131 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 23 March 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

To be fair, the Thunderbolt has waaaay better hitboxes than the Catapult and arguably the Jagermech 'cause you can use your arms as shields and protect your torso easier.

and makes pitiful use of them because it can't lay out (alpha) damage near as impressive as the other 65 tonners.

[1453 R]

Daekar:

The darts thing was actually meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. I didn't communicate that clearly enough though, so my apologies.

Anyways.

Boating issues aren't ever really going to go away as such. That said, I would surmise that there are realistically only two weapons other folks care about being bloat-boated. Nobody gives much snot about (Inner Sphere) medium lasers showing up en mass on someone's build. Those two sour points are:

1.) PPCs - lightest-weight pinpoint damage weapon that still deals respectable damage it's a whole lot easier to work with four PPCs than it is four AC/10s. It's hard to really tweak PPCs themselves into a state of being where they're good in ones and twos but bad in boats. Short, of course, of a system like Ghost Heat, and the less said of Ghost heat, the better. We're stuck with it now anyways, and about the only thing it did do worth mentioning was curb PPCs a bit.

2.) LRMs - MOARTUBEZ. While the Make It Rain folks are consistently doing it wrong even now, it's actually really easy to balance LRMs around smaller, more manageable flights. Make LRM tracking/grouping strength proportional to the number of warheads you have in the air at once. Your 'Mech's targeting system is guiding the warheads - thus the lock-on mechanic - and I don't find it unreasonable to believe that handling more and more and MOAR missiles would make the system less able to guide each one. The more missiles you vomit up at once, the less ably they respond to the target's movements (tracking strength) and the less able they are to cluster tightly together for concentrated damage. This'd help bring back smaller launchers in singletons, and since massive, crushing 60+ tube salvos of missiles would be...less than decisively accurate, shall we say?...the AMS could be dialed back again to allow for smaller launchers to have a (slightly) better chance, and so that SRM folks aren't completely stuffed.

Everything else, I imagine people can boat however much they please. I don't see a lot of forum blarching over AC/2 dakka (not as compared to PPCs or LRMs, anyways), and people would complain if you couldn't boat medium lasers or other similarly-sized weapons. For that matter I still kinda want machine guns to take up half a ballistic slot instead of a whole one, even if it'd result in HILARIOUS TWELVE MACHINE GUN JAGERMECHS.

Nevertheless.

Edited by 1453 R, 23 March 2014 - 08:23 PM.

[Zeus89]

So let's be clear. Right now the majority of mechs are either a combination of LRM boats, or Med laser boats, or AC/PPC poptarts. And limiting the hardpoint size is what's going to kill customization? Customization is pretty much already dead in this game.

Really the only issue I foresee with hardpoint limiting is everyone goes back to running a Jager or Phract build with AC40s or dual gauss. But that's a problem for a different thread. I'm all for revamping the hardpoint system, because I'm getting pretty close to just digging up MW3 or MechCommander from somewhere and playing that.

[MischiefSC]

Just played a great game against Bishop with plenty of LRMs on both sides. Both teams were smart and tactical; lots of mixed units, brawlers, snipers, lights. It went almost the full 15 and ended up with everyone mostly destroyed on both sides. I'd say it came down more to luck than anything else.

LRMs as they are now are FINE. Manageable. A little bit of tweaking is called for I think, but that was one of the funnest games I played all night.

Admittedly that could just be because everyone on both sides was cool and having fun. hard to say.

[topgun505]

I agree with you OP. This concept has been brought up numerous times. But, as you can imagine the min - max warriors have freaking meltdowns whenever you suggest something that would screw with their builds.

[C E Dwyer]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Insanity, I know. If one weapon system is good, then the logical conclusion is that we want to mount 5 of that same system, right?

Except that very style of building is generally where the imbalance creeps in. People cried about PPCs being OP. And yes, getting nailed by 4-6 per mech as the sky was filled with PPC spam, it was less than fun. Right now, people cry similarly about LRMs.

And just as before, people are wrong. Or, to be more charitable, thanks to PGI's inherent programming laziness, have been trained to look at the symptom, and overreact to that, instead of the underlying problems.

Riddle me this: If you take a single example of a PPC, or a Single LRM launcher, SSRM, or UAC, etc, do you dominate the game? Even in pairs? (a Pair of PPC and a Pair of AC5 WITH JJs is a different issue, but related). Doubtful, or K2s would be uber-feared. One needs to check the viability of the weapon system, by it's weight, crits and such, individually.
Kids, it's the unlimited hardpoint system (and convergence) that is the core of the issue, not that "LRMs and PPC" are so uber powerful. Hard point sizes would improve role diversity and improve balance by minimizing boating. People would actually have more viable options. The only people who lose out would be the poptarting minmax warriors, and those are the very players who are most egregiously responsible for breaking balance to begin with.

Seriously, the constant yo yo battle cry of "Nerf this" needs to stop. The more they nerf, the more they make convoluted bandaids, the more broken the entire game becomes. If you have to QQ, cry or complain, educate yourselves to the actual problems, and make a bunch of noise to PGI to finally fix those. Pinpoint convergence of multiple weapon systems to one spot, and unlimited hardpoints are the problems, the weapons, be it lrms, pppcs, etc, front loaded damaged, et al, are just symptoms.

This is perfect and exactly what many said in closed beta the more open the custom system the more broken the game will be and harder to balance, but if you remember those of us that wanted some sanity in the building of mech was cry down by min maxers

[Joseph Mallan]

Cathy, on 24 March 2014 - 04:46 AM, said:

This is perfect and exactly what many said in closed beta the more open the custom system the more broken the game will be and harder to balance, but if you remember those of us that wanted some sanity in the building of mech was cry down by min maxers

I was saying the same thing in closed Beta Cathy. To Much of a good thing is bad.

[C E Dwyer]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 March 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

I was saying the same thing in closed Beta Cathy. To Much of a good thing is bad.

agreed which is why I think Bishops opening post is spot on, most if not all the balancing problems in this game were caused by the custom system

Edited by Cathy, 24 March 2014 - 05:37 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cathy, on 24 March 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

agreed which is why I think Bishops opening post is spot on, most if not all the balancing problems in this game were caused by the custom system

I have nothing but custom Mechs... But can only agree with you!

[Magna Canus]

This might sound a bit off the wall but why not just increase the number of slots taken up by specific weapons (like ACs) so that they cant fit in the same spot together (for example the HGN-733C can fit 2 UAC in the arm at the moment). Make ghost heat crippling for certain weapons like the PPC (some multiple of the standard heat) and give certain chasis quirks like being exempt from ghost heat for a specific number of PPCs (e.g. can fire x at once without ghost heat).

It is not core/base/lore/etc. but not much is in MWO at this point.

I mean the number of hardpoints is limited per chaisis, the number of slots available in each section as well (Head 1, CT 2, Legs 2, Arms 8-10, ST 12). Tweak the number of slots the weapons take up a bit, maybe decrease the slots needed for FF/ES, maybe mod the number of rounds in a ton of ammo, etc. Just slight adjustments to the number here and there instead of creating a whole new, complicated system. It seems to be a bit too much too late.

Not all of the big joke builds would disappear, but those usually have sufficient, inherent draw-backs anyways. Sized hardpoints wouldn't get rid of LRM-spam builds either, but would rather encourage them (STK-5M with 5xLRM5 for example).

I just can't muster enough inability to deal with the current meta to really get worked up enough to want a sized hardpoint system. *shrug*

[Sybreed]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 March 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

I have nothing but custom Mechs... But can only agree with you!

think of having a hardpoint system as having a way to give each mechs/variants roles! The Awesome is the de facto PPC vanguard it's supposed to be, the Blackjack is the long range support medium, the Highlander and Victor would be jump jetting brawlers with multi-role weaponry... having multiple mechs would make sense if you wanted to fill a different role every match. We have enough mechs so everyone has something they want and hey, you can still change the equipment of your mech and tweak the role a little.

[1453 R]

Sybreed, on 24 March 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

think of having a hardpoint system as having a way to give each mechs/variants roles! The Awesome is the de facto PPC vanguard it's supposed to be, the Blackjack is the long range support medium, the Highlander and Victor would be jump jetting brawlers with multi-role weaponry... having multiple mechs would make sense if you wanted to fill a different role every match. We have enough mechs so everyone has something they want and hey, you can still change the equipment of your mech and tweak the role a little.

No...no, you really, really can't.

Go sized hardpoints? The Blackjack and JagerMech both disappear from the face of the earth - long-range, low-armor dakka does not work in MWO. Half the other heavies in existence right now vanish altogether as well, or become so incredibly niche-y you'll see one in twenty matches tops - LOOKING AT YOU, THUNDERBOLTS. And let's not forget that this choice eliminates heavy weaponry from medium and light 'Mechs pretty much altogether, rendering them much less useful than the assault 'mechs who will still, generally, have access to high-end 'Large' hardpoints and thus the ability to carry weapons larger than a medium laser.

You're not fixing the meta with sized hardpoints. The weapons will not magically balance themselves out if you're not allowed to use them anymore except on two or three 'Mechs lucky enough to have them stock. All you're doing is shuffling around which 'Mechs are good and which 'Mechs are arse. You're also completely invalidating virtually every Champion 'Mech currently in existence, and that's a move guaranteed to piss off players new and otherwise who bought them for the slick loadouts they carry now, as opposed to whatever garbage PGI'd have to slapdash on them for a sized-hardpoint quickfix.

[Sybreed]

why wouldn't they have more armor? You can still get an XL on the mechs and increase armor.

[DocBach]

Singular weapon balance is in a good place. Where MechWarrior breaks is when you can boat several of the same weapon together that all shares the same lock; in the source material in which the numbers for damage come from, each individual weapon system would need a separate roll to determine if that hit.

We got Ghost Heat as a way to directly limit the amount of damage front loaded weapon systems like the PPC could do grouped up. Currently, with the speed change to LRM's, they are in a good spot balance-wise, with the exception that providing LRM support from massive "LRM-70" batteries can easily become the top scoring member of a team without needing to remove itself from defilaide.

To make indirect fire more difficult, I suggest the following:

Line of Sight vs Spotting lock time: If an LRM boat is receiving targeting data solely from a spotter, the lock time is increased. In Classic Battletech sharing locks was in fact capable without a C3 network despite erroneous claims otherwise - spotting targets and indirect fire is a part of the Battletech universe, but pilots in the spotting 'Mech were suppose to do nothing during the turn of spotting except spot. To reflect this, a Ghost Lock penalty can be applied to spotting locks to make it less easy for indirect firing 'Mechs to achieve locks.

The spotting penalty could be mitigated of course by a spotter using a dedicated system like NARC, or perhaps implement C3. C3 in the source material shared total information throughout a linked lance increased accuracy for long ranged fire based on the distance the spotter was to the target. C3 in MWO could do the same thing with missile locks; currently, a 'Mech has to be targeted for it to be shared if it is outside of line of sight. 'Mechs on a C3 network would be able to target any 'Mech on the spotting 'Mechs radar, regardless of if the spotter has it actively targeted. C3 would decrease lock on time dependent on the location of the spotter to the 'Mech the C3 lancemate is firing on. The closer the spotter, the quicker the lock time. ECM would counter C3, so a spotter would need to run either in counter mode or disable an ECM bubble before transmitting C3 data.

Like Ghost Heat, Ghost Lock would also penalize the total number of tubes a 'Mech was capable of firing; an LRM-5 and 10 would have low lock on times, larger racks would have longer. Subsequently, additional racks further increase lock on time, again, with the intent to balance the fact that unlike in the source game where each weapon had to be rolled for individually, we now have a system that lets you rip off 80 missiles for a single lock in a continuous stream.

TL; DR

The larger the missile rack, the longer the lock on time, the more missile racks together the longer the lock on time, having no line of sight has a longer lock on time. C3 could be an added mechanic to let LRM's have accurate indirect LRM fire without line of sight, but would increase the risk of spotters.

[FupDup]

DocBach, on 24 March 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

Singular weapon balance is in a good place. Where MechWarrior breaks is when you can boat several of the same weapon together that all shares the same lock; in the source material in which the numbers for damage come from, each individual weapon system would need a separate roll to determine if that hit.

We got Ghost Heat as a way to directly limit the amount of damage front loaded weapon systems like the PPC could do grouped up. Currently, with the speed change to LRM's, they are in a good spot balance-wise, with the exception that providing LRM support from massive "LRM-70" batteries can easily become the top scoring member of a team without needing to remove itself from defilaide.

To make indirect fire more difficult, I suggest the following:

Line of Sight vs Spotting lock time: If an LRM boat is receiving targeting data solely from a spotter, the lock time is increased. In Classic Battletech sharing locks was in fact capable without a C3 network despite erroneous claims otherwise - spotting targets and indirect fire is a part of the Battletech universe, but pilots in the spotting 'Mech were suppose to do nothing during the turn of spotting except spot. To reflect this, a Ghost Lock penalty can be applied to spotting locks to make it less easy for indirect firing 'Mechs to achieve locks.

The spotting penalty could be mitigated of course by a spotter using a dedicated system like NARC, or perhaps implement C3. C3 in the source material shared total information throughout a linked lance increased accuracy for long ranged fire based on the distance the spotter was to the target. C3 in MWO could do the same thing with missile locks; currently, a 'Mech has to be targeted for it to be shared if it is outside of line of sight. 'Mechs on a C3 network would be able to target any 'Mech on the spotting 'Mechs radar, regardless of if the spotter has it actively targeted. C3 would decrease lock on time dependent on the location of the spotter to the 'Mech the C3 lancemate is firing on. The closer the spotter, the quicker the lock time. ECM would counter C3, so a spotter would need to run either in counter mode or disable an ECM bubble before transmitting C3 data.

Like Ghost Heat, Ghost Lock would also penalize the total number of tubes a 'Mech was capable of firing; an LRM-5 and 10 would have low lock on times, larger racks would have longer. Subsequently, additional racks further increase lock on time, again, with the intent to balance the fact that unlike in the source game where each weapon had to be rolled for individually, we now have a system that lets you rip off 80 missiles for a single lock in a continuous stream.

TL; DR

The larger the missile rack, the longer the lock on time, the more missile racks together the longer the lock on time, having no line of sight has a longer lock on time. C3 could be an added mechanic to let LRM's have accurate indirect LRM fire without line of sight, but would increase the risk of spotters.

Reminds me of CarrionCrow's "Analog Missiles" idea. Basically, his idea is that lock-on missiles would no longer be all-or-nothing in terms of locking. They would lock on one (or however many) missile(s) at a time instead of all at once. I think his specific value for LRMs was 5 at a time, I don't remember. You could also fire off missiles before all of them are locked, for less damage and less heat than firing everything at once. I.e. you could choose to fire your LRM20 when only like 5-10 of the missiles are ready, or wait until the whole salvo is readied.

Edited by FupDup, 24 March 2014 - 09:06 AM.

[DocBach]

That would be cool, too, if they made some kind of indication around the reticle to let you know how many of your missiles were ready to fire. The thing is, even though you have two LRM-20's and two LRM-15's, you don't have an LRM-70. I'd rather see each entire launcher get a lock to fire because you shouldn't be able to use an LRM-20 as a 5.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 March 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

I have nothing but custom Mechs... But can only agree with you!

Right now, you have to minmax, so it is what it is. And nothing wrong with customization, it IS core to battletech and mechwarrior. It's the degree of customization that pooched weapon balance and the concept of role warfare. Sadly, the vision spu to us founders, is never even close to being attainable, because of poor choices, often made my ego driven response to the communities ego, from inception. I think we legit might have had those changes (Russ even acknowledged that sized hardpoints WERE under consideration way back in the day) but for the aggro-QQ that Vassago and his cronies pushed to sculpt the game to their minmax desires. Basically, some very pointed campaigns from a few Guilds, pushed PGIs buttons so hard they stopped listening to anything. (Sad that they chose to respond like little children themselves, removing the actual General Discussion section and such because of how easy it was to gain momentum on a concept then.)

FupDup, on 24 March 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

Reminds me of CarrionCrow's "Analog Missiles" idea. Basically, his idea is that lock-on missiles would no longer be all-or-nothing in terms of locking. They would lock on one (or however many) missile(s) at a time instead of all at once. I think his specific value for LRMs was 5 at a time, I don't remember. You could also fire off missiles before all of them are locked, for less damage and less heat than firing everything at once. I.e. you could choose to fire your LRM20 when only like 5-10 of the missiles are ready, or wait until the whole salvo is readied.

I'd take the idea, but you still fire the full volley, at full heat. It's just the only ones that would correct would be the ones with locks. Thus, if the big stupid sat there, the 20 missile would still hit him, spread out, whereas if he moved the 5-10-15-20 that had gained lock would be the only ones to hit.

[Appogee]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Kids, it's the unlimited hardpoint system (and convergence) that is the core of the issue,

QFT.

[Bishop Steiner]

DocBach, on 24 March 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

TL; DR

The larger the missile rack, the longer the lock on time, the more missile racks together the longer the lock on time, having no line of sight has a longer lock on time. C3 could be an added mechanic to let LRM's have accurate indirect LRM fire without line of sight, but would increase the risk of spotters.

I like it, with some reservations. But I also like that C3 uses tonange and crits. To get that indirect "accurate" feed, you need a 5 ton system, and your spotters, 1 ton each. If you want it from all 12, you need the extra C3 master, for 10 tons, and each lance needs a 5 ton, plus the other nine mechs with C3 Slaves for 1 ton. The weight and crits is what balances, as getting that many people to sacrifice is not going to be easy, unless your unit doctrine is entirely around that, which leaves you open to other exploits.

[nimdabew]

This please: