404 replies to this topic

[Zordicron]

I was thinking too, you know, all the concerns about balancing clan tech(UAC20) and this whole elaborate "pods" thing Paul is working on, you know if AC's werent so pinpoint and PPCs too, maybe clan tech wouldnt appear to be as grossly OP on the surface? Maybe he wouldnt have to come up with some weird pod idea and put fixed engines into clan mechs and all the other stuff that doesnt feel like a mechwarrior game.

[Joseph Mallan]

Fixed engines is a in Universe restriction to Omnis, not Paul's idea.

[Zordicron]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 March 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Fixed engines is a in Universe restriction to Omnis, not Paul's idea.

Sure, but they have already "broken" the rules with engines anyway on the rest of them by allowing anything(within the range/cap they put on)
Not that this particular thing has no precedent(like all MW titles for PC i can remember allow this- maybe not 2? been a while) but if we need to make concessions for good gameplay or whatever reason we want, sticking to that particular restriction feels out of place IMO, and will detract from the whole mechlab aspect of mechwarrior(PC game).

I guess what I meant to say in my previous post on that is Paul is using that restriction as part of his balance, when it might not need to be in if we didnt have pinpoint fire.

[stjobe]

Eldagore, on 01 March 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Sure, but they have already "broken" the rules with engines anyway on the rest of them by allowing anything(within the range/cap they put on)

I've always said that an interesting way of slowing the game down a bit would be to implement the TT engine rules: You can only mount an engine that's a multiple of your chassis weight. This would mean that an Atlas could ONLY mount a 100-, 200-, 300-, or 400-rated engine, while a Centurion could mount a 100-, 150-, 200-, 250-, 300-, 350-, or 400-rated engine.

It would slow heavies and assaults down since they would have to pay a very dear weight premium if they wanted to go faster.

Eldagore, on 01 March 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

I guess what I meant to say in my previous post on that is Paul is using that restriction as part of his balance, when it might not need to be in if we didnt have pinpoint fire.

Paul would do well to sit down and read a bit on the forums about his heat system, his accuracy system, his instant-damage ACs/PPCs, and a few other mechanics that are making his life balancing the game extremely difficult - and rather needlessly.

All those things could be fixed if they just wanted to; but I guess pride is a stubborn thing.

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

I've always said that an interesting way of slowing the game down a bit would be to implement the TT engine rules: You can only mount an engine that's a multiple of your chassis weight. This would mean that an Atlas could ONLY mount a 100-, 200-, 300-, or 400-rated engine, while a Centurion could mount a 100-, 150-, 200-, 250-, 300-, 350-, or 400-rated engine.

It would slow heavies and assaults down since they would have to pay a very dear weight premium if they wanted to go faster.

I don't actually mind the fact that you can put bigger engines in mechs outside of their stock. It is a lot like how you can put a v8 in cars/trucks that come stock with a v6. Why my issue comes in is the fact that they applied a flat formula for all weight classes. That essentially means that there is no differentiation between the mechs within the weight class. It is why they moved away from this with the Lights to allow a few to go 170 kph. The Jenner should NEVER go 150, let alone the Firestarter, because it makes the Locust, Spider, and Raven going 150 a moot point. You have predators that are fast but the prey should always be faster or there is no point.

[TehSBGX]

ExplodedZombie, on 27 February 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

PPCs are visually a long bolt that is fired. Why not make it a duration weapon but only over .25 or .5 seconds? It would make damaging a moving target slightly harder.

Yeah having them be a beam duration lighting bolt like that would be pretty perfect. Also having a 'lightning cannon' would look pretty cool to boot.

[FactorlanP]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 March 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

So ill me in has the DEVs response still been silence on this topic?

Well... They would have to read this thread first. Highly unlikely that they ever will.

[Coralld]

Bumping thread because there is a lot of good ideas and stuff in here.

[Lightfoot]

PGI has said it is not possible to give each weapon a separate aim point. There are two reticles (weapon aim points) and I think that's all there will be.

The Mechs are too weak, that's all. Convergence or non-convergence won't fix anything. I am seldom cored because I move laterally to my opponents, spreading the damage. Or I might torso-twist and move laterally showing my best armored side to my opponent. This produces wild shots and spreads damage of alpha'd weapons. You can do this too. I recommend a Joystick for best damage spreading ability. Then you too won't need the Devs to de-Converge weapon groups.

[Mcgral18]

Lightfoot, on 02 March 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

PGI has said it is not possible to give each weapon a separate aim point. There are two reticles (weapon aim points) and I think that's all there will be.

The Mechs are too weak, that's all. Convergence or non-convergence won't fix anything. I am seldom cored because I move laterally to my opponents, spreading the damage. Or I might torso-twist and move laterally showing my best armored side to my opponent. This produces wild shots and spreads damage of alpha'd weapons. You can do this too. I recommend a Joystick for best damage spreading ability. Then you too won't need the Devs to de-Converge weapon groups.

Correction, weapons are too strong. 3-20 times their rated damage in the same 10 second period. 2x armor, you can do the math yourself.

Remove TT randomness and add the fact that ALL weapons converge at the same point, you have both a borked up weapon system AND a borked up armor system.

Edited by Mcgral18, 02 March 2014 - 08:33 PM.

[Varent]

either way, they may not be able to put in convergence, but they still can put in different firing mechanisms and add in more variety to weapons, they already said they wanted to and that would both add diversity and make it so there isn't just the FLD weapons out there since others would be better in different situations. Scroll up. Sidenote, if your using a joystick your actualy nerfing yourself... so... no....

[Lightfoot]

The "random" hit of TT is replicated by moving.

[Zordicron]

Lightfoot, on 02 March 2014 - 08:49 PM, said:

The "random" hit of TT is replicated by moving.

No. This is illogical. Torso twist will prolong your life, but it does not make things suddenly not pinpoint. AC40 Jager might not get to hit you in the same place for his pinpoint 40 alpha, but it is still pinpoint 40 alpha. And it is not random, it hits right where jager is pointing it to hit (at least, the devs say it does, but thats a different topic)

What you describe is simply defensive piloting, and if we had burst fire it would be just as relevant as it is now. Difference would be, that AC40 jager might hit your CT, ST, and arm you have facing him instead of blowing your arm off.

[Varent]

Eldagore, on 02 March 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

No. This is illogical. Torso twist will prolong your life, but it does not make things suddenly not pinpoint. AC40 Jager might not get to hit you in the same place for his pinpoint 40 alpha, but it is still pinpoint 40 alpha. And it is not random, it hits right where jager is pointing it to hit (at least, the devs say it does, but thats a different topic)

What you describe is simply defensive piloting, and if we had burst fire it would be just as relevant as it is now. Difference would be, that AC40 jager might hit your CT, ST, and arm you have facing him instead of blowing your arm off.

Your both wrong. The bottom line is its not table top and making rules to make it function like table top are just silly. That said making new variations of weapon systems to add balance and overall diverse customization to a game is always a good thing as long as by doing it you don't cut out any one play style and continue to encourage players to diversify.

[Joseph Mallan]

Eldagore, on 01 March 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Sure, but they have already "broken" the rules with engines anyway on the rest of them by allowing anything(within the range/cap they put on)
Not that this particular thing has no precedent(like all MW titles for PC i can remember allow this- maybe not 2? been a while) but if we need to make concessions for good gameplay or whatever reason we want, sticking to that particular restriction feels out of place IMO, and will detract from the whole mechlab aspect of mechwarrior(PC game).

I guess what I meant to say in my previous post on that is Paul is using that restriction as part of his balance, when it might not need to be in if we didnt have pinpoint fire.

They didn't "break" the engine rules so to speak. They added restrictions due to games limitations and for simplicity.

Out Cockpit and Gyro weight is added to the mass of our engines.

After that I don't remember a MW:O rule that is in violation of TT that hasn't been seen in a MW title.

[Zordicron]

Varent, on 03 March 2014 - 12:53 AM, said:

Your both wrong. The bottom line is its not table top and making rules to make it function like table top are just silly. That said making new variations of weapon systems to add balance and overall diverse customization to a game is always a good thing as long as by doing it you don't cut out any one play style and continue to encourage players to diversify.

I never said anything about making it like tabletop.

[Zordicron]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 March 2014 - 03:16 AM, said:

They didn't "break" the engine rules so to speak. They added restrictions due to games limitations and for simplicity.

Out Cockpit and Gyro weight is added to the mass of our engines.

After that I don't remember a MW:O rule that is in violation of TT that hasn't been seen in a MW title.

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.

[Karl Streiger]

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.

The choice of 300 or 400 was necessary because of the scale for TT... walking 3.25 hexes wasn't possible - the not funny part ist that the gyro is not also calculated by fraction of 0.5tons

[Tombstoner]

stjobe, on 01 March 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

Paul would do well to sit down and read a bit on the forums about his heat system, his accuracy system, his instant-damage ACs/PPCs, and a few other mechanics that are making his life balancing the game extremely difficult - and rather needlessly.

All those things could be fixed if they just wanted to; but I guess pride is a stubborn thing.

At this point its not just pride. In closed beta yes i would agree with that, but with the game going Live. you cant just or shouldn't whole scale change things. The loyal NON TT/MW player would not be happy. Think star wars galaxy or EQ2 the changes proposed for MWO may not seem to be on the same scale as SWG but it could provoke a negative response. Some people do in fact like the game as is..... I would however like it more if specific things where changed.. yada yada.....


Since The topic is Devs response to burst fire i will change course back to that topic.

PGI proclaimed there intention for more openness on the forums. I be-leave they made progress. Many have taken a wait and see attitude. Then we find out the community manager is seeking opportunities someplace else.

The forum community is giving PGI a second chance to participate in something it stepped away from i think for some good and bad reasons.

Not responding to this topic sets a bad precedence, at the same time responding to this thread also sets a bad precedence.

Please dont let a positive opportunity go to waist....

[Mavairo]

Actually there was a game that went live and then totally had to rebuild itself from the ground up that got a Great series of reviews and positive feedback from the community.

Final Fantasy Fourteen. And yes I view mechwarrior almost as broken as FFXIV was at launch. Most players that have left this game seem to agree with this assessment as well. Notice how few Non Founders and Non Overlords there are? There's a reason for that.

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.

Edited by Mavairo, 03 March 2014 - 07:17 AM.