228 replies to this topic

[Noth]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I don't care about there being a best build. That's the problem, you are arguing something I don't care about. There will ALWAYS be a best build, you are correct.

My argument is, I want the best build to include 2 medium lasers, an SRM, a LRM and an AC. Instead of just 2 PPC and a Gauss, or 3 AC/5's, or whatever combination of super similar weapons people decide to use after PGI puts in a useless nerf.

This will increase survivability and reduce the amount of single click alpha's due to differences in weapon speeds, spread and such.

What will happen is shooting off an arm becomes an actual viable tactic again, and mechs will take a lot of damage spread all over their components thus leading to matches requiring more decision making.

The thing is, that will never happen in competitive play as it splits the damage far too much (even with a slower convergence and fixed torso weapons). You seem to ignore how the competitive scene functions. You find the best abusable build and run with it. That will never be a mixed build since they are less efficient at that level. Skilled players will still only center core players because that is still teh fastest and most effective way to kill someone.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Noth, on 19 October 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

The thing is, that will never happen in competitive play as it splits the damage far too much (even with a slower convergence and fixed torso weapons). You seem to ignore how the competitive scene functions. You find the best abusable build and run with it. That will never be a mixed build since they are less efficient at that level. Skilled players will still only center core players because that is still teh fastest and most effective way to kill someone.

You are debating under the assertion that PGI will never change anything (You are probably right by the way).

I'm debating based on the assertion that the game in fundamentally flawed and you need to make changes towards a style of play that limits alpha's and boating FORCING skilled players to use varied builds which makes it much more difficult to hit the same spot repeatedly.

This effectively increases the skill necessary to play and makes it a lot less twitch and a lot more about making good decisions with each shot.

[Noth]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

You are debating under the assertion that PGI will never change anything (You are probably right by the way).

I'm debating based on the assertion that the game in fundamentally flawed and you need to make changes towards a style of play that limits alpha's and boating FORCING skilled players to use varied builds which makes it much more difficult to hit the same spot repeatedly.

This effectively increases the skill necessary to play and makes it a lot less twitch and a lot more about making good decisions with each shot.

Actually no, your desired changes would not have that effect. The only way that the competitive scene would use varied builds is if the mechs builds could not be changed from stock. Changes to the current system outside of that would simply change which weapons they boat. They will always, always lean towards as much pinpoint damage as possible and quickly as possible. It is simply the nature of competitive play.

Edited by Noth, 19 October 2013 - 07:11 PM.

[DyDrimer]

Stop playing, fixes all those issues. Play some thing else, sure a nother game will be so much more balanced.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Noth, on 19 October 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Actually no, your desired changes would not have that effect. The only way that the competitive scene would use varied builds is if the mechs builds could not be changed from stock. Changes to the current system outside of that would simply change which weapons they boat. They will always, always lean towards as much pinpoint damage as possible and quickly as possible. It is simply the nature of competitive play.

You did catch the part where I said they need to change the hardpoint system right?

You ARE actually reading my posts right?

PLEASE tell me you are reading my posts?

[Dudeman3k]

Roughneck45, on 19 October 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Well thats cause you gave me an AC40 jager with no convergence to work with. The 733 will still put 2 ppcs and 2 ultras into the same spot with one alpha.

yes, it will still render 30 damage to that new players mech.... however, at the expense of wasting its other weapons to hit else where (or miss entirely) and taxing it's heat for a mere 30 point alpha.

either way, the new player will have a better chance at survival because it didnt also get hit with the 733's SRMs in the process

[RandomLurker]

Here is (IMO) the fix you are looking for: http://mwomercs.com/...-demo-included/

It maintains pinpoint aiming, but it raises the skill ceiling and creates a predictable dynamic for your opponent to exploit. Thus, more varied and interesting combat with more give-and-take between combatants.

[Roughneck45]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

You did catch the part where I said they need to change the hardpoint system right?

You ARE actually reading my posts right?

PLEASE tell me you are reading my posts?

All you said was "very lax hardpoint rules".

You should clarify your posts a bit more if you are going to be so condascending to other players.

Dudeman3k, on 19 October 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

with the 733's SRMs in the process

lol

[Nicholas Carlyle]

The second paragraph of that post specifically mentions varied loadouts being a requirement.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

And just to reiterate, we HAVE to move away from a system that encourages using the same weapon types ad-nauseum.

Otherwise none of the other fixes matter.

[Roughneck45]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

The second paragraph of that post specifically mentions varied loadouts being a requirement.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

No, it's what happens when you have instant pinpoint convergence, coupled with an INSANELY high heat cap and sprinkled with some very lax hardpoint rules.

If the heat cap was lowered, and varied weapon types were used, along with slowed convergence (IE, you can still have pinpoint convergence, it's just not instant)...you suddenly have a very interesting tactical game where actual decisions matter more then putting your mouse over a slow moving target with a giant center torso and clicking.

I see no mention of requirement.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I don't care about there being a best build. That's the problem, you are arguing something I don't care about. There will ALWAYS be a best build, you are correct.

My argument is, I want the best build to include 2 medium lasers, an SRM, a LRM and an AC. Instead of just 2 PPC and a Gauss, or 3 AC/5's, or whatever combination of super similar weapons people decide to use after PGI puts in a useless nerf.

This will increase survivability and reduce the amount of single click alpha's due to differences in weapon speeds, spread and such.

What will happen is shooting off an arm becomes an actual viable tactic again, and mechs will take a lot of damage spread all over their components thus leading to matches requiring more decision making.

No requirement here either, just a wish that mixed loadouts would be the strongest.

Edited by Roughneck45, 19 October 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

No, it's what happens when you have instant pinpoint convergence, coupled with an INSANELY high heat cap and sprinkled with some very lax hardpoint rules.

If the heat cap was lowered, and varied weapon types were used, along with slowed convergence (IE, you can still have pinpoint convergence, it's just not instant)...you suddenly have a very interesting tactical game where actual decisions matter more then putting your mouse over a slow moving target with a giant center torso and clicking.

Better?

Roughneck45, on 19 October 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

I see no mention of requirement.


No requirement here either, just a wish that mixed loadouts would be the strongest.

See this is where reading comprehension is important, the whole premise is that the current game is functionally broken.

The hardpoint system, the heat system and the convergence system.

Just fixing one doesn't fix the problem, especially with the clans coming.

You have to fix all three.

It's the theme in the posts I've made here. You are willfully choosing to nitpick it.

[Roughneck45]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Better?

You did not say they were a requirement, just a wish that they were used.

You still come across as a [redacted] btw. Might want to work on that.

Edited by miSs, 19 October 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

IT'S A REQUIREMENT, Happy?

Does it make you feel better that I specifically said it instead of insinuated it via my multiple posts explaining that we need people to use multiple weapons?

And I am a [redacted], especially to people who paid for the Overlord package and are perpetuating the terrible development of this game.

[RandomLurker]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 October 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

Just fixing one doesn't fix the problem, especially with the clans coming.

You have to fix all three.

Good to see someone taking the comprehensive approach. Some actual sense is needed around here.

Here's my contribution to the convergence discussion. Personally, I favor hardpoint-based convergence, but I don't think that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening so this is the next best thing.

Edited by RandomLurker, 19 October 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

[redacted]

Now then, the game is fundamentally broken.

We need to fix the heat system, we need to fix the hardpoint system, we need to fix the convergence system.

The problem is PGI either can't or won't fix them due to ineptitude. Which is why I can't understand why people like you keep shoveling them money in hopes they'll actually live up to one of their many failed promises.

Edited by miSs, 19 October 2013 - 08:17 PM.
responding to deleted content

[Codex Clavdex]

Here is my 2 cents on a solution.

All weapons should have a duration like lasers except gauss and missiles. First off this solution is supported by the lore in books, lasers, AC's and ppc's almost always had a duration or fired in a burst that stitched their damage over more than on section of armor. The only direct fire point of impact weapon in the books was the gauss. I they keep lasers hoc they are and make AC's fire a burst of shells and ppc's shoot a bolt of lighting this would solve all the problems we have with that current meta. It allows us to keep the pin point firing but changes the skill requirement to being able to stay on target while they and you are moving. This also makes it easier to balance weapons cause you can adjust duration, number and damage per shell in a burst. Also for the one weapon in mwo that is a true instant pinpoint damage dealer, gauss, the charge mechanic is a perfect balancing feature to the other weapons if they implemented my idea.

Sorry for the poor grammar I wrote this on my ipone

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Solution? Pinpoint is pinpoint - period. There is no solution to pinpoint damage. High alpha crying is BS, it's all about pinpoint damage. If MWO loses the pinpoint they also lose alot of players. All is fine. They need to fix the HSR so every weapon registers properly.

AC/20 and gauss were always the ultimate weapon from the times of CB. Why would that change? 30, 25, 20 pinpoint damage is the most effective way to take down a mech. You cannot change that in any way. You do not have to have LOS to target for 1 whole second, you shoot and spread damage. Period. That will never change.

Buff lasers, don't nerf pinpoint.

[Fooooo]

Dudeman3k, on 19 October 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

"and the skilled player is going to take the less than half a second required to adjust their aim and finish the job"

that right there is music to my ears..... the pilot had to "adjust fire!"... now, is there a chance of over adjustment? YES! under adjustment? YES! Miss click after the first shot? YES!

instead of the now present. Instant 40 Damage. done.

I know you know where I'm getting at. The skill gap required to master the function is steep, yes. but It also helps survivability from experienced pilots because of added variables they need to preform in turn.

Yeah I see it increasing the level of play a bit at the mid to higher ends, for newer players it wont make any difference to how things play out. It would be pretty much the same to them as someone else pointed out already. (new player dies to vet....obv)

However I think what they are missing is that your not talking about balancing newbies against vets (im fairly sure your not ), you just want more skill in aiming. (and to that I agree)

The changes that would happen to the lower brackets + new players would be moot as they are going to die against a vet in there anyway.

Edited by Fooooo, 19 October 2013 - 11:49 PM.

[Cirran]

I am curious, since there seems to be a bit of animosity between both sides of this issue. Who should PGI listen to, pinpoint, or scatter? Who should PGI cater to, "skill" players or the "scrubs"? Are there more "skilled" folks in game or scrubs? Who do they stand to make more money off of? In my .05 cent opinion, it would be which ever is the larger group.