1263 replies to this topic

[Aleraen]

For those that feel that the three-stage-charge protocol is a better option, let me float you this idea.

Imagine that it is implemented, and the next day, your best friend, your girlfriend, or perhaps yourself (for the purpose of this thought exercise), starts playing MechWarrior Online.

Where would they find the information in the in game client regarding this mechanic? Where would they find it out of client? Buried in the forums somewhere? Imagine beginning the game and suddenly being confronted with an overly convoluted limitation on what you can do. While it probably has the intended effect of steering you clear of that build, I can definitely see people going, 'Wow, this game is shockingly overly complex. What did I get myself in to?' and just plain bouncing out.

For those of you in units that recruit new players to the game, imagine having to explain to people the three stage mechanic on top of trying to properly explain the math behind ghost heat. My point simply is, adding overly complex fixes to the game makes the game even more steeply unfriendly to the new or casual player, and if the idea of the game is to grow its player base and thrive, instead of simply catering to the whales that pay stupid amounts for gold mechs and are firmly entrenched in the game regardless, it's a step back.

Edited by Aleraen, 06 August 2014 - 05:13 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Aleraen, on 06 August 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

For those that feel that the three-stage-charge protocol is a better option, let me float you this idea.

Imagine that it is implemented, and the next day, your best friend, your girlfriend, or perhaps yourself (for the purpose of this thought exercise), starts playing MechWarrior Online.

Where would they find the information in the in game client regarding this mechanic? Where would they find it out of client? Buried in the forums somewhere? Imagine beginning the game and suddenly being confronted with an overly convoluted limitation on what you can do. While it probably has the intended effect of steering you clear of that build, I can definitely see people going, 'Wow, this game is shockingly overly complex. What did I get myself in to?' and just plain bouncing out.

For those of you in units that recruit new players to the game, imagine having to explain to people the three stage mechanic on top of trying to properly explain the math behind ghost heat. My point simply is, adding overly complex fixes to the game makes the game even more steeply unfriendly to the new or casual player, and if the idea of the game is to grow its player base and thrive, instead of simply catering to the whales that pay stupid amounts for gold mechs and are firmly entrenched in the game regardless, it's a step back.

Same thing as UAC jamming ?
Weapon turns red, can't shoot should be easy to implement and easy to understand.

[General Taskeen]

My Feedback: This is silly.

Stop continually dancing around customization that will always be an evident problem in MW. There is no way around pin-point except convergence related stuff - so if you're going to 'test' something, do something less complicated like convergence or whatever. At the same time, it seems you are curbing peoples 'need' to make efficient customization builds.

MechWarrior games had a better solution for massive customization and that was server options. Namely, non-customization Stock Mode and Customization 'on' mode. Just do it already instead of making more complicated measures, add back to the game what it needs more of, player choices in the type of BattleTech they want to play in the public matchmaker.

Edited by General Taskeen, 06 August 2014 - 05:42 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Rouken, on 05 August 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

Of the proposed mechanics I would prefer to see the PPC's projectile speed decreased. Linking Gauss and PPCs to limit the number fired at once is adding another complicated system. In fact I think this one would intersect with all the other complicated systems. Gauss charge, 2 Gauss limit, and ghost heat. I would rather not add to that list, especially when I feel PPCs are more of the issue.

The proposed speed reduction may be too big but I think that is a good direction to go in. Increasing recycle time would also be good, or maybe even some combination of the two.

Absolutely no. There is literally no reason to reduce the PPC's speed. Not only will it hurt ALL mechs that can mount PPC and are not the offending target. It would remove the PPC from the game. In fact, the PPC should have even faster velocity for the record.


Honestly, leave the two as is. Maybe use the energy system, since that one does make sense, but for the love of all that is holy, do not reduce PPC speeds. It's supposed to be even faster than Gauss.

The Devastator is build around the principle of firing 2xgauss and 2xPPC at the same time. What do we do about that mech? Kill it on arrival? Actually before arrival since this would go in before it's introduced?

Brenden, on 05 August 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

I don't think decreasing it would be a good idea. According to the lore, it suppose to be going at near speed of light. Considering it's ionized gas. I'd consider having only one of the weapon systems able to fire at any given time. The power needed to launch a PPC would interfere with the power going to the coils of the Gauss Rifle, for example, and thus you wouldn't be able to fire both at the same time.

Bye bye Devastator.

xCico, on 06 August 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

learn2play

Really? That's your eloquent response?

You clearly don't even understand basic mech construction, or how the game mechanics work, or should work. Good job.

Reno Blade, on 06 August 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

People keep saying the charge-lock-out system would remove builds or make certain mechs outright "useless"?

Is it so hard to shoot two shots instead of one?
NO.

There are a lot of people who are skilled enough to shoot their 4 LL or 4PPC in pairs instead of alpha striking all the time.
Can't be too hard to do the same for two different weapons (in this case 2 PPC / 2 Gauss).

Other people use their 1Gauss/2PPC builds already without shooting them in sync (be it skill or preference or just missed opportunities, doesnt matter).

The biggest problem with system 1 is that it's too complex, and lacking in documentation. Of the 2 proposed, I would rather tweak system 1 a bit, as reducing PPC speed anymore is just ludicrous.

This whole problem would have been a non-issue if the PPC had a 7+ sec Cycle time.

Gorgo7, on 06 August 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:

F that! My Awesome uses 3 PPC's. Now you want me to suffer a 0.5 s delay between each of them? They have ghost heat. That is enough.

Lets see people who play with PPC's and Gauss regularly comment. Not those who have nothing to lose by changing rules for weapons they don't make use of.

You and I have our disagreements, but by god that is 100% smart, and correct.

Reno Blade, on 06 August 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

Same thing as UAC jamming ?
Weapon turns red, can't shoot should be easy to implement and easy to understand.

Not really. Sure, I'll know the weapon "jammed" (a physical impossibility for the PPC), but why? and how? THAT is part of a huge problem.

The firing delay mechanism from the gauss lock seems reasonable, but it has too many problems. Mostly impacting new players, and killing the game for them.

I already have a hard time explaining ghost heat to new players, now you want me to add this!?

[Reno Blade]

I don't have to explain UAC jam to my friends with more than one sentence.
And when I asked them about a possible limit so they can only shoot and charge two Gauss or two PPCs at the same time, they understood that very fast too.

Would be nice to have a demo of the system, or get it on the PTS before another 50 pages of speculations...

[Ashnod]

Slowing the PPC will make it worthless(you know, how it was when it originally went as fast as your describing), you could just turn off pin point convergence.. and solve all of these issues instead of adding in even more confusing convoluted mechanics to the game.


Warning, firing more than 2 ppc's will generate a heat spike
Warning

• While the Gauss Rifle charges, the pilot can only fire 1 of the PPCs. Choice is the pilots.
  
• While the Gauss Rifle charges, the pilot cannot fire both PPCs simultaneously.
  
• If the pilot decides to fire 1 PPC, there is a 0.5 second period in which the 2nd PPC cannot be fired.

or

warning

• If the pilot charges 2 Gauss Rifles, no PPCs will be able to fire.
  
• This PPC lockdown effect lasts for 1 second after the Gauss Rifles have fired or auto-discharged.

thats going to look great for new players.

Edited by Ashnod, 06 August 2014 - 11:14 AM.

[MikeFreeman]

Reducing the speed of the PPC will be a disadvantage for everyone using only the PPC, without any Gauss combo. It will be nearly impossible then to hit any light mech using an ECM and unmask it with a PPC hit.

If you just want to restrict the PPC / GAUSs combo add a ghost heat penality on this. If you might think that the ghost heat stuff doesn't make sense for this restriction you have to admit that the ghost heat doesn't make sense at all and that it is just and only a way to restrict some overpowered weapon combinations.

[Tombstoner]

easy fix... make ppc's do damage over .75 seconds. done....

[Siej]

Just putting my hat in on the energy draw idea presented way early in this discussion. Less complexity, better limiter without being too limiting or confusing. This is already a high learning curve game.

Mechwarrior and Battletech have always worked very differently. There's a reason for that. A simulation versus rolling dice. Totally different conceptual parameters. Not hard to understand. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

A cone of fire like in some FPS might work, where its more accurate the more time between shots and more so when holding still... if the game were all ballistics. It doesn't really work with lasers, which wander about quite a bit as is. =) Dunno, I'm just a mediocre pilot that has overplayed every Mechwarrior game thus far. All this technical stuff makes my eyes glaze over.

However, a whole bunch of wise people have said, in one form or another, genius is simplicity. I'm no genius, but I do get those moments when someone says something brilliant, and all I can think is, "that makes so much sense, why didn't I think of that?" I think several smart people here have come up with a pretty simple solution to all this that is also easily adjustable once implemented.

[Solis Obscuri]

Reno Blade, on 06 August 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

People keep saying the charge-lock-out system would remove builds or make certain mechs outright "useless"?

Is it so hard to shoot two shots instead of one?
NO.

There are a lot of people who are skilled enough to shoot their 4 LL or 4PPC in pairs instead of alpha striking all the time.
Can't be too hard to do the same for two different weapons (in this case 2 PPC / 2 Gauss).

Other people use their 1Gauss/2PPC builds already without shooting them in sync (be it skill or preference or just missed opportunities, doesnt matter).

It isn't "hard", but it requires a much higher skill cap to place a series of shots consistently in the same location (especially against a moving target) vs. always delivering heavy damage in a pinpoint location. The PPC+Ballistic and AC/40 and SRM-36 builds didn't hit prominence because they were rewarding a challenge, they just let pilots focus on using one or two buttons delivering enough damage to cripple or destroy most enemy units with any single volley that connected.

[Reno Blade]

Solis Obscuri, on 06 August 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

It isn't "hard", but it requires a much higher skill cap to place a series of shots consistently in the same location (especially against a moving target) vs. always delivering heavy damage in a pinpoint location. The PPC+Ballistic and AC/40 and SRM-36 builds didn't hit prominence because they were rewarding a challenge, they just let pilots focus on using one or two buttons delivering enough damage to cripple or destroy most enemy units with any single volley that connected.

OK, but then the new mechanic would remove this "advantage", wouldn't it?

[IraqiWalker]

Ashnod, on 06 August 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

you could just turn off pin point convergence

Nope.

Pinpoint convergence should actually stay (No jokes). What needs to be done is bring back scaling convergence, so you don't get pinpoint accuracy instantly. You have to aim for a bit, and the slower you are the more accurate your shot becomes.

ZhennZ, on 06 August 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

A cone of fire like in some FPS might work, where its more accurate the more time between shots and more so when holding still... if the game were all ballistics. It doesn't really work with lasers, which wander about quite a bit as is. =) Dunno, I'm just a mediocre pilot that has overplayed every Mechwarrior game thus far. All this technical stuff makes my eyes glaze over.

Cone of fire is in general a bad idea. It negates the skill of aiming, and removes it from play.

Scaling convergence is still a better simply because it was in the game before, and not only does it fit from a common sense perspective, but also makes aiming accurately well rewarded, while making sure that challenging shots, are challenging.

Right now, I fire with pinpoint accuracy in my Commando, while going 170Kph. When moving at that speed, there should be some shake in the machine, the arms shouldn't be 100% stable.

[Ashnod]

Please just tool with convergence.. and start removing all the bad restrictions..

[Sandpit]

Solis Obscuri, on 05 August 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

Individually, I don't think that PPCs or Gauss rifles (or AC/5s, or UACs) were in terrible balance shape as of even a year ago

That's the thing Paul can't seem to wrap his mind around. These weapons aren't "op" individually, so "balancing" them individually doesn't help.

is 1 PPC "op"?
1 gauss?
1 AC?

No, they aren't. Yet here we are, listening to Paul talk yet again about how he plans to "balance" individual weapons when individual weapons aren't the issue to begin with. I imagine we'll get one of Paul's "fixes" regardless of the fact that not a single person that's responded and given feedback likes his ideas.

I imagine Paul will go through with it anyhow because he "knows best".

Anyone else notice how there's not been a single word from Paul regarding this? Not even a "I'm looking at the feedback and taking your suggestions into consideration" or "I'm doing it anyway"

Nothing
Not a single word.
8 days and 52 pages of feedback later.
Yet PGI wonders why their players are frustrated and have no faith in them...

[Gorgo7]

Sandpit, on 06 August 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Nothing
Not a single word.
8 days and 52 pages of feedback later.
Yet PGI wonders why their players are frustrated and have no faith in them...

Well, in all fairness to Paul, replying to this thread at this point is kinda like putting your head in the lions mouth!
Simple opinions have ended up being slander fests over this topic. Sorta like over in the module thread.
Nasty passionate.
He'll get the idea.

[ReXspec]

Gorgo7, on 06 August 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

Well, in all fairness to Paul, replying to this thread at this point is kinda like putting your head in the lions mouth!
Simple opinions have ended up being slander fests over this topic. Sorta like over in the module thread.
Nasty passionate.
He'll get the idea.

Whether it's taking a risk, or not, Paul can (and should) at least say he has read the feedback and is taking our suggestions into consideration, rather then leaving us in the dark, and saying nothing.

We're not asking for an explanation of what idea he and his staff are going with (although, that would be ideal, as it would give us a handle on what P.G.I. is thinking in terms of balance and put us on the same page as them), but it would behoove them if they just gave a simple statement like this:

"Me and the rest of staff have read the feedback, and are taking all of these suggestions into consideration. Thank you for contributing your ideas and thoughts on this matter as we know the problems with pin-point damage, and convergence need to be addressed!"

That statement is personable, amicable, and risk-free on the developers part, because it is vague enough to tell the players that no specific idea set in stone for implementation, and would tell the players they are weighing their options. Not to mention it expresses gratitude of the devs part, and lets the players know that they are acutely aware of the problems and solutions that we are putting forward about this issue.

IraqiWalker, on 06 August 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

Cone of fire is in general a bad idea. It negates the skill of aiming, and removes it from play.

Not necessarily. For sustained fire, ballistic weapons, it would actually make sense. But, considering that there are actually very few sustained fire weapons in the game, a crosshair "jump" from recoil, crosshair "bob" from movement, and slowed convergence would be a better alternative. These elements wouldn't "remove" skill from aiming, if it was fine-tuned enough, it would present another challenge with aiming that players are more then capable of adapting to.

Not to mention it would solve the majority of the issues that we're seeing with high-damage, pinpoint alphas that we're seeing right now. You want to fire a Gauss and PPC at the same time? Fine. But you better slow down/stand still and hold your crosshair on a target for a time to get the maximum accuracy out of that shot. Not to mention the sheer kick from that shot would be pretty huge--and would force pilots to take time to re-set the shot, and re-converge those massive weapon systems on a target.

For firing huge weapon systems like those at close range (about 0 - 320 meters), it would be a similar case, but moving at close range and firing at a target at those ranges would feel more like pilots are firing from the hip, and putting damage all over a target, rather then at a single point.

It would force pilots to compensate for semi-predictable patterns of crosshair "bob" (from movement), crosshair "jumps" (from recoil) and slowed convergence.

So, this proposed re-work would change the dynamics of combat at both close range and long range engagements, and would make ghost-heat effectively obsolete.

Not to mention it would force the devs to back-peddle on some rather poor design choices they made with the weapon systems (such as over-length laser beam times, or Clan UAC firing times). They would need to slightly shorten beam times (for both IS and Clan Lasers), and shorten the Clan AC burst time.

IraqiWalker, on 06 August 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

Scaling convergence is still a better simply because it was in the game before, and not only does it fit from a common sense perspective, but also makes aiming accurately well rewarded, while making sure that challenging shots, are challenging.

Right now, I fire with pinpoint accuracy in my Commando, while going 170Kph. When moving at that speed, there should be some shake in the machine, the arms shouldn't be 100% stable.

I approve of this part.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 August 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[Sandpit]

Gorgo7, on 06 August 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

Well, in all fairness to Paul, replying to this thread at this point is kinda like putting your head in the lions mouth!
Simple opinions have ended up being slander fests over this topic. Sorta like over in the module thread.
Nasty passionate.
He'll get the idea.

I am so tired (nothing personal to you) of hearing "Well they don't post because people are "mean" to them"

That's just silly

First of all, they post when they feel like it so that excuse is completely irrelevant. They have the ability to post in the CC without having a single reply allowed. They have the ability to post news in the news section instead of as a forum post. They have the ability to communicate with their customers. They choose not to.

I don't understand why people are all about defending PGI when it comes to stuff like this. Do you think coaches enjoy holding a press conference after a harsh loss? Of course not, they do it because they are paid to be a professional.

Give me $240
why?
Because I'll give you something great in exhcange!
What is it?
It's something really cool!
Ok but what is it?
It's a mech
Ok... what kind of mech?
Well it's a clan mech
Ok.... what is the information regarding this mech?
.....
Ok... well what's the info regarding how it will be used in CW?
.....
Ok..... well what's the info regarding how it will be used for IS faction players?
Give me $240
....


I don't think he WILL get the idea. He's never gotten it before. I can't think of a single time PGI has said "hey we're going to "fix" this problem by doing this" and then changed their minds because the community didn't want it. Not once. I've seen them do the exact opposite several times though and MAYBE change it again after it's been implemented.

So now we have Paul spending all this money, time, and effort on a "fix" that won't work, nerfs individual weapons instead of fixes the problem of immediate pinpoint accuracy for all ballistic weapons so in the end the high end alphas will still run rampant, the "fix" will ruin those weapons in every instance EXCEPT when they're boated which encourages players to run those builds.
smh

[ReXspec]

Gorgo7, on 06 August 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:

F that! My Awesome uses 3 PPC's. Now you want me to suffer a 0.5 s delay between each of them? They have ghost heat. That is enough.

Lets see people who play with PPC's and Gauss regularly comment. Not those who have nothing to lose by changing rules for weapons they don't make use of.

Ummm... I use my Dual PPC, Dual Gauss, 5x ER medium laser Dire Wolf all the time... I rarely ever do below six-hundred damage with it.

I love that build, but, as much as I love that build, with the way aiming, pinpoint damage, and convergence are set up now, and without the range and velocity of AC-2s or AC-5s to effectively counter my Dire Wolf at range, that build is absolutely ridiculous.

I would LOVE a re-work to aiming and convergence despite running this build myself. It would present more of a fun, immersive, and interesting challenge in using this build.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 August 2014 - 04:45 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Reno Blade, on 06 August 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

OK, but then the new mechanic would remove this "advantage", wouldn't it?

It will with one very specific weapons combination.

However, if PPC velocities decrease, I just see them stacking with autocannons again.

Even if they don't, I see a lot more people going dual-Gauss if that gives them better damage than 1 Gauss + 1 PPC.

And of course there remains the dual AC/20 elephant-in-the-room.

It's less "fixing" the high-alpha dominance than just shuffling it around a little. For the fourth time in a year.

[Sandpit]

Solis Obscuri, on 06 August 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

It will with one very specific weapons combination.

However, if PPC velocities decrease, I just see them stacking with autocannons again.

Even if they don't, I see a lot more people going dual-Gauss if that gives them better damage than 1 Gauss + 1 PPC.

And of course there remains the dual AC/20 elephant-in-the-room.

It's less "fixing" the high-alpha dominance than just shuffling it around a little. For the fourth time in a year.

exactly

individual weapons aren't the issue. They've tried nerfing
buffing
changing
ghost heat
etc.
and none of it works because they refuse to accept the root cause of the issue because they're either too stubborn or too arrogant. Either way it will never get fixed until Paul and the others realize they were wrong.