404 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Eldagore, on 03 March 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

Engine should be restricted to variables of the chassis weight. Atlas should have to choose between 300 and 400 for example. However I also stated this bending of the rules has precedence in previous PC game titles, like I think all of them. Which again, makes it feel out of place IMO for Paul to stick to the one rules restriction for clan mechs with omni stuff when they(or their predecessors) did not with anything else. Its being done to slow the clans down as a way of indirect weakening of clan tech. I disagree with his approach on this particular thing, especially when the underlying cause of concern here is mostly pinpoint dmg anyway.

Why such a narrow span Eldagore? What if the player is willing to be slower but carry more/bigger weapons? Or are you meaning 300 or 400 and nothing between? Cause the TT rules were so Movement could work evenly with hexes & facing. Having 3.5 points of movement would be ...interesting to keep track of.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 March 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

Why such a narrow span Eldagore? What if the player is willing to be slower but carry more/bigger weapons? Or are you meaning 300 or 400 and nothing between? Cause the TT rules were so Movement could work evenly with hexes & facing. Having 3.5 points of movement would be ...interesting to keep track of.

I do believe he means the Atlas could choose between 100, 200, 300, and 400-rated engines.

And it makes a pretty substantial difference having those build rules in place, even though you're absolutely correct they were there just because the movement points needed to be an integer and not a fraction.

But think about it; either you stay with the stock 300-rated engine that comes with your Atlas (and go 48.6 kph), or you have to go the full monty; 400 - that's sucker weights 59.5 tons! An investment of 34.5 tons extra just to go 16kph faster! Or 8.5 tons extra if you chose an XL engine with the squishiness that entails.

That would be a REAL trade-off, and it would slow the heavies and assaults right down; giving the mediums a chance to be what the fast heavies are right now.

I'm all for it, even though it is a rule that's not strictly needed in a hex-less environment.

[Joseph Mallan]

Yeah... I Know. I can play it either way. Most MW titles I played(if not all) could use any engine so long as the tonnage was there. This is the first time I have seen a false cap due to game requirements. I never played the older games as PvP though.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 March 2014 - 04:03 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Bigger engines are acceptable up to a point. I often wonder how this game would look and act if we were limited to stock engines as our max with Speed Tweak. The funny thing is what the extra engine capacity allowed was people putting in bigger XL engines so that they could put in more heavy weapons. So, while PGI wanted us to have the freedom of movement, it really sort of backfired and caused an arms race where the only downside is getting torsoed. But, now the chickens have come home to roost and that decision has put more alpha shots into pin point locations which is causing all manners of issues.

[Tombstoner]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

Bigger engines are acceptable up to a point. I often wonder how this game would look and act if we were limited to stock engines as our max with Speed Tweak. The funny thing is what the extra engine capacity allowed was people putting in bigger XL engines so that they could put in more heavy weapons. So, while PGI wanted us to have the freedom of movement, it really sort of backfired and caused an arms race where the only downside is getting torsoed. But, now the chickens have come home to roost and that decision has put more alpha shots into pin point locations which is causing all manners of issues.

the cored aspect of the xl is only mitigated by having more armor on the ct then the xl section. that and artifact from TT taht needs to go. let me assign armor any way i want. if i want paper thin arms but an enhanced LT/RT armor that's the same as your CT values.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 03 March 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

I do believe he means the Atlas could choose between 100, 200, 300, and 400-rated engines.

And it makes a pretty substantial difference having those build rules in place, even though you're absolutely correct they were there just because the movement points needed to be an integer and not a fraction.

But think about it; either you stay with the stock 300-rated engine that comes with your Atlas (and go 48.6 kph), or you have to go the full monty; 400 - that's sucker weights 59.5 tons! An investment of 34.5 tons extra just to go 16kph faster! Or 8.5 tons extra if you chose an XL engine with the squishiness that entails.

That would be a REAL trade-off, and it would slow the heavies and assaults right down; giving the mediums a chance to be what the fast heavies are right now.

I'm all for it, even though it is a rule that's not strictly needed in a hex-less environment.

your all for it becaue it doesn't effect light mechs worth a damn and kicks every assault in the nuts. That's a horrible horrible system that takes away from the massive about of customizeability that is drawing a large portion of the crowd playing this game

how about we put in a system that doesn't allow light mechs to carry anything over small lasers and machine guns. Ya know, to make it fair since we want to limit engine sizes based off weight and multiples, how about we limit weapon sizes the same way?

[stjobe]

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

your all for it becaue it doesn't effect light mechs

Would you kindly stop it with the personal quips? Either attack my arguments, or form your own, but please don't try to make me out as someone who argues for personal gain. It is very far from the truth, and it's getting a bit tiresome to have you claim it in post after post.

Edit: For the record, I own 14 lights, 17 mediums, 5 heavies, and 4 assaults.

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

it doesn't effect light mechs worth a damn and kicks every assault in the nuts. That's a horrible horrible system that takes away from the massive about of customizeability that is drawing a large portion of the crowd playing this game

It's not any worse than the already existing hard point restrictions; you do know TT doesn't have those, don't you? Any weapon could be placed anywhere, but here we are, with "a horrible horrible system that takes away from the massive amount of customizability that is drawing a large portion of the crowd playing this game". And they don't leave just because they can't put an AC/10 in the arm of their Atlas.

Imagine that. I don't think they'd leave if they couldn't run their Atlas with a STD 360 either.

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

how about we put in a system that doesn't allow light mechs to carry anything over small lasers and machine guns. Ya know, to make it fair since we want to limit engine sizes based off weight and multiples, how about we limit weapon sizes the same way?

The difference, of course, is that what I suggested is an actual BattleTech rule, and what you suggested is something you made up to make an argument.

Edited by stjobe, 03 March 2014 - 02:38 PM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 03 March 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

Would you kindly stop it with the personal quips? Either attack my arguments, or form your own, but please don't try to make me out as someone who argues for personal gain. It is very far from the truth, and it's getting a bit tiresome to have you claim it in post after post.

Edit: For the record, I own 14 lights, 17 mediums, 5 heavies, and 4 assaults.


It's not any worse than the already existing hard point restrictions; you do know TT doesn't have those, don't you? Any weapon could be placed anywhere, but here we are, with "a horrible horrible system that takes away from the massive amount of customizability that is drawing a large portion of the crowd playing this game". And they don't leave just because they can't put an AC/10 in the arm of their Atlas.

Imagine that. I don't think they'd leave if they couldn't run their Atlas with a STD 360 either.


The difference, of course, is that what I suggested is an actual BattleTech rule, and what you suggested is something you made up to make an argument.

1) you blatently declare your a light mech pilot focused, everyone knows this, and you blatently attack things that hurt light mechs while pushing for things that aid light mechs. Don't hide behind any amount of false intentions there good sir. 2) This is not TT. Lay off of it. The customizeability we have now is an attractive feature to many gamers. And yes that would be a much much worse system then what we have now. 3) See number 2, first statement. This isn't battletech. If your going to put something that will blatently kick another weight class in the nuts at least have the gumption go give up something equally beneficial to the assaults, such as nerfing light mechs the same way. See number 1.

[stjobe]

You just don't get it, do you?

Yes, I love my Commandos. Do you know which 'mech I have the most amount of seat time in? The CN9-A. Do you know which weight class I have the most Mastered 'mechs in? Mediums.

I play lights because I love the challenge; because I know I can get wiped out at a moment's notice. All it takes is one well-placed alpha and I'm history. It makes the game interesting to me.

Does this mean I want lights to become easier to play and have more advantages? Only in bizarro world. You see, that would take away my main reason for playing lights in the first place; the challenge. So why would I try to unjustly buff lights when that would lessen my enjoyment of the game? It doesn't make sense, and neither do your imaginings of why I suggest and debate different things that could or could not improve the game.

What I want is a game that is balanced, and that sticks close to BattleTech lore (note for the reading impaired: Lore is not necessarily the same as board game rules). I've said on numerous occasions that I wouldn't mind PGI throwing each and every single BattleTech rule out the window as long as the game still feels like it's set in the BattleTech universe.

So no, I don't "blatantly attack things that hurt light 'mechs while pushing for things that aid light 'mechs" - but I guess if you are "heavy/assault 'mech pilot focused" (to borrow a phrase), it may look like that; since heavies and assaults are dominating the game and they are the biggest issues at the moment, it's pretty natural to focus on them.

Mediums are hurting because heavies are too fast, stealing their role as mobile line 'mechs. The obvious answer is to slow heavies down; using TT engine limits may or may not be a way to achieve this - reworking the Pilot Skills to have role-, weight class-, and chassis-specific quirks instead of the same Speed Tweak for everyone would surely accomplish it.

And by extension; why are heavies so fast? Because assaults are too fast as well, impinging on the role of the heavy. So assaults need to be slowed down as well; both them and heavies still have superior armour and armament, do they really need to have speed as well? Not according to BattleTech lore, where assaults are slow, pondering, lumbering beasts of war, dangerous to approach and hard to kill.

Are lights too fast as well? Yes, all 'mechs in MWO are too fast. The Commando that I love is a 97 kph 'mech in lore, a fast but not super-speedy striker that punches well over its weight class. In MWO it's all of a sudden the fastest 'mech in the game. How did that happen?

It happened because in a game where aim is perfectly accurate and all weapons converge perfectly, the only two ways to live is to either have lots of armour or lots of speed. Lights have speed, assaults have armour. Mediums and heavies are supposed to have little of both; more speed on the mediums, more armour on the heavies. And while the heavies and assaults can become speedy with MWO's engine limits and Speed Tweak, lights and mediums can't become more armoured.

Hence why there's a need to adjust speed on heavies and assaults.

Edited by stjobe, 03 March 2014 - 03:40 PM.

[Zordicron]

When I brought up the engine thing, it was not to start a debate as to if it should be in the game or not as it is in TT. In fact, NO IT SHOULDNT, and hasnt been in any MW title I have played that I recall. It IS a rule for TT with the hex stuff, and there is no reason for it in a video, sort of real time format.

THIS IS WHY i find it odd, and IMO out of place that Paul has decided to enforce the engine rule for omni mechs. And why I went on to say he is doing it because he needs it as a tool to balance clan tech. My main reason for even bringing this up is related to this thread:

IF IT WASNT FOR THE PINPOINT ALPHASTRIKE TORSO BLOWOUTS, PAUL PROBABLY WOULDNT NEED TO LOOK FOR ABSTRACT BACKDOOR WAYS TO TRY TO BALANCE CLAN MECHS.


I think, in his reasoning, he is looking at it: if clan mechs can hit harder, from farther away, players will need to be able to flank and out maneuver clan mechs in order to try to balance their firepower. hence the 97 KPH 30 ton Kit Fox. Thing is, it wont balance the clan mechs, it will make the lighter ones suxxx and the assaults it just wont make a difference on. IMO, if Paul didnt have to worry about someone mounting UAC20 and alpha striking people left and right, he wouldnt have to stick with a TT rule that doesnt fit in. He could allow more customization even in clan mechs if the weapons didnt have such a speedy time to kill. Worried about the omni part? Do it like MW4, and have some regular hardpoints, and dat omni point, or maybe 2 even. This lets people mount a lot of different stuff, and you can still create a situation that prevents players from putting 4 gauss on a Dire Wolf or something(gie them 2 omni points but make the rest laser and missle)

Anyway, thats why i brought that up, because I think avoiding the pinpoint dmg nature situation of some of the weapons in game is now creating a situation where backdoor indirect balance things are coming in to play, and I feel it is just wrong to build more on top of a flawed foundation. Burst Fire auto cannons(and that nifty small duration PPC idea) with a suitable hardpoint system like the missile tube thing would go a long way to alleviating this current situation.

Edited by Eldagore, 03 March 2014 - 03:55 PM.

[Varent]

my fear - People will whine and cry and complain till the games weapons have been nerfed so badly that the community simply leaves. Goodbye MWO. My hope - They balance weapons without removing options for weapons so players can pick and choose what they want and don't want while taking upon there shoulders varying degrees of bonuses and negatives till it finds a nice balance. With that in mind completely removing FLD is not the answer, adding incentives and dectractors to make other weapon systems more viable or unviable is. @Jobe, you can say what you want, im really tired of your blatent attempts to steer the game towards light mechs while you attack the other chasis and everything that is good against lights. You yourself have said in a recent post the best things against lights are the FLD items. Ive watched you time and time again go to bat against anything that threatens the light mechs. At least many on the forums honestly try to attack and defend many other things and also seek compromise. My main argument out there lately has even been a compromise towards putting both types in and balancing the scales until both are viable wich hurts no one an appeases both sides. Where as you have said time and time again no with no real good reasoning even though this would make both sides happy. My only assumption out there is that because there still would be a weapon system good against light mechs.

[Xenon Codex]

stjobe, on 23 February 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Not to my knowledge, no.

It wouldn't be that much of an extra burden considering that the systems are already able to handle 10 ticks per laser beam (with just about every 'mech mounting some lasers), 10 projectiles per second per MG (and these come in pairs and quads usually), and 2-20 missiles per missile launcher (which also come in bulk).

Adding 3-5 projectiles per AC shot wouldn't amount to much extra work.

1st, sorry if this has been posted already, I didn't fully peruse the rest of this thread.

2nd, I just wanted to point out that lasers and MG are hitscan which should require little calculation beyond examining the HSR values during the weapon's firing phase (i.e. every 1/10 per second, grab the HSR state of the enemy and targeting reticle). Projectiles however require line of flight calculations for each burst, so there's a bit more overhead as target movement and targeting offsets must be calculated, thus polling of multiple HSR values. Not a lot I agree, but maybe enough to cause problems that hitscan weapons don't see.

LRM's are similar, but I fear we may be seeing similar hit reg issues with them, it's just we can't really quantify them due to their long range and spread damage effects. SRM's are much more up close and personal so it's more obvious when hitreg goes awry. On the other hand LRM's are auto-calculated so they might not be prone to such HSR issues.

Anyway, not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there may be some hidden relativistic factors that might be influencing things for the worse. Without intimate knowledge of the algorithms involved, it's all conjecture I freely admit.

Keep up the good discussion, I really would like to see some improvement in hitreg for SRM's and all weapons in general.

PS: I also believe burst damage for large AC weapons is the best way forward....if the server hardware/software can support it.

Edited by XenonCx, 03 March 2014 - 08:23 PM.

[Xenon Codex]

To the OP, I think this is a good topic to bring up. Thanks for posting, and hope the devs respond.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

@Jobe, you can say what you want, im really tired of your blatent attempts to steer the game towards light mechs while you attack the other chasis and everything that is good against lights.

You just didn't read my above post at all, did you. Why am I not surprised?

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

You yourself have said in a recent post the best things against lights are the FLD items.

Yes, it's the best against everything, including lights. This shouldn't be a big surprise for you.

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

Ive watched you time and time again go to bat against anything that threatens the light mechs.

I've argued against FLD - is that light-specific? No.
I've argued for a changed heat system - is that light-specific? No.
I've argued that heavies and assaults needs to be slowed down, is that light-specific? No.
I've argued that the MG needs to be viable - is that light-specific? Well, kind of. You got me there. All my arguments must be against anything that threatens the light 'mechs since I've argued for a viable MG.

I argue for (or against) things that I believe would make the game better. The "light pilot!" bogey man is in your head only.

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

At least many on the forums honestly try to attack and defend many other things and also seek compromise. My main argument out there lately has even been a compromise towards putting both types in and balancing the scales until both are viable wich hurts no one an appeases both sides. Where as you have said time and time again no with no real good reasoning even though this would make both sides happy.

Imagine walking down the street minding your own business, when someone comes up and says "give me 400 bucks!".
When you say "no" they say "okay, give me 200 bucks then!".
When you still say no they say "I've compromised, why can't you?!"

That's the kind of one-sided compromise you're arguing.

But since you're the one saying it's possible to balance, tell us how. How would you balance the advantage of an AC/20 putting 20 damage instantly in one location against an AC/20 that spreads its 20 damage out?

Either you end up with the FLD one being superior, in which case the other types are pointless, or you end up with the FLD one being inferior, in which case its pointless to keep it in the first place.

But if you have the solution to balancing them out so they're both equally viable, please don't sit on it.

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

My only assumption out there is that because there still would be a weapon system good against light mechs.

Just in case you actually don't understand it: FLD is good against everything. It's not extra good against lights, it's extra good against lights, mediums, heavies, and assaults.

There are reasons the meta consists of PPCs and ACs, with very little missiles or energy. Those reasons are that it's superior. It's not superior against lights, specifically. It's superior against everything.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 03 March 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

1)I've argued against FLD - is that light-specific? No.
2)I've argued for a changed heat system - is that light-specific? No.
3)I've argued that heavies and assaults needs to be slowed down, is that light-specific? No.
4)I've argued that the MG needs to be viable - is that light-specific? Well, kind of. You got me there. All my arguments must be 5)against anything that threatens the light 'mechs since I've argued for a viable MG.

1) Its a preferred way to fight. Is it specific to lights? No it makes a skillful fighter.
2) Heat would help assaults as much as lights... Possibley more so cause We can afford heavier cooler weapons where most lighter Mechs NEED high heat energy weapons. I still want a better heat system and I suck in lights!
3) This one MIGHT be light inspired (subconsciously). The slower a Heavy+ The easier for a Light to stay out of the Guns. Think about it.
4) Yeah, this one IS a light thing. I stand ready to remind about the Piranha and how insane the build was on TT. Talking boating it And the Kraken are poster children of the issue.
5) Vable and Abusable walk a fine line Jobe. 1-2 PPCs are OK... 3 are Powerful, 5-6 to some OP.

[Lightfoot]

[quote name=' Varent;] Sidenote' date=' if your using a joystick your actually nerfing yourself... so... no... [/quote']

To each his own, but I am not the one asking for nerfs to every point damage weapon in MWO and my Mechs do not ever get cored. You mouse users just can't accept that the mouse hurts your ability to pilot your mechs, but I drop into a match and here comes one player after another marching straight at me. I say thanks much and burn a hole through their center torso. That's not a flaw, it's how the game is played.

Now you have had the Gauss Rifle and PPC nerfed to be "Mouse-pilot Friendly/Safe" or nerfed out of functionality. Truth is the Gauss Rifle can only be used with a Mouse now since it came second-hand from Duke Nukem.

So next is the AC20 or the evil 2xAC20. Not that I use this beasty, but they do not pose much of a threat to a player who is aware. Low range, low speed now, lumbering Jag. You take them down at range moving laterally and poof, they are gone. No need to bother PGI to save us.

Mouse users may get a bit better aim, but it comes at the expense of piloting ability and situational awareness. Not that you can't learn this with a Mouse, but piloting a Mech with a Mouse and Speedpad/Keyboard requires a lot more focus than cruising along with a Joystick and scanning the loadouts of your opponents while you move in. BAP is good.

So pilot your Mechs well and point damage becomes spread damage since PGI already saved MWO from normal MechWarrior Group-Fire, what some called "Mass-Alpha", LOL!

So if I have nerfed myself by piloting my mech with a joystick, why is it Mouse users who want all these drastic game changing nerfs?

[Joseph Mallan]

Not all us Mouse Users want Nerfs. I crave the power game.

[wanderer]

Quote

Of course that would require Competent devs and not devs who simply couldn't get in at Cryptic because they were already full up on incompetence.

The difference being that Square-Enix actually thinks their company surviving hinges on the game.

PGI can just become another shell like the previous incarnations and one new name later...

[Mcgral18]

Lightfoot, on 04 March 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:

To each his own, but I am not the one asking for nerfs to every point damage weapon in MWO and my Mechs do not ever get cored. You mouse users just can't accept that the mouse hurts your ability to pilot your mechs, but I drop into a match and here comes one player after another marching straight at me. I say thanks much and burn a hole through their center torso. That's not a flaw, it's how the game is played.

Now you have had the Gauss Rifle and PPC nerfed to be "Mouse-pilot Friendly/Safe" or nerfed out of functionality. Truth is the Gauss Rifle can only be used with a Mouse now since it came second-hand from Duke Nukem.

So next is the AC20 or the evil 2xAC20. Not that I use this beasty, but they do not pose much of a threat to a player who is aware. Low range, low speed now, lumbering Jag. You take them down at range moving laterally and poof, they are gone. No need to bother PGI to save us.

Mouse users may get a bit better aim, but it comes at the expense of piloting ability and situational awareness. Not that you can't learn this with a Mouse, but piloting a Mech with a Mouse and Speedpad/Keyboard requires a lot more focus than cruising along with a Joystick and scanning the loadouts of your opponents while you move in. BAP is good.

So pilot your Mechs well and point damage becomes spread damage since PGI already saved MWO from normal MechWarrior Group-Fire, what some called "Mass-Alpha", LOL!

So if I have nerfed myself by piloting my mech with a joystick, why is it Mouse users who want all these drastic game changing nerfs?

No, you can't spread FLD, that's the point. It hits where it's aimed, and it does all it's damage. The AC70 does 20 pinpoint damage, then fires 3 and a half times in 10 seconds. The AC40 weights 6 tons, but very few people call it OP because it only have 2 pts of FLD.

Armor has only been doubled, but weapons fire 3-20 times TT. We aren't asking for nerfs, we're asking for normalised values. But as far as I can tell, people don't want a Battletech experience, they want CoD in robots.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 03 March 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

You just didn't read my above post at all, did you. Why am I not surprised?


Yes, it's the best against everything, including lights. This shouldn't be a big surprise for you.


I've argued against FLD - is that light-specific? No.
I've argued for a changed heat system - is that light-specific? No.
I've argued that heavies and assaults needs to be slowed down, is that light-specific? No.
I've argued that the MG needs to be viable - is that light-specific? Well, kind of. You got me there. All my arguments must be against anything that threatens the light 'mechs since I've argued for a viable MG.

I argue for (or against) things that I believe would make the game better. The "light pilot!" bogey man is in your head only.


Imagine walking down the street minding your own business, when someone comes up and says "give me 400 bucks!".
When you say "no" they say "okay, give me 200 bucks then!".
When you still say no they say "I've compromised, why can't you?!"

That's the kind of one-sided compromise you're arguing.

But since you're the one saying it's possible to balance, tell us how. How would you balance the advantage of an AC/20 putting 20 damage instantly in one location against an AC/20 that spreads its 20 damage out?

Either you end up with the FLD one being superior, in which case the other types are pointless, or you end up with the FLD one being inferior, in which case its pointless to keep it in the first place.

But if you have the solution to balancing them out so they're both equally viable, please don't sit on it.


Just in case you actually don't understand it: FLD is good against everything. It's not extra good against lights, it's extra good against lights, mediums, heavies, and assaults.

There are reasons the meta consists of PPCs and ACs, with very little missiles or energy. Those reasons are that it's superior. It's not superior against lights, specifically. It's superior against everything.

one or two token arguments tossed into other sections does not a case make. Your primary focus has been from the start and continues to be pro light and anti-assault. You can say whatever you like after that fact but the history of posts you have on the forums and the most recent push speaks for itself. You have declared yourself and many others recognize it as a purely pro light player. your vision of compromise is literally just destroying a game style. That is not compromise. It has nothing to do with a robbery. Compromise is allowing both sides to basically get what they want and allowing a balance. Balance is not the eradication of a style of play. And no to be dead honest I started only skimming your posts long ago when you made the above points very very clear as well as your own overt bias. At least Noesis, Cimarb and many others argue both sides of it and back there facts up with charts and facts. I have an immense about of respect for both of those gamers and especially noesis who ve found many of his statements quite enlightening. Players like that work to make the numbers even and try to find the balance. Your statements have basically said you want a play style and a playgroup pretty much nerfed across the board. Period.

Edited by Varent, 04 March 2014 - 10:40 AM.