479 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

Just like One AC20 did on TT.

Yeah if you got the dice to roll the RT as the hit location.Most of the time the AC20 would not land exactally where you needed it to because the odds were um...1 in 36 to do just that.

So was there an unexpressed desire to further point out how MWo has failed to supply proper support mechanics for the armor mechanics they took directly from the table top game ?

[Lykaon]

Bhael Fire, on 08 January 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

I'd rather see weapons be deadlier to force players to think before they run around each corner and to use cover liberally.

Making weapons DOT soft-hitters will make matches last longer for careless, reckless and/or aggressive players but ultimately it does nothing for the "thinking man" who'd rather use tactics and caution to reduce the deadly effects of weapons.

In other words, I'd much rather see lasers get buffed instead of ACs nerfed.

And I would rather the focus of a match be on accomplishing an objective rather than "smash em up robots".

The exchange of fire and destruction of the enemy mechs should be an effect of the objective's being tended to not instead of paying attention to objective.

The "thinking" in the "thinking man's shooter" should not be how to best hide in order to hopefully hit more often with crippling volumes of damage befoe they do.

The thinking should be how do we accomplish a mission objective before attrition has made the objective unatainable.
You know more like actual tactical warfare.

[Lykaon]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

Read this statement. Think about it
Then read the statements you made of similar nature in the post prior to that. Think about those

Do you see why I'm disregarding anything else you have to say at this point?

Let's see.........

I've posted SEVERAL alternative and suggestions that I felt would help bridge the gap between energy and ballistics.

You?
You've resorted to 6th grade name calling about the people posting the ideas.
GL&GH Skippy

Oh and the obligatory

"Read my maths. They make me right because math means my opinion is fact"

Wow,can you continue to broaden my horizons.I think with a few more interactions like this I too can acheive complete detachment from reality.

Addressing your first claim: I agreed with you that exceptional skill can allow for similar performance regardless of the weapon types being used.It is not the weapons doing it it's the pilots.

I once saw a TV show where a man with a bow and arrow shot through the center of a lifesaver candy that tossed in the air.He was an exceptional archer capable of attaining amazing feats of accuracy with a bow.

I will however never recommend that the army should replace it's assault rifles with bows.That's just assinine.

Addressing your second part: You have posted several options that ALL perform in clearly inferior ways to ballistic based designs.None of the examples came close to the performance of the ONE example I countered with.A novice could take out my example and get results.Your examples were so high on the learning curve it was akin to saying "hey army guys use bows and arrows instead of assault rifles cause I think bows are cool".

It was detached from a comparative annalysis of weapon performances.You slap down some designs that in my opinion are garbage designs to expect anyone but the most experiences pilots to attain any satifactory results ( 5 large laser Battlemaseters indeed!) And ignore the comparative data.

And onto your next statement...

Pot this is Kettle talking check and see whom was in insulting who.If I recall (yep just scrolled up and checked) you resorted to some colorful attempts to discredit my points with a classic strawman attack on my skill as a pilot and/or general intelligence instead of refuting any of my data or claims.

Dispite being (again) a source of humor since neither my intelligence or compitence in MWo had any bearing on the comparesons I was drawing.

Onto your last statement...

I supplied comparative data that supported my point you supplied a handful of poorly designed giggle inducing large laser boats.

So,do you have any real data to support that your 5 large laser battle master is in any way superior to my example ?

I was able to argue effectivley that I could build a Ballistic/ppc based design on the same chassis that was superior in performance to your example in nearly every way.I will relist the examples


1) Higher sustained DPS by aprox. 25%
2) Superior cooling efficency by 50%
3) Longer effective range by aprox. 25%
4) Not effected by ghost heat in any way.
5) Uses a standard engine for enhanced longevity
6) Posseses similar armor capasity
7) Posseses similar speed characteristics
8 ) All weapons align to a single reticule with a wider range of motion (all weapons are arm mounted vs torso and arm on your example)
9) Makes use of more favorable firing mechanics (instant discharge vs beam duration)
10) Makes use of more favorable damage application mechanics (pinpoint damage vs hit scan damage)
11) Lower visability when firing at range (AC5s do not leave nice long blue "shoot me I'm over here" signs when fired.)

And the best counter argument you can put forth is I'm somehow less intelligent and a bad mechwarrior player or what amounts to "it's good for me so it's balanced".

I expect more from someone who has been at it for as long as you have. You have been here for nearly 2 years and you can not support an argument with anything better than name calling and "cause I said so" .

[Gaan Cathal]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

I was able to argue effectivley that I could build a Ballistic/ppc based design on the same chassis that was superior in performance to your example in nearly every way.

/snip/

11) Lower visability when firing at range (AC5s do not leave nice long blue "shoot me I'm over here" signs when fired.)

I give good odds that the only response made to this is "you said ballistic/ppc and then said it had lower visibility but ppc leaves trails so your entire post is invalid".

[Nihtgenga]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

The "thinking" in the "thinking man's shooter" should not be how to best hide in order to hopefully hit more often with crippling volumes of damage befoe they do.

The thinking should be how do we accomplish a mission objective before attrition has made the objective unatainable.
You know more like actual tactical warfare.

Quoted for truth. The main point is not about buffing/nerfing this or that one value in an XML table, because it would only ending up in a shift of meta from one type of loadout to another - we've seen that many times over. The overall relations between weaponry, tactical/strategical items and defensive options need to fit together to prevent a "Meta Warrior Online".

As long as about 9 out of 10 cap matches are (successfully!) played more like it being an assault match, it's a clear sign of viable tactic possibilities in MWO being more on the level of an arcade shoot-em-up from the 1980s than where they should be.

[SamsungNinja]

Nihtgenga, on 12 January 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

Quoted for truth. The main point is not about buffing/nerfing this or that one value in an XML table, because it would only ending up in a shift of meta from one type of loadout to another - we've seen that many times over. The overall relations between weaponry, tactical/strategical items and defensive options need to fit together to prevent a "Meta Warrior Online".

As long as about 9 out of 10 cap matches are (successfully!) played more like it being an assault match, it's a clear sign of viable tactic possibilities in MWO being more on the level of an arcade shoot-em-up from the 1980s than where they should be.

Personally, I wish the game motivated you to dismantle a mech, vs going straight for the core. Once I got into higher ELO, I started seeing my CT turn red while everything else was still yellow. I've since learned to torso twist, but that's just a bandaid, and yes I'm aware that it's a technique which separates the men from the boys.

I wish I had brain bleach so I could go back to being a noob, where I thought dismantling a mech was the best way to kill it. I had so much fun surgically tearing arms off people.

That being said, to this day nothing gets me to yell "Oh yeah! How do you like them apples?" at the screen faster than taking a light's leg off. Usually proceeded by "Not so fast now, are ya!?"

Gripes aside, I still love the {Scrap} out of this game.

[Lykaon]

Gaan Cathal, on 12 January 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

I give good odds that the only response made to this is "you said ballistic/ppc and then said it had lower visibility but ppc leaves trails so your entire post is invalid".

AC5s? the design in question is a Battlemaser with 1 ER-PPC and 2x AC5s.

Also,addressing the PPC visable projectile.It leaves the barrel and passes along it's trajectory to the target.It is not imediatley apparent where the origin point is if you did not observe the weapon being fired.Unlike a 2 second duration beam of blue light that has it's origin point at the firing unit and it's termination point at the target.

So even with the visable PPC shot it is more advantagious than having (literally) a laser pointer indicating where you are at the precise time you are firing.

[Sephlock]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Also,addressing the PPC visable projectile.It leaves the barrel and passes along it's trajectory to the target.It is not imediatley apparent where the origin point is if you did not observe the weapon being fired.Unlike a 2 second duration beam of blue light that has it's origin point at the firing unit and it's termination point at the target.

So even with the visable PPC shot it is more advantagious than having (literally) a laser pointer indicating where you are at the precise time you are firing.

Admit it, how many of you have seen a PPC bolt fly overhead and turned in the wrong direction ?

Edited by Sephlock, 12 January 2014 - 07:05 AM.

[SamsungNinja]

Sephlock, on 12 January 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

Admit it, how many of you have seen a PPC fly overhead and turned in the wrong direction ?

This.

Those trails are a a quarter mile long. It's perfectly clear where the ball of lightning came from. Sure I might know which specific bush he's hiding behind, but I know pretty well which cluster of bushes it came from.

It's a lot more obvious than AC/ rounds, and I don't think I've ever wondered where that AC/2, /5, /10, or /20 round came from when I've seen it go whizzing by my face hole, on its way to go ruin someone's day.

Edited by SamsungNinja, 12 January 2014 - 06:50 AM.

[Lykaon]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

Personally, I wish the game motivated you to dismantle a mech, vs going straight for the core. Once I got into higher ELO, I started seeing my CT turn red while everything else was still yellow. I've since learned to torso twist, but that's just a bandaid, and yes I'm aware that it's a technique which separates the men from the boys.

I wish I had brain bleach so I could go back to being a noob, where I thought dismantling a mech was the best way to kill it. I had so much fun surgically tearing arms off people.

That being said, to this day nothing gets me to yell "Oh yeah! How do you like them apples?" at the screen faster than taking a light's leg off. Usually proceeded by "Not so fast now, are ya!?"

Gripes aside, I still love the {Scrap} out of this game.

This would further seperate MWo from any of the masses of FPS games.I would like to see some adjustments in a few game mechanics to create a game play enviorment where we are not all trying to build the best damage slinging machine but we were instead incouraged to build a mission completion machine.

Altering the focus from killing a mech in as few trigger pulls as possible to thinking about how to best neutralize a specific mech variant or build would to me bring some additional layers to tactics.

Objectives need to become the focus or we will still be saddled with the same old team death match with some secondary objective that is largely ignored.

As long as the most efficent means of winning is smash em up robots we will not be seeing anything I qualify as " a thinking man's shooter".

I was just playing a Pug skirmish match where an enemy stalker was stripped of it's side torsos leaving it completely disarmed and incapable of further contribution in meeting the object "destroy all enemy mechs".

Yet,my team mates still place substantial firepower into it to kill it.In the time it took for my 2 team mates to kill the stalker I had changed targets to a fully armed enemy Victor that,because it was only under attack from my single 55 ton Wolverine survived long enough to land a kill and contribute to the objective.If my two lancemates thought it through they would have immediatley searched for a target that was a threat instead of wasting time on what should have been mop up duty.

It has become so ingrained in the players to kill kill kill they ignore better judgment and do not think about the objectives sadly even when the objective is to kill.

[SamsungNinja]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

This would further seperate MWo from any of the masses of FPS games.I would like to see some adjustments in a few game mechanics to create a game play enviorment where we are not all trying to build the best damage slinging machine but we were instead incouraged to build a mission completion machine.

Altering the focus from killing a mech in as few trigger pulls as possible to thinking about how to best neutralize a specific mech variant or build would to me bring some additional layers to tactics.

Objectives need to become the focus or we will still be saddled with the same old team death match with some secondary objective that is largely ignored.

As long as the most efficent means of winning is smash em up robots we will not be seeing anything I qualify as " a thinking man's shooter".

I was just playing a Pug skirmish match where an enemy stalker was stripped of it's side torsos leaving it completely disarmed and incapable of further contribution in meeting the object "destroy all enemy mechs".

Yet,my team mates still place substantial firepower into it to kill it.In the time it took for my 2 team mates to kill the stalker I had changed targets to a fully armed enemy Victor that,because it was only under attack from my single 55 ton Wolverine survived long enough to land a kill and contribute to the objective.If my two lancemates thought it through they would have immediatley searched for a target that was a threat instead of wasting time on what should have been mop up duty.

It has become so ingrained in the players to kill kill kill they ignore better judgment and do not think about the objectives sadly even when the objective is to kill.

A lot of this has to do with player psychology. As long as kills appear in the obituary log and end-of-match screen, they'll continue to value kills more. It's why you see friendly targets rushing into your line of fire to jack the kill from you.

Remove kills from the scorecard, drop the obituary/kill log in-game and maybe then you'll see the fever pitch die down every time someone thinks they can rack up another kill.

I think another step would be to add a damage modifier to the CT and L/RTs where they take reduced damage if the rest of the mech is intact, to discourage coring as a meta mechanic. If you took 25% less CT damage and 15% less L/RT damage if your mech is in otherwise good shape, it would certainly place more emphasis on tearing a mech apart, and make brawling more fun.

It would also reduce the efficacy of the current sniping meta, as well as make LRM boats less of a day-wrecking experience.

even if it was tethered to total mech health, say -20%CT -10%L/RT @ 100% 'mech health, and then drops off linearly until the mech is at 50% total health. So, if you're down to 75%, your CT dmg reduction would be 10% and your L/RT would be 5%.

Obviously these numbers are fresh from being pulled out of my ***, but hopefully you get what I'm thinking.

And, if it's a new game-wide mechanic, it'll affect everyone equally. At least then maybe an Atlas might actually scare the scrap out of you. Currently this only happens when I'm in a light/medium mech and turn the wrong corner, coming within spitting distance of a D-DC. +Terror modifier if it's in lower River City, and my mech doesn't have JJs.

Edited by SamsungNinja, 12 January 2014 - 07:25 AM.

[Sephlock]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 03:16 AM, said:

Yeah if you got the dice to roll the RT as the hit location.Most of the time the AC20 would not land exactally where you needed it to because the odds were um...1 in 36 to do just that.

So was there an unexpressed desire to further point out how MWo has failed to supply proper support mechanics for the armor mechanics they took directly from the table top game ?

Couldn't you accept a die roll penalty to try to hit a specific area?

And anyway, wouldn't it be 2, at the very least, rather than 1, since you'll generally want to hit the head regardless of circumstance ?

[Jman5]

I agree with OP that the overly flexible range of ballistics is a problem. The 3x range modifier makes the damage fall-off much more gradual and much less of an issue than it is for lasers with their 2x range modifer. That said, I would rather see ballistic max range brought down more in line with energy than energy brought up to ballistics. Too much of the game is determined by who can ping who enough from 800 meters +.

I would drop ballstics max range down to 2 or 2.5x. I would upgrade pulse laser ranges to match their normal counterpart. And I would upgrade small lasers to 120 optimal range instead of 90.

Edited by Jman5, 12 January 2014 - 09:00 AM.

[Varent]

Cerberias, on 10 January 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Already addressed his lack of math in a previous post, no, 36 armor will not core someone out from the rear, if they have 16 rear armor on a highlander it's 72 armor to peel through. 6 medlas cannot alpha 5 times before overheating with 14 dhs, another stat pulled out of your arse. An atlas (who will usually have more rear armor as they're a brawler), has 62 INTERNAL armor not including any external rear armor, so once again, your math is off on the 2 alphas to core. Seeing a pattern here?

Also, if you get a jenner in behind our poptart lance, without us knowing, my lights messed up. You cant balance things for pugs, because pugs are generally worse and have less teamwork, balance for the good players and it trickles down.

your assumption is im talking about an organized 12 good sir, versus a 4 man drop or a solo man, tactics are different in each. Sidenote, your math is wrong. 16 rear armor is 32 effective armor. thats almost cored with one alpha. of 6 medium lasers. and actually yes you can, think of the options available to you in the game then come at me again.

also In higher elo its dependent on what mech since many store ammo in there center torso as well your even capable of lighting that off.

Noesis, on 12 January 2014 - 01:48 AM, said:

OK two AC10's can do the equivalent 3 times without overheating (needing only 3 tons of ammo) in the time in takes 6 MLs to do it twice with one overheat and at least 20s needed to cool down in between before then overheating again if fire is sustained.

3:2 or more for same fire output capability and having greater range. This if anything simply helps to confirm ballistics effectiveness and longevity in comparison to lasers.

How's that for math?

the issue wasnt the damage it was the amount of damage to do a specific task, which the jenner is able to do with the tools it has available to it.

[Varent]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 03:10 AM, said:

Tactics evolve to handle strong strategies,Later strategies evolve to counter the tactics and newer tactics are developed to handle an evolved strategy.

I think your confusing weapons and tactics. You want to change weapons to fit tactics instead of changing your tactics to fit weapons. Ive actually managed to use tactics, even in higher elo that allow for every weapons to be used in the game very effectively across the board with the exception of a few basic things. I would say that if all weapons are seeing use then there isnt a balance issue. Its the way weapons are supposed to be. Though as I said there are a few things simply not used that personally I feel could use some tweaking.

Large Pulse Laser.
Narc.

It could also be argued the large laser in general although it is sometimes used on atlas... about 50/50.

(not going into other equipment, just weapons)

Edited by Varent, 12 January 2014 - 09:12 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I agree with OP that the overly flexible range of ballistics is a problem. The 3x range modifier makes the damage fall-off much more gradual and much less of an issue than it is for lasers with their 2x range modifer. That said, I would rather see ballistic max range brought down more in line with energy than energy brought up to ballistics. Too much of the game is determined by who can ping who enough from 800 meters +.

The x3 modifier is fine IMO. The AC/20 just needs its max range decreased from 810m to 675m, so it isnt outright better than AC/10. Autocannons should also probably fire in bursts rather than doing all their damage up front. PPCs should to splash damage as well. Its been proven time and time again that pinpoint damage isnt balanced in this game and pinpoint builds dominate the meta.

Edited by Khobai, 12 January 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[Bront]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

Personally, I wish the game motivated you to dismantle a mech, vs going straight for the core. Once I got into higher ELO, I started seeing my CT turn red while everything else was still yellow. I've since learned to torso twist, but that's just a bandaid, and yes I'm aware that it's a technique which separates the men from the boys.

The game sort of does, by component distruction. That said, why would the game ever motivate you to go for a wound vs a kill in just about any way (unless you're trying to capture and not kill). Those closest you get is legging a mech for the kill.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 12 January 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

The x3 modifier is fine IMO. The AC/20 just needs its max range decreased from 810m to 675m, so it isnt outright better than AC/10. Autocannons should also probably fire in bursts rather than doing all their damage up front. PPCs should to splash damage as well. Its been proven time and time again that pinpoint damage isnt balanced in this game and pinpoint builds dominate the meta.

agree with the range. Disagree with the splash and burst. Would make them to much like the lasers and not allow for any other pinpoint damage weapons other then the gause. Pinpoint damage weapons give the game options of what to take and use and help seperate mech classes and abilities.

[Khobai]

Quote

Would make them to much like the lasers and not allow for any other pinpoint damage weapons other then the gause

No weapon should be pinpoint. Gauss shouldnt be pinpoint either. Pinpoint weapons are fundamentally broken in MWO. Its just not balanced to use armor values from a game with random hit locations and then give people the ability to aim for specific locations.

And making autocannons/ppcs do burst fire/splash damage doesnt make them anything like lasers. Autocannons would still deal damage in chunks rather than doing a constant amount of damage over time. Same with splash damage on PPCs, the PPCs are still doing chunks of damage. The only difference is all of the damage isnt going into one location, which its whats overpowered about those weapons. But theyd still be fundamentally different weapons, in how they apply damage.

Edited by Khobai, 12 January 2014 - 09:35 AM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 12 January 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

No weapon should be pinpoint. Gauss shouldnt be pinpoint either. Pinpoint weapons are fundamentally broken in MWO. Its just not balanced to use armor values from a game with random hit locations and then give people the ability to aim for specific locations.

I disagree. *read above posts since this is an old argument*