322 replies to this topic

[InspectorG]

I would bet it has more to do with the difference between BT and MWO.

BT you had random hit locations.
This means you really wanna keep hitting at all ranges to get that cored component or headshot.

MWO you have perfect weapon convergence.
This means you can tactically move into perferred range and MIN/MAX all you loadout into a strong alpha all landing(preferably) onto one hitbox.

So, yeah, you cant make a 100% port of BT into an realtime FPS.
10 second weapon cooldowns anyone?

[Ambuscade]

The unfortunate truth about it can be broken into a single equation:

High Alpha Strike Damage + Pinpoint Accuracy = The Best Killing Efficiency

Convergence is the heart of the problem, because the current system makes the above equation the best way to kill your enemy. The best way to achieve a high alpha strike is to boat the same kind of weapon system in 1-2 weapon groups. If we had something like Homeless Bill's Targeting Computer idea I read so long ago, mixed weapon loadouts might be much more popular.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

Edit: blast, beat me to it

Edited by Ambuscade, 17 February 2015 - 07:24 AM.

[Dock Steward]

Lily from animove, on 17 February 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

No its not, when you can get full firerate reduction anf range for your UAC 5 dakkawolf then you slap 6 of these things into it just because its a penalty free way to get the full benefit, and so you will not even consider using 2 AC 2's maybe for some range capabilities, or sacrifice some AC'5s for a pair of C(ER)LL.

when you plan a mech entire loadout, you will see the entire sum of the mech, and this will include all possible modules into planning as well otherwise you are not designing a loudout right from scratch.

Nope. Not for me. I don't need modules to be great. Modules don't grant a big enough bonus for me to build around them. I throw them on when I have them lying around and they're appropriate. Again, that's me.

[AlmightyAeng]

Tombstoner, on 17 February 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

My catapult build says otherwise.... 2x lrm 10's and 4 medium lasers. its very dependent on team mates.
If half of a team carried one lrm 10 thats 60 missals ruining someones day.

INCOMING MISSALS!

[Lily from animove]

Dock Steward, on 17 February 2015 - 07:25 AM, said:

Nope. Not for me. I don't need modules to be great. Modules don't grant a big enough bonus for me to build around them. I throw them on when I have them lying around and they're appropriate. Again, that's me.

5% range and 5% faster shooting means at leats 5% more damage on UAC's, no idea how this is "not much" LOL Yet imagine twopoeple doing this, suddenly you receive dmaage a lot fatser and you die earler doing less damage, a significant advantage tbh.

So if YOU do not do that, your fault, because it definately has a big impact and with this way of designing you waste possible potential.

Imagine someome modules his weapon for more range and you both meet at this range, he deals full damage, you a reduced damage, thats a big impact here as well,

You should definately plan modules into those builds as well.

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 February 2015 - 07:30 AM.

[Clint Steel]

The problem of taking different weapons are many. One of the biggest is ammo for weapons that use it, usually a bad Idea to mix and match weapons that need different ammo. Tonnage to ammo, the stock Timberwolf Prime has 2 LRM 20's but only 3 tons of ammo, thats enough for only 9 volleys, a total potential damage of 360 damage, for 13 tons of weaponry, doesn't seem like a good payoff.

Another thing is its easier to manage fewer weapons. The Dire Wolf Prime has so many types of weapons it becomes an issue deciding which to use (and how to assign buttons to all the different weapon groups).

An of course having the same range, recycle and projectile speed (if it has one) means its much easier/better to have the same weapons, so you know what range you are most effective at.

The only way I see a even a need for a diverse Mech is if there were a single player game and you had to fill all the rolls yourself.

[Lily from animove]

Clint Steel, on 17 February 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

The problem of taking different weapons are many. One of the biggest is ammo for weapons that use it, usually a bad Idea to mix and match weapons that need different ammo. Tonnage to ammo, the stock Timberwolf Prime has 2 LRM 20's but only 3 tons of ammo, thats enough for only 9 volleys, a total potential damage of 360 damage, for 13 tons of weaponry, doesn't seem like a good payoff.

Another thing is its easier to manage fewer weapons. The Dire Wolf Prime has so many types of weapons it becomes an issue deciding which to use (and how to assign buttons to all the different weapon groups).

An of course having the same range, recycle and projectile speed (if it has one) means its much easier/better to have the same weapons, so you know what range you are most effective at.

The only way I see a even a need for a diverse Mech is if there were a single player game and you had to fill all the rolls yourself.

given by lore, that AC's have different mdoels, some firing 1 bullet with 5 damage and some firing 5 bullets with 1 damage each but both are rated AC 5, we may can simplyfy AC ammo like lrms and srm's and simply make AC ammo work for whatever type they are, just consuming different amounts of ammo. A bit off the lore but a bit more simplyfying the system and making boating of mixes a tiny bit more attractive.

[Dock Steward]

Lily from animove, on 17 February 2015 - 07:29 AM, said:

5% range and 5% faster shooting means at leats 5% more damage on UAC's, no idea how this is "not much" LOL Yet imagine twopoeple doing this, suddenly you receive dmaage a lot fatser and you die earler doing less damage, a significant advantage tbh.

So if YOU do not do that, your fault, because it definately has a big impact and with this way of designing you waste possible potential.

Imagine someome modules his weapon for more range and you both meet at this range, he deals full damage, you a reduced damage, thats a big impact here as well,

You should definately plan modules into those builds as well.

You do what you want, I do what I want. I use modules, I just don't build around them. Modules are available for every weapon. It goes almost without saying that I'm going to use what I have and what is appropriate, why would I build around those? I don't build around DHS, do I?

Not sure why you aren't getting that I don't build like you do...

Am I going to not loadout the Ac/20 I want to equip just because I don't have the cooldown module? Am I going to equip the Ac/10 instead, just because that module is lying around, unused? Nope. I'm not. Modules don't dictate my loadout. My loadout dictates modules.

Edited by Dock Steward, 17 February 2015 - 07:42 AM.

[Zeriniel]

Ghost Badger, on 17 February 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

INCOMING MISSALS!

I giggled at this more than I should have.

[NeoAres]

Boats are statistically superior thanks to A. weapon modules, and B. weapon-based mech quirks. They are also a preferable style for many due to C. varying weapon travel speeds, D. varying weapon reload times, and E. varying weapon min/max ranges. The only institution in place to counter these advantages is ghost heat, which seems to be getting scaled back as of late anyway. On many maps, there is enough cover to make alpha strike power more important than DPS for all but the fastest and slowest mechs, and nothing does an alpha strike better than a weapon boat.

Besides getting rid of weapon-specific modules and quirks, the best way to make mixed builds a competitive choice is to enhance the heat bar (either by straight-up shortening it so huge energy alphas cause shutdown, or by adding significant speed/targeting debuffs whenever the heat bar goes over 75% or so to make them unable to re-hide effectively after alpha-ing), and lower the Gauss Rifle's travel speed so it can actually miss fast targets at long range for once. Until that happens, there will always be weapons (isERLL, ERPPC, Gauss, and cLPL/cERML combos) which when boated make a mech deadly at any range without need for support weaponry, and high-alpha mechs will be able to reign supreme without any fear of being left vulnerable to DPSers.

Edited by NeoAres, 17 February 2015 - 07:52 AM.

[Sarlic]

Lily from animove, on 17 February 2015 - 06:53 AM, said:

when modules get away and get overhauled, two modules means 2 benefits for weapons. and so you boat weapons getting pushed by those weapons.

When we get more complex weapongroupings.

have you tried a TBR prime stock? hirrble thing.

you have 2 ERLL, and of course, and 2 med lasers in the arms. this is already a problem, prper best ehatefficnet system would mean:

every arm solo controlled for every laser. menaing 4 groups here already.

yet, you also have a med pulse in the torso, 2 mg's and 2x lrm 20. now this makes up 7 weapongroups.

sure you can group all meds, even with the pulse. or you can make both CERLL the same group. but this will lead to indefficient situations, because you may shoot more lasers than wanted or needed or allowed, bring just disadvantages.

And so boating is easier. because their mechanics synchronise is better.
lasevomit timber is rather easy to control:

2 CERMLin each arm.
1 lpl in eahc torso.

and so: you cna just make it a

alpha group
a left lpl group
a right lpl group
one group for each arm (maybe in chainfie if you like)

Why mixing with more, its getting more complicated or less controlable. And oh, many people indeed play just with an office mouse meaning 3 buttons, so the comoftable controls there will be about having only 3 groups.

And so, No i am not missing combat situations, I have control about every weapon for every situations, while the Stock mode tbr will not be able to prepare his weapons for all situations. he will either have to blind fire some weapons with others, causing more heat than needed, or have to drop the usage for some weapons in some situations at all.

InspectorG, on 17 February 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

I would bet it has more to do with the difference between BT and MWO.

BT you had random hit locations.
This means you really wanna keep hitting at all ranges to get that cored component or headshot.

MWO you have perfect weapon convergence.
This means you can tactically move into perferred range and MIN/MAX all you loadout into a strong alpha all landing(preferably) onto one hitbox.

So, yeah, you cant make a 100% port of BT into an realtime FPS.
10 second weapon cooldowns anyone?

Ambuscade, on 17 February 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

The unfortunate truth about it can be broken into a single equation:

High Alpha Strike Damage + Pinpoint Accuracy = The Best Killing Efficiency

Convergence is the heart of the problem, because the current system makes the above equation the best way to kill your enemy. The best way to achieve a high alpha strike is to boat the same kind of weapon system in 1-2 weapon groups. If we had something like Homeless Bill's Targeting Computer idea I read so long ago, mixed weapon loadouts might be much more popular.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

Edit: blast, beat me to it

Was writing a whole story, but this is the direction i wanted to point at to Lily.

I agree with you on the module system. That's one flaw as well.

Convergence is also one of the biggest issues we have now. As matter of fact i remember his (Bills) proposal, which was farily welcomed and a good idea to the convergence system.

Look i dont fully disagree on boating on your own, in so far all the matches we so many boaters on the team, thus specialists. They don't require teamwork, they go on their own. Relying on their own HA build. To get in range they just walk with the group. That's no teamwork. It's because he can.

This is why so many teams are failing and of the reason we are Nascar-ring online from that point to another point.

I just hoped to see more loadout variety, which we don't have now. Atleast, i don't see many in alot of decks. (Apart from some competitive scene)

Which comes to my next point as i have previously posted:

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:

This is what i am -somewhat- talking about. If people would bring a more mixed loadout in combat things would be different.

Did anyone ever notice the deck upon launching in a match?

You get one TDR with ERPPCs.
You perhaps get a Stalker with only LL.
You get a DW with perhaps only UAC
You get a FS with only SMPL

.. More socalled specialists.

Sure the variety in ranges are here, but we ARE talking about too many 'specialists' on one team.

That is the thing i go headscratching.

I am not talking about the particular one specialist on the team, but multiple wubbee, aka vomit builds on the que team.

Hope this clears up a little.

[Widowmaker1981]

NeoAres, on 17 February 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

Boats are statistically superior thanks to A. weapon modules, and B. weapon-based mech quirks. They are also a preferable style for many due to C. varying weapon travel speeds, D. varying weapon reload times, and E. varying weapon min/max ranges. The only institution in place to counter these advantages is ghost heat, which seems to be getting scaled back as of late anyway. On many maps, there is enough cover to make alpha strike power more important than DPS for all but the fastest and slowest mechs, and nothing does an alpha strike better than a weapon boat.

Besides getting rid of weapon-specific advantages, the best way to make mixed builds a competitive choice is to enhance the heat bar (either by straight-up shortening it so huge energy alphas cause shutdown, or by adding significant speed/targeting debuffs whenever the heat bar goes over 75% or so to make them unable to re-hide effectively after alpha-ing), and lower the Gauss Rifle's travel speed so it can actually miss fast targets at long range for once. Until that happens, there will always be weapons (isERLL, ERPPC, Gauss, and cLPL/cERML combos) which when boated make a mech deadly at any range without need for support weaponry.

If you do that, welcome to the reign of the King Crab UAC5 boat overlord...

my real point being that weapon groups are actually pretty well balanced vs each other at the moment (other than Clan ACs which are terrible, and LRMs which are only good vs bad players/super situationally), and seriously messing with the heat system will seriously mess with that balance, because some weapons basically operate outside of the heat scale ((U)AC5 and Gauss mainly)

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 17 February 2015 - 07:55 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Ambuscade, on 17 February 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

The unfortunate truth about it can be broken into a single equation:

High Alpha Strike Damage + Pinpoint Accuracy = The Best Killing Efficiency

Convergence is the heart of the problem, because the current system makes the above equation the best way to kill your enemy. The best way to achieve a high alpha strike is to boat the same kind of weapon system in 1-2 weapon groups. If we had something like Homeless Bill's Targeting Computer idea I read so long ago, mixed weapon loadouts might be much more popular.

Regards Mechwarriors,
Ambuscade

Edit: blast, beat me to it

is it? MW3 hat perfect convergence as well, yet try to trhow out high alphas. you don't. Excessve heatscale is the true issue, because you cna fire too many weapons at once.

@sarlic specialists will still require teamwork, because 2 coordinated specialists can suddenly be true killers in their niche, while they may need the other specialists, like a streakcrow to take care of their non niche weakness.

But this is very much a reason why pug matches can vary so much. if the randomness puts too many equally niched mechs into the map favouring this niche, that can end very well, or very bad, depending on the team you belong to. if every pilot would bring a variety of ranges of weapons this would equalise out, but people don't they lern to make a mech they can control very well and lern to work with its strenght and to avoid its weaknesses.

[Gravitas]

My simplistic answer to the original question of "So when are we going to have some mixed loadouts?" - When the game type/maps/tactics promote the use of mixed loadouts for success.

It was mentioned above by InspectorG and Ambuscade with convergence, but the tactics we're using, and the builds that succeed with appropriate application, are directly a result of the game situations we have. People look for advantages in whatever they are doing. How can a positive result for me be brought about in the most efficient (cost effective, easiest to use/apply, quickest) way? Now, how you define that positive result - team win? personal stats? random challenge achievement? - will affect how you pursue that result. And then to that, the corollary: Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks.

Personally, I value team wins. If grouping with my unit, we make conscious choices of mechs and loadouts based on how many of us there are in a match, and what each can bring and be effective with. The choice varies when there are 2 of us versus X number of us. Solo queue matches are also entirely different.

To call to one of the 'specialist' mechs pointed out, I do love taking my TDR-5SS with the 7 Med Pulse Laser build in just about any setup. Only module I throw on it for weapon benefit is the range module, since I haven't bought the recycle one - but that's an economy discussion, and my usual lack of cbills balance as I'm spending it on mechs and customizing. But I usually take my Thunderwub and run along with the assaults and watch their backs. 7MPL will ruing a light mech's day, and keep them from harassing my team's heavy hitters. The less ammo/energy heat they have to use on light/med mechs is more tanking time they have on the other team's heaviest threats. The quirks, the pinpoint damage, and the general tactics found in current matches means I can have success helping the team win. If you threw convergence changes in there, to make it where there was a time to range finding and the like, then I'd probably change from primarily alpha based firing solution to making even more use of the arm mounted weapons and choose chain or small group firing more often. But again, that is a game rule setting that would then affect the applicable tactics.


PS - and as a complete aside here, I would purchase a module that would actually let me see in the weapons grouping box where the darn things are mounted so I could make choices on firing triggers on the fly without having to go to the Testing Grounds. All you have to do is put RA, LA, RT, CT, LT, H by the slot.

[LordKnightFandragon]

We will see mixed loadouts when we get a Mechwarrior game that is not simply a TDM, and rather a multi target, many objective environment that doesnt soley focus on our ability to lolpha as much fire in as short a time as possible.

Or, when weapons get adequately balanced to fit best in certain situations.

[Felbombling]

The boating problem goes pretty deep into the core mechanics of the game. The main issue I see is that PGI have decided that, in order to be successful, they must give the players as much room as possible to tinker in the Mech Lab. They have gone overboard with that freedom, though. Now they are constantly chasing game balance while at the same time maintaining their ludicrous Mech Lab with a wall of engines available, armour allocation freedom to the extreme, restricted hard-points, etc. etc.

Engines: We don't need a wall of engines, we need perhaps six different engine ratings spread out between the stock engine size and the max engine rating, available in both standard and XL versions. As it stands now, players are able to build their weapon load out as they see fit and then shoehorn an engine into the chassis to the half ton. Either that, or they'll do one of two things... take an engine rating that has a multiple of 25 to hide heat sinks, or simply take the largest engine possible for the chassis. It is far more challenging to design a Mech from the Engine up, in my opinion.

Armour Allocation: This is an easy fix. Combine Leg, Arm and Torso armour values, left and right. If you choose 50 armour on the Left Leg, the Right Leg auto-copies this value, etc. There are plenty of players who are stacking weapons on one side of a Mech and then stripping armour values from empty arms or torso sections. That extra tonnage is going into heavier weapons or an extra ton of ammo, heat sink, etc. As a side benefit, it will speed things up in the Mech Lab for us.

More Shots Per Ton: PGI have got to figure out a way to give players the ammunition stores they need for a match without packing the Mech with ammunition. Here is what happens... you start to build a Mech that you'd like to carry an LRM 15 and an SRM 6. But, during the design process you find that you have allocated so much LRM ammo to the 15 rack, you are either forced to short the SRM 6 down to an SRM 4 or Streak SRM 2, or you just say 'screw it' and put two LRM racks on the Mech so that they can share all the LRM ammo. I have found myself doing this again and again, so it is little wonder that you see pure boats of all kinds.

Hard Points: If a Mech mounts an XL engine, it should trigger a few extra hard-points within the Mech. The restrictive hard-points are funneling all that extra tonnage into larger, more powerful weapon systems.

Rate of Fire: This goes to the shots per ton segment above, but if you slowed down the rate of fire on the heavier weapons, you could keep the current rate of fire on the smaller weapons and simply adjust their damage and other values to rebalance. Smaller weapons fire more often, larger weapons less so. Players will generally wish to have a variety of weapon systems to deal with every situation, rather than the point and click alpha strike gameplay that we have currently.

I could go on. The heat system needs a rework, the pin-point accuracy needs attention. This is all stuff that PGI was warned about all the way through Closed Beta and beyond. We all knew and predicted that the game would be full of heavy alpha builds and pop-tarting... and we said so.

[NextGame]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 05:34 AM, said:

Obviously alot of people don't want to play or have mixed loadouts.

mixed loadouts designed to cover all ranges are inefficient and therefore a liability to the team.

The most mixed one should get is all hardpoints geared towards playing at the same range, or some backup medium lasers as space fillers to go alongside more ranged hardpoints.

Edited by NextGame, 17 February 2015 - 08:09 AM.

[Gravitas]

Sarlic, on 17 February 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

Look i dont fully disagree on boating on your own, in so far all the matches we so many boaters on the team, thus specialists. They don't require teamwork, they go on their own. Relying on their own HA build. To get in range they just walk with the group. That's no teamwork. It's because he can.

I will counter that by definition, choosing to 'just walk with the group' is teamwork of a sort. Maybe not your optimum version, maybe not even the most effective, but it is teamwork of a sort.

Perhaps this is apt here:



So we might decry the 'leech' that is "just" running with the group so he can apply a high alpha shot... but what if his high alpha is a +3 Vorpal sword of critsmageddon? Wouldn't it benefit your team to bring that weapon to bear on your enemies at just the right time? There still must be some teamwork involved, even if not directly or explicitly stated in chat/comms. If an enemy is removed, that benefits the team, and is teamwork of a sort. How sustainable that is, will be a different matter, and also directly related to the map/game type/length.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Most players have trouble managing more than 2 weapon groups. If you don't believe me, spectate more.

I personally stop at 3. Button 1: Primary, usually long range weapon group. Button 2: Short range backup, ML and SRMs. Button 3: Lock on missiles, LRMs or SSRMs.

This is worst case scenario. Most of my builds have only 2 groups.

The game mechanics we have to work with, reward boating weapon types and large alpha attacks. Until the game changes to reward true role warfare, this trend of 2 weapon groups will continue.

When I first started playing, I tried this balanced loadout concept the OP is pushing for. For the average player (me) it doesn't work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but until the game mechanics change to reward for a mixed loadout, I'll keep my boat.

[Rebas Kradd]

Boating is a result of open customization. Open customization means you can put any weapon of a certain class (say, ballistics) on any mech with hardpoints of that class. The result of that is that PGI has to think of that weapon's max boating potential when deciding its strength, or it creates a massively overpowered chassis. Ex: When it comes to the AC/2, PGI has to design it around the JMG-DD and its ability to load six of them, so it holds down the damage of the AC/2 to prevent the DD from becoming godmode.

Unfortunately, that means that when you try a mixed build on some other chassis, which would typically feature only a couple of AC2s, the AC2s are pretty underwhelming because they've been nerfed out of fear of the JMG-DD (and now, of course, the King Crabs). So mixed builds become a jumble of weapons that are each underpowered because of what they could be on different chassis.

So...wide-open customization is the culprit. There's been talk of limiting this effect by forcing hardpoint restrictions on mechs. My stance is that it would be a design nightmare for PGI, that the playerbase wouldn't agree on WHICH restrictions to implement, and that the "sandbox" aspect of customization has been more of an asset rather than a strength. At this point, balance has at least created some variety in what we see. The answer to metas isn't to remove them, it's just to make them require high skill and other cost (e.g. more heat for lasers).

I really don't understand the impulsive desire some people have to see EVERY weapon validated and used on the battlefield. I just don't get it. CounterStrike players use a very narrow subset of the available weapons. In the end, I think it just comes back down to gamer pride..."We're MechWarriors and everything should be nice and complicated because we're MechWarriors"...instead of real design issues.