213 replies to this topic

[Ngamok]

wanderer, on 06 February 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

The Highlander and Victor are the ones benefiting from a synergistic combination of effects.

They're the biggest jumpers. With the current jump jet system, they benefit most from a busted system.

They pack enough weight to mix the current meta ideal of frontloaded, pinpoint damage. PPC's and AC's.

That's a combination of the best defense (poptarting) with the best offense (focused, frontloaded damage) which makes the chassis a top choice. Fix those and the chassis becomes one amidst many and the problem won't pop up again later with another one. Hit them with the nerf gun and they're meatshielding the real problems that will simply *ahem* poptart up and shoot back again, only more so with the Clantech coming in later.

Well to a lesser effect so do Shadowhawks. You can easily put in 2x AC/5s and 1x PPC with jump jets. Same issue but 10 less damage still runs super cool. Black Jack is the opposite with 1x AC/5 and 2x PPC. This one gets hot after awhile and you really have to skimp on armor or engine size to do it. And of course the CTF-3D.

[Joseph Mallan]

East Indy, on 07 February 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

This is a recreational game.

So was my days in Tae Kwan Do and Wing Chun Do. Jr High school wrestling, etc

I treat this as I do any competitive activity, friendly or not. It is a combat game, and combat is played to win. Now again, You want More TTK cause you want to live longer, I want less TTK, so I can kill you faster. Somewhere between those play styles will be a good medium.

[Ngamok]

Vlad Dragu, on 06 February 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

What I want to know is: If I choose, will PGI reimburse me for my Victor purchases? I bought mechs that performed a certain way. This was the draw, the sizzle. Now PGI wants to change the mech to an inferior state. Should I choose that the nerfs are too much to accept, PGI should refund all monies spent (I am talking MC used to buy the mechs, the XP to GXP conversions, camo, etc.).

You sell me a Rolls Royce, but then take it away and give me a Yugo in return? I don't think so.......biggest "Bait & Switch" scheme I've ever seen.

Online content may change at any time. Every game has this disclaimer. Welcome to online gaming.

[Joseph Mallan]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

The win will ALWAYS go to the guy who can put the other guy down the fastest.

The trick here is to stretch Time to Kill out enough that BOTH players can get a little enjoyment out of the battle.

With longer Time to Kill, the best players will still win... In fact, longer time to kill should better reveal WHO the talented players really are and who was using the meta as a crutch.

Maybe that's what a lot of these "High Elo" folks are worried about...

Food for thought...

I wouldn't know about that. Who's more skilled, Ninjas or Samurai? Line soldiers or Snipers? Mike Tyson or some guy who wins by decision... help me out here, I don't know many Boxers!

It may be a different skill set, but getting the job done fast and clean is a skill set all its own. And it is my preferred style of play.

[Roadbeer]

Academics of preference between a long or quick battle aside.

We've already doubled armor once, so... we double it again? We remove pinpoint? We just get rid of weapons entirely and play Rock'em Sock'em robots?

Give me a solution that doesn't open up a never-ending cycle of horrid imbalance at best and game-breaking at worst.

[KharnZor]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

I wouldn't know about that. Who's more skilled, Ninjas or Samurai? Line soldiers or Snipers? Mike Tyson or some guy who wins by decision... help me out here, I don't know many Boxers!

It may be a different skill set, but getting the job done fast and clean is a skill set all its own. And it is my preferred style of play.

Mike Tyson or not it depends on the individual boxer. Like how skill (and play style) varies from pilot to pilot eh

[FactorlanP]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

It may be a different skill set, but getting the job done fast and clean is a skill set all its own. And it is my preferred style of play.

Increasing time to kill doesn't take "getting the job done fast" away from a talented player. It only redefines what fast now is...

A talented player will still be "faster" than a poor player...

It honestly sounds like you would be in favor of one shot kills... That's fine if that's the kind of game that you enjoy. I would suggest that, as others have said, that isn't really what BattleTech and Mechwarrior is supposed to be about.

[Joseph Mallan]

KharnZor, on 07 February 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Mike Tyson or not it depends on the individual boxer. Like how skill (and play style) varies from pilot to pilot eh

I love it. its the players who want to tell everyone else what the "right way" is to play. I knew a guy... He loved hot running mechs, had a stratagy and everything. Worked pretty good for him. I am a cool running Alpha Dog. We squared off a few times. He lost twice as often as he won. I never told him he ha to play my way and both had a blast, every match.

[Jman5]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Cept I have had lots and lots of very skilled people tell me that when you are in a fight, the faster you can put your opponent down the better it is for your personal well being. Was Mike Tyson a bad boxer cause he could knock out his opponents in just a few seconds? How well did he do long drawn out fights? My martial art teachers uniformly tell students to end fights quickly to limit harm to themselves.

So I bring that philosophy to the computer as well, The less TTK for me, the better for me to survive a match.

Hmm, I should have been a little more clear in what I meant.

Yes, I agree with you that the faster you can take your opponent down the better it is for you. What I mean is that the longer a fight has to last because of health, weapon damage, or whatever, the more skill is going to factor into the outcome.

So let's say you have two scenarios.

Scenario 1) It takes on average 2 hits to the CT to kill a mech. If some noob is just camping a corner when a player comes around the bend the noob gets the initial CT hit. Now he only has to get lucky with his next shot and he beats mr High Elo Meta Mech. Obviously more times than not the pro is going to come out on top, but the shorter kill time leaves more to chance.

Scenario 2) It takes on average 10 hits to the CT to kill a mech. If some noob is camping a corner when a player comes around the bend the noob gets the initial CT hit. Now he has to get 9 more CT hits before the pro can land 10 CT hits. The longer engagement time means that the lucky first hit plays less of a factor. Mr High Elo is almost always going to reach that 10 CT hits much sooner than the lucky noob who can't play as well.

Hope that clears things up.

Edited by Jman5, 07 February 2014 - 10:44 AM.

[East Indy]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

So was my days in Tae Kwan Do and Wing Chun Do. Jr High school wrestling, etc

Those are competitive sports. Not understanding the difference is why developers constantly rebalance. Recreation brings expectations of variety, give-and-take, and play duration.

[Joseph Mallan]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Increasing time to kill doesn't take "getting the job done fast" away from a talented player. It only redefines what fast now is...

A talented player will still be "faster" than a poor player...

It honestly sounds like you would be in favor of one shot kills... That's fine if that's the kind of game that you enjoy. I would suggest that, as others have said, that isn't really what BattleTech and Mechwarrior is supposed to be about.

If the shot was within the realm of possibility, Yes. I do love the rush of turning a corner, and BOOM decap! Or putting two Gauss slugs in a cockpit. Heck I trained on the rifle range in the Corps to put most of my shots in the silhouettes head at 500m. You know how interesting it is hitting the {apparent} head of a pin 7:10 times.

Mechwarrior and Battletech is about fighting for the control of known space and securing your faction as the ruler of all others. What is it to you?

[Joseph Mallan]

Jman5, on 07 February 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Hmm, I should have been a little more clear in what I meant.

Yes, I agree with you that the faster you can take your opponent down the better it is for you. What I mean is that the longer a fight has to last because of health, weapon damage, or whatever, the more skill is going to factor into the outcome.

So let's say you have two scenarios.

Scenario 1) It takes on average 2 hits to the CT to kill a mech. If some noob is just camping a corner when a player comes around the bend the noob gets the initial CT hit. Now he only has to get lucky with his next shot and he beats mr High Elo Meta Mech. Obviously more times than not the pro is going to come out on top, but the shorter kill time leaves more to chance.

Scenario 2) It takes on average 10 hits to the CT to kill a mech. If some noob is camping a corner when a player comes around the bend the noob gets the initial CT hit. Now he has to get 9 more CT hits before the pro can land 10 CT hits. The longer engagement time means that the lucky first hit plays less of a factor. Mr High Elo is almost always going to reach that 10 CT hits much sooner than the lucky noob who can't play as well.

Hope that clears things up.

Agreed. Now why would I want you to have a chance to change the momentum of the fight? My objective is to win the game/match/fight, that being said, I again ask, Why do I want you to have a chance to win?

I am not expecting you to give me one. I am expecting you to use every tool in your arsenal to kick my But.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 February 2014 - 10:52 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

East Indy, on 07 February 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

Those are competitive sports. Not understanding the difference is why developers constantly rebalance. Recreation brings expectations of variety, give-and-take, and play duration.

I am that competitive at work, and in my everyday life. When I exercise I strive to beat my previous performance. I want to out score my fellow gamers. I can't most of the time, but those matches I do...

I can work with the game having a balanced TTK, but perspective must be kept. Not everyone wants matches to take longer. Or to have it take longer to kill an opponent. I am that counter argument on this topic. I am no more right OR wrong than you guys. And the discussion is all good, we are all being mature and respectful in our disagreement.

[Zyllos]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 February 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

Eliminating convergence and hardpoint sizes are off the table. PGI is not going to start over from scratch in regards to game balance, and these ideas would have that effect. It would be starting all over and loads of people from every ELO and efficiency would be upset.

Changing convergence and adding hard point sizes will have minor impact in terms of weapon balance. But, it will effect how each chassis is played. I would basically obsolete every single champion mech (correlation: champion mechs are always outside the scope of the intended chassis design?).

If the correlation is indeed correct, then I would expect most mechs to just disappear in higher tier play because of not allowing for the optimal build. But that is no different than now.

Ghost heat would have to be changed (and honestly, be completely removed because of the number of shots that will be needed to drop a mech).

Rebas Kradd, on 07 February 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

Additionally, while convergence is a ****** in certain situations, removing it would eliminate the ability to target specific components and would only result in an even more "shoot the center torso" game than we already have.

Convergence should only be removed when firing many weapons. Firing one or two weapons at a time should be pretty freaking accurate (think sniping with Gauss Rifle, PPC, or AC/2).

If you want to put out high DPS in a short amount of time (basically alpha strikes), then your accuracy will suffer. If you want controlled fired to take out a specific location, then your damage will suffer but the accuracy should allow you to try and take out specific components.

Battletech should be centered around engagements of high DPS until armor opens. If that armor location that opened is especially crippling to the enemy, then DPS should be slowed down to regain accuracy.

[wanderer]

Quote

Well to a lesser effect so do Shadowhawks. You can easily put in 2x AC/5s and 1x PPC with jump jets. Same issue but 10 less damage still runs super cool. Black Jack is the opposite with 1x AC/5 and 2x PPC. This one gets hot after awhile and you really have to skimp on armor or engine size to do it. And of course the CTF-3D.

This is also true, and why I said fixes need to be to the actual sources of the problem, not specific chassis. The chassis is not the problem. It is what can be mounted on it that causes the problem, and that's easy jump sniping capacity (bad JJ system) and frontloaded, pinpoint weaponry (AC/PPC's). Fixing the first will only swap the complaints to ridge humping, fixing the second with it will cure issues across a great number of chassis, not just the poptart-meta preferred.

Quote

I can work with the game having a balanced TTK, but perspective must be kept. Not everyone wants matches to take longer. Or to have it take longer to kill an opponent.

As we've seen, the devs (Paul specifically) have said that TTK is imbalanced- 'Mechs are dying too fast and too easily. That puts the crosshairs squarely on the weapons that have significantly superior kill speed. The autocannon and the PPC, because frankly, you need to deliver less damage per kill with those than lasers or missiles (and as a LRM afficiando, believe me, I know.)

It's why I advocate so strongly for AC's to go to short-burst and PPC's to splash damage. A well-sniped burst of AC/20 fire will still wreck a cockpit, but someone on the ball may be able to flinch or evade enough of the shot to leave them hurting but not automatically cockpit-dead, albeit likely with serious damage to the head and surrounding hitboxes. Someone dumb enough not to be in defensive maneuvering that takes multiple zero-deflection shots to the 'Mech deserves to be cored quickly, but weapons that negate that capacity completely also imbalance in favor of the offense. We shouldn't be seeing 'Mechs moving at 80kph ed up with no CT and not a single scratch to another hit location, even while the other guy was pogo-sticking or moving to diffuse damage themselves. Snap shots should not be sniper-accurate and damage spread effectively makes our tanky 'Mechs "tanky" to begin with. Weapons that negate that put MWO out of it's comfort zone.

Edited by wanderer, 07 February 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[FactorlanP]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

Mechwarrior and Battletech is about fighting for the control of known space and securing your faction as the ruler of all others. What is it to you?

It is that for me as well... But in the Mechwarrior I would like to have, the battlefield is filled with all kinds of combined arms... Infantry, Elementals, Tanks, Rocket Carriers, and of course the BattleMechs.

The BattleMechs are supposed to be the kings of the battlefield. Heavily armored and difficult to take down.

Right now, it is my opinion, that the current meta has reduced the TTK below where it should be... Battle Mechs feel like nothing more than reskinned infantry from some other FPS game... I would like to see TTK brought back to about where it was during Closed Beta.

Even when Gaussapults were running around head shotting people, it was ok because those Gauss Cats were very vulnerable themselves.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that I don't believe that the current meta is good for the game over the long run.

Edited by FactorlanP, 07 February 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[WM Jeri]

Ellen Ripley, on 07 February 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

This is a PvP game and therefore mistakes should be punished.

Your heart will be pumping if you go against an equally skilled team (no matter what your skill level is). Searching for an enemy is a vital part of playing this game, it's one of the main roles of a team's light Mechs, aka. scouting/reconnaissance.

If you run into 4 "poptart Highlanders" because you where completely unaware of their position and allow them thereby to have a clean shot at you, then your scouts have failed big time.
The problem here is not their ability to kill you in such a scenario because their weapons allow them to, but you/your team failing in the first place, leading to this situation.

If you want this game to be dumbed down to the level where you can survive such a big mistake without severe consequences for your team (losing a Mech/Mechs), then why play a game that is essentially a war game in the first place?
It's war, weapons kill. Please deal with it by learning to avoid putting yourself into situations that allow the enemy to hurt you instead of trying to nerf every weapon in this game to a point at which we basically throw cotton balls at each other.

I have to agree with Ellen here...fire and manuever is a key element of closing with to engage and destroy an enemy. A players, (IMT) individual movement techniques combined with suppressive supporting fire are another foundation building on IMT.

Couple this with the recon role of battlefield situational awareness to define the FEBA, (forward edge of battle area) and using consumables to further suppress the enemy round out a teams ability to control the outcome.

The problem in my opinion is more of skill and communication and subpar weapons and hit detection. Typing in chat to direct pugs simply takes too long. Better match coms, and grouping around ELO matching along with fixing hit detection and weapons that are subpar, (SRM's) seem a more appropriate place to start.

I don't want to play a game where all mechs are equal! The M1 Abrams and the M2 Bradley are not equal nor should they be rather each fills a role and in a combined arms employement complement one another. That is what the mechs of different classes should do. It just seems like we want all mechs to be equal and have equal outcomes...wow sorta like society.

Edited by WM Jeri, 07 February 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Zyllos, on 07 February 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Changing convergence and adding hard point sizes will have minor impact in terms of weapon balance.

I don't think it would have minor impact at all. It's the kind of foundational change that would just upset every applecart.

[Joseph Mallan]

FactorlanP, on 07 February 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

1)It is that for me as well... But in the Mechwarrior I would like to have, the battlefield is filled with all kinds of combined arms... Infantry, Elementals, Tanks, Rocket Carriers, and of course the BattleMechs.

2)The BattleMechs are supposed to be the kings of the battlefield. Heavily armored and difficult to take down.

3)Right now, it is my opinion, that the current meta has reduced the TTK below where it should be... Battle Mechs feel like nothing more than reskinned infantry from some other FPS game... I would like to see TTK brought back to about where it was during Closed Beta.

4)Even when Gaussapults were running around head shotting people, it was ok because those Gauss Cats were very vulnerable themselves.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that I don't believe that the current meta is good for the game over the long run.

1) We are on the same page, I had a few years of combined arms CBT and the added depth was awesome.

2)Agreed... if you are a tank, Aerospace fighter or infantry. But Mech to Mech, you are talking king to king, sometimes the King just doesn't live long in those match ups.

3) right now the TTK is much much longer than on TT, 10 turns was an average company on company match length. That is less than 2 minutes if turns were real time. I don't see many matches ending in less than 4 minutes.

4) I always went after every GaussCat my fellow Lawmen pinged for my 2 LRM20s. Those were good days, Gauss and LRMs could counter each other, And LRMs and SRM had a 50/50 on one another. PPCs stunk, and ACs were spotty at best. but if we hade that balance with the new hit Reg... I wonder if it would make my inner killer happy?

[Mercules]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

3) right now the TTK is much much longer than on TT, 10 turns was an average company on company match length. That is less than 2 minutes if turns were real time. I don't see many matches ending in less than 4 minutes.

This depends on how you played TT. Double Blind TT which would compare to how we are in MWO would end up with about 10 turns of finding the enemy several more of maneuvering followed by the actual 5-10 turn fight. In a well played tactical game you might even see people breaking contact and re-engaging.

I ended up known in my group for being annoying as hell. Rarely would I allow a stand up fight but would tend to take mobile mechs and mechs with ways to start fires. "Damn it! Merc lit the damn map on fire again and disappeared in the smoke. I hate it when he takes Striker Lances."

We saw 30 turn games frequently.