1026 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

wanderer, on 07 February 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

Yep. Too narrow, and we already have the hardpoint solution implemented...for missiles.

If you swap ballistics to burst fire, you can easily alter the performance of AC's with hardpoint size.

Canonically, AC's that are the same category in damage actually vary in shells fired. Smaller caliber AC's still can be rated as higher damaging AC's...they simply fire more shells at the target in a single burst.

A 60mm AC could be an AC/5...or a faster firing 60mm an AC/10. Just do the same thing with ballistic mounts.

Mount an AC/20 into an AC/5 slot? OK, longer burst to deliver that damage. Drop an AC/5 into an AC/20 stock mount instead? Shorter burst. A Blackjack mounting an AC/20 would look like a Raven firing an LRM 15 through it's NARC mount tube- make any gun that's two steps "bigger" fire a longer burst, two smaller a shorter burst. Multiple hardpoints for a stock single AC? If you mount multiple guns, treat the hardpoints as being a size smaller for each one. Two AC's on a Hunchback-G (3 ballistic HP's for an AC/20 sized mount)? Each is effectively treated as a size "AC/10" mount, so only AC/2's would short-burst, AC/5's or 10's would normal-burst. If it only mounted one ballistic, an AC/5 or smaller would short burst, anything larger would be normal burst.

Squeeze pretty much any AC on a Catapult-K with it's MG-stock hardpoints? AC/2 normal, AC/5 or bigger would long-burst the cannon instead. Voila, you've just given ballistic hardpoints interesting differences.

Voila. You've just

No. No. No.

The whole point of ACs not being burst fire is to differentiate them from lasers as a DoT weapon. Turning everything into papercut weapons is NOT the answer.

Peiper has already stated how to fix the actual problem, not just the symptoms. People complain about the Boomjager. It's not the ac20 that is the issue. It's the chassis that should not be able to carry 2 of them in the first place (well, and the laughably bad pilots who let a slow short range glass gannon wreck them, then cry for a nerf instead of L2P). It was not the PPC that was the Issue in the 6PPC Stalker or the dual Gauss way back when with the Gaussapult. It was that none of those chassis should have been able to carry those loadouts to begin with.

Going to burst would leave mechs like the HBK and YLW totally outclassed by every other mech on the map. (Not to mention people would just go to PPCs, or even srms as the new burst meta).

Hard points, and convergence. The 2 things that have been the problem since inception.

[Bushrat]

I agree with most of the people on this thread. Its not the Highlander its Jump Jets used to poptart. That still needs some work. And yes those who poptart will just find some other way to kick our butts, maybe we might learn how to play some better way to beat the smug ba***rds. What I think needs nerfing really is:

SPIDERS

they are Op in my opinion. Think of the time it takes to kill a spider as compared to an Atlas... about the same or longer for the Spider in many cases. I think they should be as delicate as the Locust. BTW, great job on the EMBER.. I am loving it. As well as UI 2.0... keep the good stuff coming.

Cheers,

Bushrat

[wanderer]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

No. No. No.

The whole point of ACs not being burst fire is to differentiate them from lasers as a DoT weapon. Turning everything into papercut weapons is NOT the answer.

Point being is that if you don't, the optimum combo will simply be whatever can strap on the most midrange AC/PPC combo possible. Like it is now, only you'll see fewer 'Mechs doing it and the meta will likely shrink further down in the process. Pinpoint, frontloaded weapons will be a problem as long as they exist. I mean, are hardpoint restrictions REALLY going to choke off the AC/PPC combos in the first place?

AC's with burst fire are still different from lasers. Shorter duration, lower heat, higher firing rate- just put them into the .4 to .6 duration range depending on burst duration.

Quote

Peiper has already stated how to fix the actual problem, not just the symptoms. People complain about the Boomjager. It's not the ac20 that is the issue. It's the chassis that should not be able to carry 2 of them in the first place (well, and the laughably bad pilots who let a slow short range glass gannon wreck them, then cry for a nerf instead of L2P).

Aha. Ahahahah. HA, ha.

A 'Mech less than half it's weight carries an AC/20 on it's arm, stock. Why should something that's 65 tons to lil' Urbies 30 have trouble carrying two, especially since it was designed to rack 14 tons of autocannon per arm?

Yes, a boomJager is carrying precisely as much autocannon on each arm as a stock Jager does. The only difference is it's one gun per arm instead of two.

Quote

It was not the PPC that was the Issue in the 6PPC Stalker or the dual Gauss way back when with the Gaussapult. It was that none of those chassis should have been able to carry those loadouts to begin with.

Boy, you'd have headsplosioned realizing that there are Catapults that replace that dinky 3-crit/7 ton LRM 15 launcher in canon with a 15-crit, 15 ton Arrow IV missile launcher. That's a refit, by the way. Not a new model. Limitations on a 'Mech aren't "THIS WEAPON WAS SMALL, I CANNOT MOUNT BIG WEAPON HERE", other than one thing and one thing alone. Critical spaces. Not arbitrary "Buuuut it won't fiiiiit in here". One crit weapons in MWO range from .5 ton MG's to 6-ton autocannons. We've got wiggle room.

Quote

Going to burst would leave mechs like the HBK and YLW totally outclassed by every other mech on the map. (Not to mention people would just go to PPCs, or even srms as the new burst meta).

And note I want PPC's to deal splash damage. And SRM's spread naturally, even not taking target movement into effect. Spread damage around or the weapon system that doesn't becomes dominant unless it has other significant drawbacks, like the Gauss Rifle's inability to snapshot.

Quote

Hard points, and convergence. The 2 things that have been the problem since inception.

The first isn't a problem., and the second one is more appropriately put as "being able to put all your damage in one spot easily". Fixing that means making sure weapons don't slap a single location instantly with tons of damage, even when you boat em together.

[Ngamok]

Amsro, on 07 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

And I would troll your lance at a distance, not getting hit once.

Bcause you know there are few maps you can d it on. Mosr e than likeyl get in range.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

MavRCK, on 05 February 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

I almost feel there is a pathological passive-aggressive approach to balancing the game and ignoring the best players and groups in MWO - those who truly care and have expertise that can help this game: it's really twisted and bizarre - it's stuff I've only seen in my professional practice but I can't help but wonder if this is the approach being taken by some individuals at PGI.

I guarantee you Paul does exactly this.

The reason the Firestarter S1 was not made into a mech was because it has ECM. PGI is aware that it would be bar none the BEST light mech in the game if it had ECM -- yet they claim ECM is fine. Instead a roundabout solution: the S with two ams.

Turrets have a significantly reduce LRM minimum range because they would be utterly useless with 180m dead zone. They know LRMs are still fubar yet they claim LRMs are fine. (btw, great work Thomas D.)

How many significant weapon changes have been made in the past year?

SSRMs made back to 2.5 damage per missile b/c they could not get their auto-aim balanced with the damage spread?

AC20 velocity brought back down because they were predominately used in pin-point damage alphas

UAC5 jam rates returned to 25% (down from 15% at one point) because of the super-rapid fire precision damage.

Ghost heat implemented to stop Highlander 732's Stalker and CTF PPC boating sniping meta, which then shafted Large Lasers because reasons.

Thats
About
it.

The highlander isn't the issue here. Its jump jets and precision alphas. Like most of this games problems, its all due to half-assed or half-developed weapon and equipment mechanics. Why do JJ's ONLY generate heat up to a negligible point?! Why is one JJ's so effective?!

Nerf followed by nerf, followed by nerf with out EVER fixing any core issue! LBX are garbage because of their super generic and crap shotgun mechanic. SRMs are rarely ever used because of crap hit detection and spread. Lasers are OK at best, and still inferior to PPC's / ERPPCs despite massive heat increases and hard minimum ranges on PPCs.

Tell me honestly, when is the last time anyone used a NARC? Never? Wow, I wonder why.


Nothing has changed during Paul's "Aggressive balance period"


Seriously, get someone who understands why the weapons and equipment are so messed up right now and why no one in their minds would take anything but PPC/AC20/AC5 in a competitive sense. But you know who does understand this game inside out? Idk, maybe the units in the game who compete against one another? You know, the big loyal chunk of your community you've gone out of your way to ignore on equipment and weapon feedback there, Paul? Get a clue.

I could go on and write my master's thesis on how poorly designed most of this games underlying systems are. I truly could. But not once in the past two years has any well thought out suggestion from these forums come to pass in testing. Decisions are made strictly by a one-tack mind who clearly has his own vision on how things should work, regardless of whether its good for the game "balance" or not. *cough* *hard counter ECM to lrms* *cough* *cough streaks have same lock-on as LRMs and still benefit from Artemis* *cough* *cough* *weeze* *cough*

Edited by mwhighlander, 07 February 2014 - 11:01 PM.

[YueFei]

If we want to talk about realistic JJ behavior: the very first JJ should get you almost nothing. The thrust from it barely cancels out the weight of your mech.

In vastly simplified terms, if your mech weighs 50 tons on a planet with 1g, and a JJ generates 60 tons of thrust, you're going to get only 10 tons of thrust actually accelerating you upward, the other 50 goes towards canceling the force of gravity.

When you strap a second JJ on, now you have 2x60 = 120 tons of thrust. You have 70 tons of thrust propelling you, so actually strapping on the 2nd JJ should provide SEVEN TIMES the amount of vertical acceleration compared to strapping only 1 JJ on.

Just wanted to toss that in as an aside. Though, realism should always take a backseat to gameplay. Realism should only be used when it can be brought in without detracting from gameplay.

Edited by YueFei, 07 February 2014 - 11:53 PM.

[Sephlock]

YueFei, on 07 February 2014 - 11:52 PM, said:

If we want to talk about realistic JJ behavior: the very first JJ should get you almost nothing. The thrust from it barely cancels out the weight of your mech.

In vastly simplified terms, if your mech weighs 50 tons on a planet with 1g, and a JJ generates 60 tons of thrust, you're going to get only 10 tons of thrust actually accelerating you upward, the other 50 goes towards canceling the force of gravity.

When you strap a second JJ on, now you have 2x60 = 120 tons of thrust. You have 70 tons of thrust propelling you, so actually strapping on the 2nd JJ should provide SEVEN TIMES the amount of vertical acceleration compared to strapping only 1 JJ on.

Just wanted to toss that in as an aside. Though, realism should always take a backseat to gameplay. Realism should only be used when it can be brought in without detracting from gameplay.

FWIW what you're saying does seem pretty intuitive.

[Steel Claws]

I would think that all of you would have learned by now that nerfing this or that doesn't do ANYTHING, It won't make drops more balanced, it won't prevent stomps. Nerfing will never solve anything. It won't even keep people from griping - past history proves this.

You take one thing away or make it less attractive and they will go to something else. Good players adapt and adjust. Bad players come to the forums and complain about the good players and beg for help from the devs.

[AdultPuppetShow]

I am so tired of nerfing being the goto fix for these guys. You don't treat a disease by beating the patient in the face with a hammer.

[EvilCow]

I already posted it in another thread but I think it is worth proposing it again here.

First I agree that cost/benefit is too much twisted to favor a single jump jet, a more proportional approach would be appreciated.

My proposal is to stick a little bit to how thing work in real world, a jumping mech whose 80% mass is on the upper half would not be able to move the torso mid-air because there would be no real reaction mass to do so.
Trying to do so would make the upper half rotate only of a small amount while legs would swing quickly to the limit unbalancing the mech, that could result in the mech falling after landing if it has forward momentum.

The mech would only able to rotate using thrust from jets (like many pilots already do) but that is usually harder and requires some actual skill.

I would increase the jets maneuvering capability while jumping, MW2 was a very good example of this, you could rotate and also translate sideway until you had juice left.

[Victor Morson]

Peiper, on 07 February 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

Paul, it's not the Highlander that's broken. It's the game mechanics. Put in sized hardpoints (you know, similar to what you're doing with limiting the number of available criticals on the Omnimechs, and you can prevent the boating - which means, you can get rid of Ghost Heat. You guys keep putting bandaids on the mechs problems instead of fixing the problem.

+1

Paul is attacking the wrong mechanics to fix the problem because he won't listen to anyone and has a horribly skewed vision of what the problems are.

He killed the Stalker (and by extension the Battlemaster) and is now wondering why the Highlander is supreme. I mean, really? heh

AdultPuppetShow, on 08 February 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

I am so tired of nerfing being the goto fix for these guys. You don't treat a disease by beating the patient in the face with a hammer.

The analogy isn't quite accurate.

This is more akin to a patient coming in with a broken leg, so the doctor decides the best idea is to break everyone's leg to level the playing field.

mwhighlander, on 07 February 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

Ghost heat implemented to stop Highlander 732's Stalker and CTF PPC boating sniping meta, which then shafted Large Lasers because reasons.

Don't forget, it also stopped those horribly overpowered 4x AC/2 builds by capping them at 3. The change we were all clamoring for!

Edited by Victor Morson, 08 February 2014 - 02:39 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Paul can't balance.

I thought we all knew that by now, why would we expect him to look at the actual problem and fix it, rather than look at the result and attack that instead.

[Bishop Steiner]

Victor Morson, on 08 February 2014 - 02:40 AM, said:

+1

Paul is attacking the wrong mechanics to fix the problem because he won't listen to anyone and has a horribly skewed vision of what the problems are.

He killed the Stalker (and by extension the Battlemaster) and is now wondering why the Highlander is supreme. I mean, really? heh



The analogy isn't quite accurate.

This is more akin to a patient coming in with a broken leg, so the doctor decides the best idea is to break everyone's leg to level the playing field.



Don't forget, it also stopped those horribly overpowered 4x AC/2 builds by capping them at 3. The change we were all clamoring for!

My Battlemaster doesn't feel dead......nor does Pat Kell's Stalker. You know there are builds beyond Metarape that can work rather well, yeah?

[C E Dwyer]

Burst turn isn't the issue 'reverse' poptarting on the drop with no shake, is a far bigger issue.

Burst turn is a brawler mechanic, which is needed because of the strange idea thats been developed of giving snipping weapons even more range.

Brawling needs a big buff like making srms work not getting nerfed more for the all ready top heavy sniper meta

[Victor Morson]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 February 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

My Battlemaster doesn't feel dead......nor does Pat Kell's Stalker. You know there are builds beyond Metarape that can work rather well, yeah?

You might not like the meta, but the bottom line is, current "meta" mechs are far and away superior to Stalkers and Battlemasters and will absolutely landslide crush them 9/10 times.

Now, before you continue your blind hatred against "meta players" like we're raining on your parade, please please keep in mind that what we're saying is that the Battlemaster and Stalker should be 100% as good as the Victor & Highlander. We want the non-meta 'mechs buffed (Ghost Heat & bad SRMs is the main reason they're held back), and in particular, energy/missile variants buffed.

The most misunderstood thing about competitive pilots is that we only like a handful of 'mechs and hate all others. We want to love them all. In perfect balance, I would be able to tell you every 'mech is as viable as any other.

Thanks to the things I mentioned though, even in no jump jet games, the Highlander is far superior to a Stalker (It's NOT the JJs) because:

• Ballistic & Energy is far more powerful than any other combo as missiles have poor hit detection (SRM), don't run well on slow 'mechs (LRM) and energy boats are capped at an hilariously low 2 Large Lasers, 2 PPCs, or 6 Med Lasers.
  
• Asymmetrical variants advantages at higher levels
  
• It's hardpoints are flexible enough to keep up with meta changes

If the BattleMaster wasn't handicapped and could run 4 PPC/6 Large Laser setups as it was clearly given the hardpoints and design to handle, it would be great. But it's not.

PS: For the record the Stalker/Battlemaster are merely inferior to the Highlander for those reasons and aren't God awful like the Awesome.

[Rebas Kradd]

Victor Morson, on 08 February 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

the Battlemaster and Stalker should be 100% as good as the Victor & Highlander. We want the non-meta 'mechs buffed (Ghost Heat & bad SRMs is the main reason they're held back), and in particular, energy/missile variants buffed.

The most misunderstood thing about competitive pilots is that we only like a handful of 'mechs and hate all others. We want to love them all. In perfect balance, I would be able to tell you every 'mech is as viable as any other.

I so do not want the game you're describing, and I'm glad the devs reject it as well.

What you seem to be describing is a game where choices and gameplay styles don't matter. Just climb into any mech and anyone can use it. Why does it matter, then, what mech we choose? Looks? Certain mechs SHOULD be terrible in the hands of the wrong temperament of player. Certain mechs SHOULD be terrible in certain situations and viable only in very specific ones. What you're describing is EQUALIZATION and a game in which nobody can boast "Yeah I'm awesome in that particular unpopular chassis because I learned to play it".

Fix SRMs and jump jets, by all means. But the gameplay mechanics we have are still in the general vein of allowing specialization and variety and I'm glad for that. There needs to be further tweaking...reduce damage output, enhance quick game commands...but we're on the right track and if you read between the lines in Paul's posts, PGI does have specific baselines for each mech's performance. It's not REALLY a dart board.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 February 2014 - 10:10 AM.

[YueFei]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 February 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

I so do not want the game you're describing, and I'm glad the devs reject it as well.

You would prefer a game that's not balanced? I'm confused. Are you sure you understood his post?

*EDIT*: I see you've edited your post to put much more content in it now.

Having mechs be balanced does not mean that choices do not matter. It means there are more choices, but you still have to pilot intelligently, to play to your strengths and minimize your weaknesses, based on your mech and loadout choice.

I don't think anyone wants the game designed in such a way that any moron can strap lasers and SRMs to his mech and charge across open ground at a sniper, and the fight outcome will be 50/50..... nobody wants the game changed in a way that long range weapons suck so badly that you can never kill anyone with them, so all fights devolve into brawls 100% of the time.

Edited by YueFei, 08 February 2014 - 10:23 AM.

[Mystere]

AdultPuppetShow, on 08 February 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

I am so tired of nerfing being the goto fix for these guys. You don't treat a disease by beating the patient in the face with a hammer.

But, but, but, you do



before becoming awesome.

[C E Dwyer]

This is snipped from Victor Morsons post.

'quote' If the BattleMaster wasn't handicapped and could run 4 PPC/6 Large Laser setups as it was clearly given the hardpoints and design to handle, it would be great. But it's not. 'unquote'

This is the problem with this game and what causes the breakdown of balance in the meta, the fact PGI make these mechs with so much over kill.

The example your giving allows 10 energy points, it gives tonnage weight and crit spots, for each weapon

No mech other than our friend the awesome should be packing more than two ppc, sure the BM was an energy boat but the game mechanic's turn it into a ballstic boat with energy/missile back up.

The problem is and all ways has been PGI's custom system. which they have tried to claw back through nerfs and buffs, which with the new range buffs/modules for all weapons but the LRM has finally consigned that weapon to the scrap heap, the weapon that should be the counter to snipers now has half the range of the weapons systems its somehow supposed to neutralise.

What they should have done from the beginning is to say yes you can have in your example, 10 energy spots and you can have them in the places on the paper doll, but, you can only have X amount of tonnage.

This would have limited the big heavy weapons, reduced the need for double armour, stopped heat problems of 4x PPc (no heat scale) stopped many of the other currant cheese builds they struggle to deal with, and come up with lame idea's to do it, which in the end fail, would have stopped many of the stupid light mech builds that get seen, would have made the Panther a craved for mech, because it could have been the only light that could fit a ppc.

Hell it might even make an Urbanmech practical as the only mech under 40 tons to be able to carry an AC10.

Yes it would have a harsher limit but in a smaller window still scope for the min maxers and there would be half the balance problems now in the game.

Yes PGI making a module that increases the max and effective range of the Ac2 was very very silly, you've basically turned this game into a one dimentional balistic sniper game, due to the poor hit detection on SRM's and completely crippled LRMs

Now you want to nerf the burst turn on JJ's so that if a jumping assault manages to get in close, and not be half dead, your making it an easier target..

Lurm suppression has just died in any game where people have a clue..

brawling on life support.

and you increase weapon ranges..

sometimes a face palm isn't enough..

Edited by Cathy, 08 February 2014 - 11:42 AM.

[Amsro]

Cathy, on 08 February 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

sometimes a face palm isn't enough..