404 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

you dont have to repeat yourself. we knew you were wrong the first time.

I dont think you even bothered to read that. You also just liked your own statement.

Have a wonderful day.

[Foxfire]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

you dont have to repeat yourself. we knew you were wrong the first time.

eh.. I don't think that it is that he is wrong.. just that he has a different philosophy.

[Varent]

Foxfire, on 08 March 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

eh.. I don't think that it is that he is wrong.. just that he has a different philosophy.

I simply dont feel that the philosophy of shoving information down peoples throats and you are wrong this is right mentality will work on a player base as fractured as we are. Balance doesnt mean any one particular thing, balance means alot of things and one of those things is give and take. There may be things in this game people dont like, that is the give, there may be things that can be improved that make players happy, that is the take, but to balance both ends there needs to be both and needs to be a middle ground between it all.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Im going to have to agree to disagree there. For the weight and size of the weapon systems overall I do feel its very balanced.

I dont know if you noticed it or not but thats why im basing most of the burst around the .25 second model. Exactly 1/4 of the laser beam duration for the medium pulse laser. I believe that the 'good players' will still be able to effectively do what ive been describing above and keep the status quo since many of them appreciate the game as it is while on the lower end of things if your literally just lazily sweeping your cursor over a mech and an opponent is refusing to torso twist the shots may get scattered over two sections. It appeases both crowds and it meets in the middle with a skill area.

It also allows if a defender is truly quick enough to get an arm in the way (probly on a medium mech since they are fairly agile) to block some of the shots as well perhaps. Again being setup around a skill model. The laser modifications ive may do far are moving at max at a .25 beam duration increase to a .75 beam duration overall. Wich still allows there to be a fairly significant change between the lasers and the Ballistics that meet in the middle. Probly long enough for any skilled player to truly have the laser do what its supposed to do for its weight and size, spread damage. While at the same time on the lower end of the skill cap will more allow players to feel like there shots are moving faster.

Benefits both parties, doesnt move the status quo for those on the high end.

Middle ground, huzzah.

So the "compromise" is to move beam duration closer to FLD? FLD works directly against a defender's skill in spreading/avoiding damage, and I just feel like that is a bad direction to take the game. Defensive should not be able to be negated completely by offensive skill (and simple luck) when the reverse is impossible.

What I love about this game is that battles actually feel rewarding; like when you bring down an atlas in a medium or heavy mech, you feel like had to work for it instead of shot a guy in the back 3 times or point and click a couple of time like in CoD of BF where the fate of the battle is basically decided by who sees who first. FLD damage worked in the TT because you couldn't reliably hit the same spot from one turn to the next. In MWO it's really not that difficult to hit targets going under 70-80kph in the same spot multiple times in a row with FLD weapons. This further weakens the viability of things like XL engines, which are almost required in order to use some mechs/variants effectively (such as the ilya/4x cataphract and lights). Nothing is more annoying than being somewhere like caustic with your team and suddenly getting hit for 30-40 pinpoint damage from over a hill into the LT or RT of an xl phract and knowing that you basically just lost half your health for that match as everyone will target the weak or exposed point if you let them get targeting data, or they just happy to get a lucky random snipe off, and so you have to hide behind other teammates at like 80-90% health because of one lucky hit. It just makes me not even want to bother using the mechs because no matter how good I am at twisting and avoiding damage to that component, if their aim is good enough it is irrelevant.

Also to the guy that said moving laterally is the solution, tell that to mech with noticeably <90 degree torso twist that can't run circles around people forever while shooting (ie BLR-1G/stalkers other than the 3F).

[Varent]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 08 March 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

So the "compromise" is to move beam duration closer to FLD? FLD works directly against a defender's skill in spreading/avoiding damage, and I just feel like that is a bad direction to take the game. Defensive should not be able to be negated completely by offensive skill (and simple luck) when the reverse is impossible.

What I love about this game is that battles actually feel rewarding; like when you bring down an atlas in a medium or heavy mech, you feel like had to work for it instead of shot a guy in the back 3 times or point and click a couple of time like in CoD of BF where the fate of the battle is basically decided by who sees who first. FLD damage worked in the TT because you couldn't reliably hit the same spot from one turn to the next. In MWO it's really not that difficult to hit targets going under 70-80kph in the same spot multiple times in a row with FLD weapons. This further weakens the viability of things like XL engines, which are almost required in order to use some mechs/variants effectively (such as the ilya/4x cataphract and lights). Nothing is more annoying than being somewhere like caustic with your team and suddenly getting hit for 30-40 pinpoint damage from over a hill into the LT or RT of an xl phract and knowing that you basically just lost half your health for that match as everyone will target the weak or exposed point if you let them get targeting data, or they just happy to get a lucky random snipe off, and so you have to hide behind other teammates at like 80-90% health because of one lucky hit. It just makes me not even want to bother using the mechs because no matter how good I am at twisting and avoiding damage to that component, if their aim is good enough it is irrelevant.

Also to the guy that said moving laterally is the solution, tell that to mech with noticeably <90 degree torso twist that can't run circles around people forever while shooting (ie BLR-1G/stalkers other than the 3F).

Im going to have to respectively disagree with you. I have often played in 12 man matches with 8 jump snipers on either side and I will tell you from experience that often times mechs get down to 40 and sometimes 30% viability before dieing. Damage is often well distributed and the players are working hard against one aother to roll that damage. I have to disagree because I simply see this with my own eyes. At a high competitive level damage IS in fact distributed. This is why I don't feel the FLD is as big of a deal honestly. My own major concern was already addressed with the jj changes. Personally I think they could have gone a little farther... but its really really good so far... brawling is coming back and im wanting to actively play again. I wish they would fix hit decttion more but the game for me is quite enjoyable. However all that said I understand that there needs to be a middle ground. Wich was the point of making weapons and designing a few options that can make both sides happy and feel there are tweaks. The changes im focusing on wont effect the higher tier as much since as Ive said, from my experiences there is already a long range of dispersal among armor with those same weapons. As Ive said from the start. I feel the answer is all groups finding a middle ground to be able to agree on since this community is so fractured we wont be able to move in any one major direction without losing a large player base.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 11:08 PM, said:

I'm going to have to respectively disagree with you. I have often played in 12 man matches with 8 jump snipers on either side and I will tell you from experience that often times mechs get down to 40 and sometimes 30% viability before dying. Damage is often well distributed and the players are working hard against one another to roll that damage. I have to disagree because I simply see this with my own eyes. At a high competitive level damage IS in fact distributed. This is why I don't feel the FLD is as big of a deal honestly. My own major concern was already addressed with the jj changes. Personally I think they could have gone a little farther... but its really really good so far... brawling is coming back and im wanting to actively play again. I wish they would fix hit detection more but the game for me is quite enjoyable. However all that said I understand that there needs to be a middle ground. Wich was the point of making weapons and designing a few options that can make both sides happy and feel there are tweaks. The changes im focusing on wont effect the higher tier as much since as Ive said, from my experiences there is already a long range of dispersal among armor with those same weapons. As Ive said from the start. I feel the answer is all groups finding a middle ground to be able to agree on since this community is so fractured we wont be able to move in any one major direction without losing a large player base.

Shooting vs JJ pop tarts makes it MUCH MUCH easier to for the JJer to spread their damage because they have more axes (that does not sound right for the plural of axis lol) of motion and then you add in hit reg+latency... I have often seen ppcs hit a point high on a torso but do damage to the leg or arm instead due to JJ mobility and latency. Where-as shooting from JJ vs a grounded assault mech makes is much easier to hit a single point since they are cannot change direction as quickly and may not be expecting to be shot at at the time (because a pop tart can JJ and surprise people in cover) and if moving to pop over cover to shoot is often moving in a line toward where the pop tart jumps so the JJ sniper doesn't have to worry about lateral movement, only the speed of the defender's torso twist (which often isn't great unless you have a faster build) vs their (the JJer) reaction time and aim. An atlas just basically has to sit there and take it like a b%&^* vs pop tarters or hide until a charge can be initiated.
Long story short JJ are already too valuable in damage spreading during combat to be used as justification that everyone has a counter to FLD.

I do not feel that making all weapons act more like FLD is a fair compromise. I am totally against anything that decreases the TTK in this game as it is generally pretty good where it is at (I also don't want to significantly increase TTK but slight increases I would not mind). Making FLD able to possibly spread damage at range and during high movement periods but still deliver most of it's damage to the one location in most other situations. I might even support something like the AC/2/10 keeping their FLD since the AC/2 already fires fairly quickly and has to balance heat and the AC/10 seems to under-perform compared to the 5 and 20. Maybe make it do two shots of 5 over like .1 secs. It also adds another way to balance and tune the ACs so that they have something more to differentiate them from other AC calibers. Make the lower performing ACs shoot tighter and quicker bursts.

I suppose these suggestions also wouldn't seem much like a compromise to you either... so I would suggest having players vote and balance based on what the majority of players want. One should balance the game in such a way as to give the most players enjoyment, and thus keep them wanting to play and spend money. I do not think it is a good business model to balance based only on the highest echelons of game play since much fewer players will see that level of play, though it is obviously still something to keep in mind since those are the hardcore playerbase. I wish fewer people cared so much about min/maxing and instead would just find their own builds instead of always seeking out the play style that has the most advantages over other players. One of my favorite mechs is my 2 LPL 6 MG jager and I actually do pretty well with it despite having nothing "meta" about the build. At the end of the day this is a game and it should be about having fun!

Edited by Tw1stedMonkey, 09 March 2014 - 12:48 AM.

[Varent]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 09 March 2014 - 12:47 AM, said:

Shooting vs JJ pop tarts makes it MUCH MUCH easier to for the JJer to spread their damage because they have more axes (that does not sound right for the plural of axis lol) of motion and then you add in hit reg+latency... I have often seen ppcs hit a point high on a torso but do damage to the leg or arm instead due to JJ mobility and latency. Where-as shooting from JJ vs a grounded assault mech makes is much easier to hit a single point since they are cannot change direction as quickly and may not be expecting to be shot at at the time (because a pop tart can JJ and surprise people in cover) and if moving to pop over cover to shoot is often moving in a line toward where the pop tart jumps so the JJ sniper doesn't have to worry about lateral movement, only the speed of the defender's torso twist (which often isn't great unless you have a faster build) vs their (the JJer) reaction time and aim. An atlas just basically has to sit there and take it like a b%&^* vs pop tarters or hide until a charge can be initiated.
Long story short JJ are already too valuable in damage spreading during combat to be used as justification that everyone has a counter to FLD.

I do not feel that making all weapons act more like FLD is a fair compromise. I am totally against anything that decreases the TTK in this game as it is generally pretty good where it is at (I also don't want to significantly increase TTK but slight increases I would not mind). Making FLD able to possibly spread damage at range and during high movement periods but still deliver most of it's damage to the one location in most other situations. I might even support something like the AC/2/10 keeping their FLD since the AC/2 already fires fairly quickly and has to balance heat and the AC/10 seems to under-perform compared to the 5 and 20. Maybe make it do two shots of 5 over like .1 secs. It also adds another way to balance and tune the ACs so that they have something more to differentiate them from other AC calibers. Make the lower performing ACs shoot tighter and quicker bursts.

I suppose these suggestions also wouldn't seem much like a compromise to you either... so I would suggest having players vote and balance based on what the majority of players want. One should balance the game in such a way as to give the most players enjoyment, and thus keep them wanting to play and spend money. I do not think it is a good business model to balance based only on the highest echelons of game play since much fewer players will see that level of play, though it is obviously still something to keep in mind since those are the hardcore playerbase. I wish fewer people cared so much about min/maxing and instead would just find their own builds instead of always seeking out the play style that has the most advantages over other players. One of my favorite mechs is my 2 LPL 6 MG jager and I actually do pretty well with it despite having nothing "meta" about the build. At the end of the day this is a game and it should be about having fun!

voting for change that could lose a large portion of player base only works if you don't lose too large of a portion. A better idea is meeting a compromise as a community that all sides can agree upon to some degree. Giving up abit and taking back and forth till everyone of the distinct groups has something that will make them want to play and want to stick around. Shoving a change down someones throat because it appeases a percentage but loses you another percentage will never be a good thing.

[Prezimonto]

stjobe, on 23 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

There's two major issues with instant-damage weapons like the ACs and PPCs, and both of them are caused by its damage mechanic:

2. No need to face your enemy for more than an instant. For most of the other weapons you need to face your enemy for a prolonged period of time to do damage, whether it's for the beam duration of lasers or the lock-on time of SSRMs and LRMs, or even the continuous stream of MG bullets, you have to actively make a choice whether to attack or defend. Not so with ACs and PPCs; you just twist in and click, and then you're free to defend and maneuver for the rest of the cooldown.

With a CoF mechanic that's linked to heat, movement, range, and target locks, this isn't really a factor. The player would have to sit still for several seconds, while focusing on the target to line up a perfect shot... so while they can shoot and then move, they have to now sit, shoot, and move, rather than be constantly shooting and moving with no penalty.

While I still prefer a convergence based solution, I think I'd be happy with a well implemented CoF solution. They could also add modifiers for the weapons themselves and for the hard points... so while you can stuff an AC20 on the arm of a blackjack or on a cicada, the mech isn't designed for it and gets a worse CoF... The Hunch in the hunchie is huge and might have a quirk that improves it's accuracy while on the move with AC's.

It would be a possible third axis for mech variant/hard point differentiation.
Very stable (mech can handle (weapon) on this hard point with improved accuracy while moving)
Stable (mech can handle (weapon) on this hard point with normal accuracy while on the move)
Unstable (mech recieves a penalty to accuracy on the move when equipping weapons larger than one slot)

[Lightfoot]

Look, it's simple physics. All the weapons travel at different speeds. If you move laterally this causes the impacts to spread across your mech. I do this and it always works (except for the cavernous Awesome). By the end of the match, good or bad, my mech (usually a heavy) is covered with shredded armor, armor missing from sections.

If you say this isn't so I would have to say you are not doing it right. It takes some practice and judgment, because moving laterally is certainly not a damage shield, it just spreads that damage out and prevents alpha-strikes from working on you.

It's natural to want to see where you are going, but you have to resist that impulse on attacks. Just plot a free path and turn to face your target.

Edited by Lightfoot, 09 March 2014 - 06:52 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Lightfoot, on 09 March 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

Look, it's simple physics. All the weapons travel at different speeds. If you move laterally this causes the impacts to spread across your mech. I do this and it always works (except for the cavernous Awesome). By the end of the match, good or bad, my mech (usually a heavy) is covered with shredded armor, armor missing from sections.

If you say this isn't so I would have to say you are not doing it right. It takes some practice and judgment, because moving laterally is certainly not a damage shield, it just spreads that damage out and prevents alpha-strikes from working on you.

It's natural to want to see where you are going, but you have to resist that impulse on attacks. Just plot a free path and turn to face your target.

For the AC10/20 +PPC, you might be right. For the PPC+AC5, perhaps on a 100KMh sub 50 tonner, but that 200M/s difference doesn't allow much difference in spread, and will hit the same hitbox on the oversized 50/55 tonners, and anything bigger/heavier.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

So many ******* paragraphs of stuff that no one of importance is going to read.

Could you guys learn how to make some succinct posts? Jesus.

[Foxfire]

Prezimonto, on 09 March 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

With a CoF mechanic that's linked to heat, movement, range, and target locks, this isn't really a factor. The player would have to sit still for several seconds, while focusing on the target to line up a perfect shot... so while they can shoot and then move, they have to now sit, shoot, and move, rather than be constantly shooting and moving with no penalty.

While I still prefer a convergence based solution, I think I'd be happy with a well implemented CoF solution. They could also add modifiers for the weapons themselves and for the hard points... so while you can stuff an AC20 on the arm of a blackjack or on a cicada, the mech isn't designed for it and gets a worse CoF... The Hunch in the hunchie is huge and might have a quirk that improves it's accuracy while on the move with AC's.

It would be a possible third axis for mech variant/hard point differentiation.
Very stable (mech can handle (weapon) on this hard point with improved accuracy while moving)
Stable (mech can handle (weapon) on this hard point with normal accuracy while on the move)
Unstable (mech recieves a penalty to accuracy on the move when equipping weapons larger than one slot)

Eh.. I'm not a fan of having a CoF in this game. It is ok for MG's because of the volume of lead you are throwing but I wouldn't want to remove skill from the game by making RNG based mechanics the norm. A convergence system is the solution that is needed but it isn't going to happen since PGI doesn't have the support from Crytek that they would need to get it to work with the version of the engine they have.

As such, we are reduced to having to try to address the symptoms since we are likely stuck with the problem(since I doubt we'd be able to convince PGI to shell out the extra cash to get Crytek support).

[Varent]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 March 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

So many ******* paragraphs of stuff that no one of importance is going to read.

Could you guys learn how to make some succinct posts? Jesus.

@the Devs. You have three fishermen in your community. They all want to catch a fish, they are all fishing in the same pond. You have offered them one generic bait. But they all want to catch different fish. These fish require different bait. All three of these fishermen are buying your bait but growing tired... and angsty and a little angry that they aren't catching the fish that they want to catch. They may be happy for a time catching some fish... but in the long run they will go to another pond. I think you want them to stay. You need to find a way to make these fishermen all happy. The answer is give and take from both you, and the fishermen. It will be a hard answer... but its one that needs to be brought up. We don't know what the answer is either, we need to all work together to get there. Sincerely, your community in hopes of something amazing.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 March 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

So many ******* paragraphs of stuff that no one of importance is going to read.

Could you guys learn how to make some succinct posts? Jesus.

That better Nic?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Varent, on 09 March 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

@the Devs. You have three fishermen in your community. They all want to catch a fish, they are all fishing in the same pond. You have offered them one generic bait. But they all want to catch different fish. These fish require different bait. All three of these fishermen are buying your bait but growing tired... and angsty and a little angry that they aren't catching the fish that they want to catch. They may be happy for a time catching some fish... but in the long run they will go to another pond. I think you want them to stay. You need to find a way to make these fishermen all happy. The answer is give and take from both you, and the fishermen. It will be a hard answer... but its one that needs to be brought up. We don't know what the answer is either, we need to all work together to get there. Sincerely, your community in hopes of something amazing.



That better Nic?

Honestly? Not really.

You know what I think pisses me off most of all.

Is all you hypocrites with Founders tags AND Phoenix tags who come here and complain.

I'm fine with a Founder complaining...you didn't know what you were buying into.

I'm fine with a new player with a Phoenix tag, who hadn't dealt with PGI much complaining.

But the guys with both? **** you. This is your fault as much as PGI's.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 09 March 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[Varent]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 March 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Honestly? Not really.

You know what I think pisses me off most of all.

Is all you hypocrites with Founders tags AND Phoenix tags who come here and complain.

I'm fine with a Founder complaining...you didn't know what you were buying into.

I'm fine with a new player with a Phoenix tag, who hadn't dealt with PGI much complaining.

But the guys with both? **** you. This is your fault as much as PGI's.

I think that's a slightly narrow minded view. A lot of people bought into a lot of things. From what they advertised even at the start they were trying to appeal to a very large target audience that comes from a multitude of backgrounds and all wants different things. My post is attempting to distinguish this so people can understand it. A lot of us are stilly buying into this game because we are hoping for a brighter future. TBH I am happy with the changes they are making lately. I think its moving in a good direction. But I think more needs to be done to properly address every group.

[Foxfire]

I personally would rather buy into a game from a universe that I love to help keep it alive. That doesn't mean that I'm not able to make suggestions and hope that the game can be improved.

Sadly, I think that this game needs to succeed if we are to have any hope of the re-invigoration of Mechwarrior and Battletech in video game form. As such, I do not wan't to see this fail and have no problem giving support to help keep it going.

[Quaamik]

Pestilens, on 24 February 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

the problem with mechs dying too fast is that they are using tabletop game damage numbers in a real-time system. Those numbers in battletech were for 10 seconds worth of engagement. As is the AC/2 had better DPS than the AC/10. There's also a lot of players who play very recklessly and get themselves killed very quickly, including myself.

I agree, with the addition of the cockpit armor values and hit box sizes.

The mech visual designs were from artist renderings on a tabletop game and in a series f books (I honestly don't remember which came first). When translated in to "real world" mechanics, such as in a 1st person shooter, the cockpits become incredible weak points that never would have been functional in the real world. Several chassis are glaringly bad examples, but all suffer to some extent.

Personally, I think that two things could fix the problem of mechs dying too fast AND of ACs being overpowered:
1) Double or triple the cockpit armor values (and only cockpit values).
2) Decrease the projectile speed of ACs based on their size. i.e. keep AC2s as fast as they are, AC5s a little slower, AC10s slower yet, AC20s significantly slower. To put it simply, at max range (not optimal range) you should have to hold well over the top of a mech to hit it.

As for PPCs, and gauss guns, they have been nerfed a LOT. ERPPCs carry such a heat penalty that its not feasible to put two (and fire both together) on the same chassis that can handle 2 AC10s, 3 or 4 tons of ammo, and fire them together till the ammo runs out. PPCs lose both the long range (an AC10 outranges them) and brawling ability (no point blank range). Gauss guns, with the new trigger system, have become specialty sniper weapons in a game where everyone it trying to find ways to nerf snipers.

[stjobe]

Quaamik, on 09 March 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

1) Double or triple the cockpit armor values (and only cockpit values).

I don't see how that would increase TTK - in about 20 months of playing I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've been killed by a head-shot; increasing head armour does nothing to stop me being CT- or ST-cored or legged, which are the majority of my deaths.

Quaamik, on 09 March 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

2) Decrease the projectile speed of ACs based on their size. i.e. keep AC2s as fast as they are, AC5s a little slower, AC10s slower yet, AC20s significantly slower.

That's already the case, the current speeds are:

• AC/2: 2,000 m/s
  
• AC/5: 1,300 m/s
  
• AC/10: 950 m/s
  
• AC/20: 650 m/s

The problem isn't that they used BT numbers in a real-time system, the problem is that they didn't use ALL of them*. What they did was to keep weapon values (damage per shot, heat per shot) and then they tripled the rate of fire without cutting these values to a third. That of course means that weapons do three times more damage and generates three times more heat than in TT.


They also kept heat dissipation at TT values, when they should have tripled it to match the rate of fire (or cut heat generation by 2/3rds as per above) - which means all high-heat weapons quickly overheats a 'mech while low-heat weapons like the AC doesn't.

Then they didn't introduce a cone of fire or a robust convergence system, or anything at all to stave off the pin-point damage problems, so they had to double armour instead - and 'mechs still die too fast.

Finally they decided to NOT use TT values for ranges, so now we have AC/20s that outdamage AC/10s at well beyond long range for the AC/20 and well beyond optimal range for the AC/10. And we have LONG-RANGE missiles which are ironically medium range weapons - all ACs except the AC/20 out-range them, as does the PPCs and the Gauss Rifle.

No, the problem isn't that they used TT values, the problem is they picked and chose which TT values to use, and they chose poorly.

Edit: *or none. I wouldn't have a problem if they had thrown every single TT value out, as long as the game felt like BattleTech, but this mix-n-match they chose is possibly the worst of both worlds.

Edited by stjobe, 09 March 2014 - 01:21 PM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 09 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I don't see how that would increase TTK - in about 20 months of playing I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've been killed by a head-shot; increasing head armour does nothing to stop me being CT- or ST-cored or legged, which are the majority of my deaths.


That's already the case, the current speeds are:

• AC/2: 2,000 m/s
  
• AC/5: 1,300 m/s
  
• AC/10: 950 m/s
  
• AC/20: 650 m/s

The problem isn't that they used BT numbers in a real-time system, the problem is that they didn't use ALL of them*. What they did was to keep weapon values (damage per shot, heat per shot) and then they tripled the rate of fire without cutting these values to a third. That of course means that weapons do three times more damage and generates three times more heat than in TT.



They also kept heat dissipation at TT values, when they should have tripled it to match the rate of fire (or cut heat generation by 2/3rds as per above) - which means all high-heat weapons quickly overheats a 'mech while low-heat weapons like the AC doesn't.

Then they didn't introduce a cone of fire or a robust convergence system, or anything at all to stave off the pin-point damage problems, so they had to double armour instead - and 'mechs still die too fast.

Finally they decided to NOT use TT values for ranges, so now we have AC/20s that outdamage AC/10s at well beyond long range for the AC/20 and well beyond optimal range for the AC/10. And we have LONG-RANGE missiles which are ironically medium range weapons - all ACs except the AC/20 out-range them, as does the PPCs and the Gauss Rifle.

No, the problem isn't that they used TT values, the problem is they picked and chose which TT values to use, and they chose poorly.

Edit: *or none. I wouldn't have a problem if they had thrown every single TT value out, as long as the game felt like BattleTech, but this mix-n-match they chose is possibly the worst of both worlds.

I understand where your coming from Jobe. But that said you are coming from a purely TT stance overall. This game needs to appease the three groups overall that exist and want different things. That said im not sure what would be a good answer. But I do feel that TT players seem to want it reduced and want spread, BT players seem to enjoy it where it is and the MW gamers are a mixed bag with it based off a number of concepts and probly want the whole thing scraped and brought back to the drawig board. I think giving the manufacturer based concept a shot is something of a good idea since it plays with the numbers of the weapons while also allowing for the weapons to retain there 'feel' However Im not sure that will fully appease the TT crowd since I feel they want the game slowed way down overall wich this would not help. Its a juggling act.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

I dont feel just balancing one way is the answer since it will break things and destroy play styles for two many other players.

I support balancing things both ways, and retaining FLD as long as it is balanced. I won't get into the "break things" again, as I already addressed that falsity.

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

I still feel that making different 'models' of weapons is a good thing as long as it still allows for skilled players to keep the status quo.

I DO TOO! Let's get back to doing that instead of arguing.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 09 March 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

So many ******* paragraphs of stuff that no one of importance is going to read.

Could you guys learn how to make some succinct posts? Jesus.

I agree. Walls of text are annoying. l2paragraph!

Oh, and it sure would be nice to get at least an official "we are reading" post once in a while...