337 replies to this topic

[B0oN]

Hmmm, OP ?

I´d rather lower firing-speeds

[stjobe]

More armour and internals weakens individual weapons, which further encourages boating.

What needs to be addressed is pinpoint instant convergence of multiple weapons.

If those multiple weapons didn't all automatically hit the same spot, we might not even need the doubled armour/internals we have now.

[n r g]

I Zeratul I, on 19 September 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:

The 12 vs 12 format makes it extremely easy to focus fire.

If 12 mechs are shooting at you, life expectancy is short no matter how much armor you have.

It would different in a 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 format.

Or if mechs were more spread out.

not really. on smaller maps, there's no room to run and too easy to close the distance.

also, even if you can focus fire, you may kill 1mech out of 12 in the brawl but the other 11 will eventually close the gap and create a brawl........

[Ghogiel]

I imagine with double armor high dps/close range weapons will be meta since the trade off for range heavy hitters might be negated a bit..

[Sable]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

It is a scenario that could be likely. However we are getting close to releasing the full IS Quirk pass and it will put some more armor and Internals on mechs in the right places so I need to see how that plays first. I am hoping we can accomplish it this way instead of a blanket increase.

Wow go to bed and Russ responds to my thread.

I brought up the increased armor and hp idea because it had been mentioned before. The quirk for 10% extra armor on the hunchback sounds nice but when you think about it that's only 5 extra points. One medium laser's worth of extra armor. Every little bit helps but is it enough to be noticeable?

I was a little frustrated last night because i was puging a lot of games in my Timberwolf and most teams still seem to be afraid to step out of cover, the few times i did to try and spot the team i would almost instantly have red armor on half my mech. Was just a thought but if mechs could take a bigger beating maybe people would be willing to engage more openly.

[Jack Avery]

Dark DeLaurel, on 20 September 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

Pretty sure it was only the (F) but who knows anymore that seems like a lifetime ago and i cant really remember lol.

It was only the standards that had the red eye glow, the Founder's had no glow. It did, however, have green glass on the cockpit, rather than the no-detail brown blob we have now.

[Zyllos]

stjobe, on 20 September 2014 - 02:00 AM, said:

More armour and internals weakens individual weapons, which further encourages boating.

What needs to be addressed is pinpoint instant convergence of multiple weapons.

If those multiple weapons didn't all automatically hit the same spot, we might not even need the doubled armour/internals we have now.

This has been shouted from days since early MW existed...

As long as weapons hit the same location when fired together, we can never get the "feel" of this game to be correct as we are utilizing the TT armor system with a non-TT weapon firing system.

It's a very simple concept.

[kapusta11]

Zyllos, on 20 September 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

This has been shouted from days since early MW existed...

As long as weapons hit the same location when fired together, we can never get the "feel" of this game to be correct as we are utilizing the TT armor system with a non-TT weapon firing system.

It's a very simple concept.

So you two would prefer cone of fire with random spread, so that lucky guy with AC20/Heavy Gauss wins? How would said spread affect laser weapons?

Edited by kapusta11, 20 September 2014 - 07:06 AM.

[wanderer]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

It is a scenario that could be likely. However we are getting close to releasing the full IS Quirk pass and it will put some more armor and Internals on mechs in the right places so I need to see how that plays first. I am hoping we can accomplish it this way instead of a blanket increase.

You want to increase TTK, you don't just double all the numbers again (seriously, 4 times the TT?).

You do what you did to Clantech weaponry. Burst-fire AC's, spread-damage PPCs, etc. etc. You quirk 'Mechs if you see they have a specific weak point that needs addressing.

Global changes like that will just wreck previous balance entirely.

[kapusta11]

wanderer, on 20 September 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

You want to increase TTK, you don't just double all the numbers again (seriously, 4 times the TT?).

You do what you did to Clantech weaponry. Burst-fire AC's, spread-damage PPCs, etc. etc. You quirk 'Mechs if you see they have a specific weak point that needs addressing.

Global changes like that will just wreck previous balance entirely.

But Gauss will stay, and then Heavy Gauss will come, turning everything into DOT weapons is a) boring and b shows that developers can't handle a thing.

Edited by kapusta11, 20 September 2014 - 07:23 AM.

[Zyllos]

kapusta11, on 20 September 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

So you two would prefer cone of fire with random spread, so that lucky guy with AC20/Heavy Gauss wins? How would said spread affect laser weapons?

This thread would not be the location on what exactly I want to see. But "luck" has nothing to do about it.

It's not like you fire at a mech, and if your crosshair is on the model of a target, then it will just randomly pick a location to deal damage. It just means not all your weapons hit exactly on the spot you point at with the crosshair depending on moving and firing pace.

[wanderer]

Hint: Clan pilots are packing DOT all over the place.

What was that last IS vs Clan stats....79% win rate?

It doesn't seem to impede people having fun. Quite the opposite. Being in Donutmaker Online...much less fun. And even Gauss can be tweaked. You can always increase the cycle time and/or the charge-up (the latter would be cruel). Heck, in TT Gauss rifles had the longest recharge time in the game (along with PPCs...go figure!).



This is the problem. Being able to combine multiple weapons into delivering their precise, full damage to a single point. Often and easily. We can't fix convergence directly, cone of fire is right out, so working on the weapons themselves is the logical solution. You could literally give Gauss rifles a 7.5 second reload cycle and it'd actually be how long it takes in tabletop. Right now, it's 3 seconds less than that. Seems there's some wiggle room to work with.

[Jonny Taco]

To the op, no thanks.

[That Dawg]

Dark DeLaurel, on 19 September 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

It sure would be nice to have my eye glow again on demand in my Founders Atlas.

yes, please glow
I LOVE using that as a target!

[EvilCow]

Probably addressing convergence would create less problem than this armor increase and its possible game-breaking effects. I can foresee the following problems:
1) Too forgiving, the game is already way too forgiving.
2) The return of the invulnerable light mechs, back to netcode exploitation, it is not like that MWO has the best and more reliable netcode around.
3) Working on DPS and speed would be more important that any other factor.
4) Fighting at range would be hopeless, it is this way already sadly.
5) Even more power to large and coordinated teams using TS, focusing fire will be even more important.
6) I don't see the *need* for fights to last even longer than now, mechs are hard to stop already.

In my opinion the game should be modified to have a more complex convergence model. My personal favorite would be:

1) Torso weapons do not converge or are set to a fixed convergence distance in mechlab, stop. If you alpha you hit different points. It works for air simulation games and would work for MWO too.
2) Center torso weapon would be very valuable because always on focus.
3) Arms are not linked together, there would be 2 converging reticles. The reticles would continuously try to converge on the "mouse reticle", speed, rough terrain, jumping would work against this.

Please consider this now, I know has been proposed to death in past two years but now we live in this new era of communication and sanity


We already have 2 convergence groups so the game seems to support already such a change.

Edited by EvilCow, 20 September 2014 - 09:06 AM.

[Kirkland Langue]

Don't expect the Devs to get rid of convergence - they are idiots. The issues with convergence have been known for years and at every pass they have sought to change other things (ghost heat, HP buffs, etc) to try and offset how convergence works. I have no idea why the DEVs think convergence is a good idea, but I suspect it's the same reason they introduced 3PV and dozens of other idiotic decisions.

At this point, might as well try to get PGI to work on areas which they might actually work on before they completely throw in the towel and work on selling their new MMO full time.

[PANZERKAT]

CCP should buy this game from them. Then we'd have a real Battletech game.

[Tombstoner]

kesuga7, on 19 September 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

yes plz

make MECHS take longer to kill

though would it benefit heavier mechs more?

Not true any increace in armor or internals will benifit very fast target much more then slow tagets. spead and armor interact to produce survivability. add ecm and for get it.

[Wolfways]

Mystere, on 19 September 2014 - 09:51 PM, said:

No. People are loading too much ammo like there is no tomorrow. By not increasing ammo, people will have to shoot better and/or use less ammo-based weapons.

That would basically remove mechs like the Jagermech from the game. It is already forced to carry too much tonnage in ammo.

[Jonny Taco]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 20 September 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

CCP should buy this game from them. Then we'd have a real Battletech game.

CCP 8 years ago maybe... Modern CCP though? No thanks...