63 replies to this topic

[Tharnes]

They really need to do something about the IS UAC5, the current jam mechanics are horrible and the ROF boost is almost non existent.

[Mcgral18]

Tharnes, on 04 August 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

They really need to do something about the IS UAC5, the current jam mechanics are horrible and the ROF boost is almost non existent.

It's been buffed back to 15% jam chance, same as the DakkaGeddon of 30% off FireBrand and Muromets and 1.1 seconds cooldowns.

It's not in a bad place for balance.

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

I'm going to point out the difference here though

In TT, a smart GM will ensure that even if they do allow a min-maxer to munch out their mech (which wouldn't happen in MY TT campaigns) there's going to be a challenging but "fair" campaign built around the player's units and resources.

Here, you have to balance that at a videogame. It's a different beast. I'm all for sticking to TT rules as much as possible but I also understand that there are different mechanics and needs for a TT vs. video game.

Forcing people to use trash doesn't change the fact that it's trash.

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

http://ebt.trueborn....er=J&orderby=bv
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rifleman
[color=#000000]The [/color]Rifleman's[color=#000000] focus on anti-aircraft work dictated a heavy load of long-range weapons to the exclusion of everything else. It carries a particularly heavy battery of two [/color]Magna[color=#000000] Mk. III [/color]Large Lasers[color=#000000] paired with two [/color]Imperator[color=#000000]-A medium autocannons, one of each mounted in each arm. Two Magna Mk. II [/color]Medium Lasers[color=#000000] are mounted in the torso to provide backup. One ton of autocannon ammunition is carried in the center torso. The 'Mech's ten [/color]heat sinks[color=#000000] are grossly inadequate for constant fire, but in an anti-aircraft role, the [/color]Rifleman[color=#000000] is expected to have time to dissipate heat while the target aircraft turns for its next pass.[/color]^[6]
[color=#000000]The BJ, Jager, Rifleman, and a few other "dakka" builds were specifically designed FOR A/A in the fluff and then they [/color]

Essentially AC2 and AC5 were much more effective given their ranges and firing styles against aircraft. I'm trying to dig it up but I know there is also a targeting option to switch to "AA" mode. I can't remember if it was added 3050 or not though so I'm not sure if that was L1, L2, or L3 tech.

The BJ, Rifleman, Jager, and a few other "dakka" mechs were retconned (after 3025) into offering options for specific use against aircraft. It's just been so long I can't remember where all the rules are without doing a lot of digging through my pdf library

The only AA boost that I've seen written down in game rules (as opposed to just fluff descriptions of mechs) is that some mechs like the Jager got a -1 to-hit modifier against air due to a fancy targeting computer...but that wasn't a property of the weapon itself. That was just a quirk of the mech. It applied to any weapon fired by the unit in question. Stuffing something like a PPC or LRM5 on that Jager would also benefit from the -1 modifier.

The fluff descriptions of mechs is sometimes exaggerated and made to sound more romantic than the mech's performance actually is. In this case, ripping out the a Jagermech or BJ's AC/2s and replacing them with LRM5 would in fact increase their damage output against aircraft, while still freeing up tonnage for other goodies like more armor or heatsinks or w/e.

Edited by FupDup, 04 August 2014 - 01:04 PM.

[Sandpit]

Tharnes, on 04 August 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

They really need to do something about the IS UAC5, the current jam mechanics are horrible and the ROF boost is almost non existent.

I run a 3xUAC5 Ilya and I haven't really noticed much difference. When they cycle through if I want to fire off that 4th shot early, I just click again instead of holding it down like a machine gun.

[Graugger]

Nerf ACs, Nerf ACs, Nerf ACs! Needs MOAR nerfage!

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Forcing people to use trash doesn't change the fact that it's trash.



The only AA boost that I've seen written down in game rules (as opposed to just fluff descriptions of mechs) is that some mechs like the Jager got a -1 to-hit modifier against air due to a fancy targeting computer...but that wasn't a property of the weapon itself. That was just a quirk of the mech. It applied to any weapon fired by the unit in question. Stuffing something like a PPC or LRM5 on that Jager would also benefit from the -1 modifier.

The fluff descriptions of mechs is sometimes exaggerated and made to sound more romantic than the mech's performance actually is. In this case, ripping out the a Jagermech or BJ's AC/2s and replacing them with LRM5 would in fact increase their damage output against aircraft, while still freeing up tonnage for other goodies like more armor or heatsinks or w/e.

There was an actual mechanic implemented. I'll see if I can dig it up, like I said, it's been so long I can't remember where, I THINK it was in total warfare but I could be completely wrong about that.

As far as "trash" well........

Here's the thing. I, as a gamer, want a challenging game. I want something that isn't "easy". SO I, as a GM, also design campaigns along those lines. Yes, you ahve to use "trash" mechs sometimes because that's what you could afford. When you're using "trash" mechs though, you aren't typically assaulting a clan homeworld in my campaigns either. It's about balance and challenge.
If i play a game that's ridiculously easy, it's not fun, at least not for me, so I understand that there's different ideas on "fun" but at the same time you ahve to have some sort of balance. This game will NEVER be perfectly balanced. Mech customization prevents that entirely, but it CAN be challenging and "fair" so that taking "trash" might not be fun for you but it should be viable for someone who does enjoy that "trash" mech. Hence balance.

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

There was an actual mechanic implemented. I'll see if I can dig it up, like I said, it's been so long I can't remember where, I THINK it was in total warfare but I could be completely wrong about that.

As far as "trash" well........

Here's the thing. I, as a gamer, want a challenging game. I want something that isn't "easy". SO I, as a GM, also design campaigns along those lines. Yes, you ahve to use "trash" mechs sometimes because that's what you could afford. When you're using "trash" mechs though, you aren't typically assaulting a clan homeworld in my campaigns either. It's about balance and challenge.
If i play a game that's ridiculously easy, it's not fun, at least not for me, so I understand that there's different ideas on "fun" but at the same time you ahve to have some sort of balance. This game will NEVER be perfectly balanced. Mech customization prevents that entirely, but it CAN be challenging and "fair" so that taking "trash" might not be fun for you but it should be viable for someone who does enjoy that "trash" mech. Hence balance.

If somebody has to artificially gimp themselves for a game to be challenging, that means there's probably some flaws with the game's design. It should be challenging no matter how many hours you spend min-maxing your units in SSW. If anything, the difficulty level should be based on the assumption that players would be trying to improve their loadouts and become stronger (both in skill and loadout) over time.

A game's difficulty "baseline" should not be based around players tying their hands behind their backs or other such self-imposed handicaps. They should be giving their 110% and doing everything in their power to overcome whatever obstacle happens to be in the way.


Side-note: Customization doesn't prevent "balance," it just exasperates balancing issues because it makes it easier for players to exploit imbalances within the system...restricting/removing customization doesn't remove the imbalances, it just makes them harder to take advantage of.

Edited by FupDup, 04 August 2014 - 02:08 PM.

[Sug]

Yes un-nerf AC2's so I can have my six AC2 Jag-DD back.

[Graugger]

IS AUTOCANNONS


need moar nerfage!

I predict this will be the next complaint once everyone switches fro gauss/ppcs to AC-10/ppcs

[Y E O N N E]

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

what I'm pointing out is that MY post was in direct response to (Joe I believe) in a "sidebar" of sorts. It had nothing to do with your posts.

Which is fine, but what I am pointing out is that the way you wrote the quoted reply reads as if in response to me because the reply is underneath my quote. You had already replied to Joseph Mallan regarding Machine Guns in post # 12 before bringing MGs up again in post #19 without any prompt from him or me or anybody in between. So why did you bring them up again? You made an error. It can't read as anything but a reply to me

[Lefty Lucy]

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

[color=#959595]If somebody has to artificially gimp themselves for a game to be challenging, that means there's probably some flaws with the game's design.[/color]

Yep. TT Battletech is a "beer and pretzels" game. It's not designed to be balanced for competitive play, not even a tiny bit.

That's why we should never assume TT should be a "baseline" for balance in MWO.

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

If somebody has to artificially gimp themselves for a game to be challenging, that means there's probably some flaws with the game's design. It should be challenging no matter how many hours you spend min-maxing your units in SSW. If anything, the difficulty level should be based on the assumption that players would be trying to improve their loadouts and become stronger (both in skill and loadout) over time.

A game's difficulty "baseline" should not be based around players tying their hands behind their backs or other such self-imposed handicaps. They should be giving their 110% and doing everything in their power to overcome whatever obstacle happens to be in the way.


Side-note: Customization doesn't prevent "balance," it just exasperates balancing issues because it makes it easier for players to exploit imbalances within the system...restricting/removing customization doesn't remove the imbalances, it just makes them harder to take advantage of.

there's nothing about "artifically gimping" anything. You never played TT games like D&D, BT, Shadowrun, Vampire, etc.?

That's the GMs sole job. Tell a story and make a challenging game environment for the players. That's the enture point of having a GM. There's a huge difference in playing through a scenario or campaign with a GM and just throwing out some mechs against your buddy.

There HAS to be a set of rules, a way to keep score, a challenging environment, and above all else fun.

I've NEVER run a campaign where players were limited. I ran a campaign based on the lore and setting of the game itself. If all I wanted was to roll some dice in a one-sided slaughter I'd just play megamek against bots and load up my side and have "fun" watching the opponent just get squashed in about 4 rounds. What's the point of that? No, I want a fairly evenly matched mission. Sometimes there's suicide missions involved in a campaign where you're going to lose some of your resources but you can complete the mission.
Sometimes there's a few cake walk missions
Sometimes there's long drawn out engagements

That's the entire point of having a GM. It sounds like you haven't played through many actual campaigns in TT gaming. These thigns could take weeks if not months or even years to play through as they evolved and continued.

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

Side-note: Customization doesn't prevent "balance," it just exasperates balancing issues because it makes it easier for players to exploit imbalances within the system...restricting/removing customization doesn't remove the imbalances, it just makes them harder to take advantage of.

I don't ever think I ever said it did?

There's ALWAYS going to be an imbalance. The only way to prevent any kind of imbalance at all is to make everyone run around with the exact same weapon, mech, etc. The second you allow diversity (custom or not), you create an imbalance. The imbalances of a game aren't the issue. It's when those imbalances create an environment where only a very select few items are viable to use because taking anythign else would just result in a loss.

Graugger, on 04 August 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

IS AUTOCANNONS


need moar nerfage!

I predict this will be the next complaint once everyone switches fro gauss/ppcs to AC-10/ppcs

which is exactly why Paul will never get this kind of stuff balanced. As long as he keeps attacking individual weapons it will NEVER solve the issue. It's not the weapons, it's the system the weapons are used in and until Paul stops being stubborn and "knowing best" we'll never get that changed

Yeonne Greene, on 04 August 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Which is fine, but what I am pointing out is that the way you wrote the quoted reply reads as if in response to me because the reply is underneath my quote. You had already replied to Joseph Mallan regarding Machine Guns in post # 12 before bringing MGs up again in post #19 without any prompt from him or me or anybody in between. So why did you bring them up again? You made an error. It can't read as anything but a reply to me

dude you are getting way too concerned about this
my bad
there problem solved

Lefty Lucy, on 04 August 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

Yep. TT Battletech is a "beer and pretzels" game. It's not designed to be balanced for competitive play, not even a tiny bit.

That's why we should never assume TT should be a "baseline" for balance in MWO.

I have decades of tournaments and national rule sets and official rules that would beg to differ

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

there's nothing about "artifically gimping" anything. You never played TT games like D&D, BT, Shadowrun, Vampire, etc.?

That's the GMs sole job. Tell a story and make a challenging game environment for the players. That's the enture point of having a GM. There's a huge difference in playing through a scenario or campaign with a GM and just throwing out some mechs against your buddy.

There HAS to be a set of rules, a way to keep score, a challenging environment, and above all else fun.

I've NEVER run a campaign where players were limited. I ran a campaign based on the lore and setting of the game itself. If all I wanted was to roll some dice in a one-sided slaughter I'd just play megamek against bots and load up my side and have "fun" watching the opponent just get squashed in about 4 rounds. What's the point of that? No, I want a fairly evenly matched mission. Sometimes there's suicide missions involved in a campaign where you're going to lose some of your resources but you can complete the mission.
Sometimes there's a few cake walk missions
Sometimes there's long drawn out engagements

That's the entire point of having a GM. It sounds like you haven't played through many actual campaigns in TT gaming. These thigns could take weeks if not months or even years to play through as they evolved and continued.

It wouldn't be a one-sided slaughter if your opponent was also bringing their best (assuming similar skill level, at least...). That's the assumption I'm making here. I'm operating under the assumption that both players are "playing to win" so to say, in that they choose the specific strategies/tactics that maximize their chances of achieving the game's objectives. The "even match" would come from two (or more) opponents of at least somewhat similar skillz level trying everything in their power to blow up each other's robots. It would be like an arm-wrestle (or tug-of-war) of sorts, with each person trying whatever little strats they believe will help them beat their opponent.

Of course, the keyword is assumption. Many players are not "playing to win," as evidenced by some people running things like Flamers or Trebuchets. However, I don't think it's a problem with the game if some people put more effort into pursuing victory than others do, although it would be nice if the game could separate them out somehow (i.e. whatever skill based matchmaking you prefer), because the two groups don't get along very well much of the time...

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

I don't ever think I ever said it did?

It's the way I interpreted the earlier little snippet below:

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

-snip- ...This game will NEVER be perfectly balanced. Mech customization prevents that entirely... -snip-

[Tw1stedMonkey]

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

It's the way I interpreted the earlier little snippet below:
-snip- ...This game will NEVER be perfectly balanced. Mech customization prevents that entirely... -snip-

that's why you keep working to change it and nerf things as they become obviously more prevalent (Read:easy to kill/win with.)

Also, life is stressful, games are an outlet to relieve stress and have fun. If i have to put forth 110% effort playing a game then it becomes like work and no longer serves my purpose. Like 80-100% should be plenty for a game unless you are training for or entering into a tournament or similar level of gameplay.

[Lefty Lucy]

Sandpit, on 04 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

I have decades of tournaments and national rule sets and official rules that would beg to differ

There are Monopoly tournaments too. Doesn't mean that Monopoly is balanced for tournament play.

[FupDup]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 04 August 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

that's why you keep working to change it and nerf things as they become obviously more prevalent (Read:easy to kill/win with.)

Also, life is stressful, games are an outlet to relieve stress and have fun. If i have to put forth 110% effort playing a game then it becomes like work and no longer serves my purpose. Like 80-100% should be plenty for a game unless you are training for or entering into a tournament or similar level of gameplay.

The 110% thing was mostly a hyperbole/expression, not an actual serious suggestion. It was just to represent the opposing teams putting in their effort to win the day.

[DasSibby]

I just want my Dakka back... Even though I didn't get tons of kills, I contributed to the team, and IT WAS FUN!

http://youtu.be/-oNTALwcg1k?t=5m35s

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 04 August 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

It wouldn't be a one-sided slaughter if your opponent was also bringing their best (assuming similar skill level, at least...).

of course and that's the entire job of the GM, to ensure that no matter what the player has, there's a fairly balanced force against them.

I've run several campaigns for players that wanted to start a new merc unit. We went straight from the merc handbook for generation rules and they started with a bunch of "trash" because that's just it, they started poor. I ensured, as the GM, that the forces they faced were challenging but balanced.

The min-max crowd was generally more of "i designed this 5 AC20 100 ton mech because it's "fun" to which most any GM running anythign more than a one-off for funsies type game is going to just say "no" to.

That's also similar to what we have here.

You have the min-max and casual crowds that are concerned with nothing more than stomping around shooting people.The min maxers "fun" is a high kdr. So if they don't get to max out their mechs according to the absolute highest DPS, etc. then they're not having "fun"

The casual crowd is more about stomping around shooting stuff. As long as the game is fairly close they're happy. They're not having "fun" when they get involved in a quick stomp

Then you have the "TT" crowd, that wants that slower gameplay and more thinking involved above "click bang shoot die!" and they're not having "fun" unless they're involved in a slower paced tactical battle.

The first two groups have their game styles

The third is still waiting...

Lefty Lucy, on 04 August 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

There are Monopoly tournaments too. Doesn't mean that Monopoly is balanced for tournament play.

actually it does. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to have money tournaments.

If you REALLY want to argue this we can start a thread in off-topic and any imbalances you see I'm sure I can find tournament rules that correct it, if not later rule revisions that do the same.

[Graugger]

Oh wait here's one for you.

How is PGI going to do the other IS UACs

UAC/20?

[Noth]

Graugger, on 04 August 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

Oh wait here's one for you.

How is PGI going to do the other IS UACs

UAC/20?

Probably exactly like the UAC5. Fire a shot then you can fire another during the cooldown with a chance of jamming.