all teammembers to 300 and all teammembers will have the warnings if one mech have an ams?
Or is that to much and should only work for the lance?

Edited by Galenit, 18 October 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Hammerhai]

Regarding the range argument: I remember from CB that one of the design pillars was forcing shorter range engagements and avoiding Circles of Death et al, through ample cover for one. So I would posit that asking for engagement ranges to be extended is contrary to the stated intention.

As far as I can tell avoiding such pitfalls as endless circling matches has been successful. I would also caution that in light of this maps are going to continue to be designed with this intent, and probably rightly so. While I could live with the warning being removed, I wonder just how much more difficult that would make life at 150 kph and 300m visual ranges.

While maybe done with the best intentions, I remember the Lurmpocalypses too well to support them being boosted again.
I drive a Flame set up as a Grand Dragon, with a paltry LRM 10, and despite sometimes doing 30 or 40 damage, I get enough XP rewards out of this to keep using this, and find it fairly satisfying. I certainly do not want a return of the 240 LRM lances, personally. it is great for sitting on Kappa and rattling the opponents cage at Theta on Canyon, try it, you might like it.

I have also found that using LRMs at up to about 300m drastically increases the hit percentage from the low teens to up to 30%, and this may be a deliberate attempt to enforce closer range use with smaller volley size.

But I find the ideas articulate and reasoned. Good thread

[Galenit]

Reducing Ballistics to 1x overrange and giving lrms the real 1000m would reduce overall engagement ranges a little.
Most weapons would have around 500m best usage range then.

Buffing speed of lrms would make them hit more often, but that can be countered to some degree by ams/commandconsole range increase and the overall more use of ams, because its needed to get the missilewarnings.

Edited by Galenit, 18 October 2013 - 04:29 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

LRMs should have their speed increased.

But the main thing I would change with LRMs (if I was the god-king of PGI) would be to change cockpit shake. It annoys me that being hit by a single missle shakes as much as a salvo of 50. Perhaps .05 seconds or so per missle which stack. Therefore if you were hit by 1 or 2 it would barely be noticable. But if you were hit by that LRM 60 salvo, you'd be shook up for 2-3 seconds as explosions & secondary explosions rocked you.

(of course - I also think all cockpit shake should vary by mech as well - should an atlas really be shook up as much as a locust?)

[Sybreed]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 October 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

I also tend to think that the LRM mechanics are bad for the game and make it difficult to balance.

People are scared of any changes for the LRM, because we had at least 3 LRM apocalypses since Closed Beta, where LRMs did ridicilous damage or flew ridicilous angle making it impossible to defend against...

And what mechs were responsible for those LRMapocalypses? My Treb or my Founder Cat were not considered OP when those LRMapocalypses happened, but that LRM60 AWS, Atlas and that LRM 100 Stalker sure were considered game breaking.

The issue back then was that PGI gave too many boating possibilities to assaults by giving them too many hardpoints. Don't let anything fire more than 40 LRMs at the same time and suddenly LRMs are no longer OP. Now they've been nerfed to the ground so boaters aren't too OP, but smaller mechs like the Treb really suffer from it.

The fact that we barely see any Trebuchets around just kind of prove it.

[Khobai]

Quote

The fact that we barely see any Trebuchets around just kind of prove it.

Not really. The reason you dont see Trebuchets is because theyre the size of Awesomes. If youre going to have the downside of being the size of an Awesome, you might as well just play an Awesome.