231 replies to this topic

[xImmortalx]

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

I'm sorry to say size restricted hard-points only manifests in a different meta norm... One that I fear is even more damaging than the present one.

You size restrict and suddenly the min/max meta swings to the select few mech / that represent the apex composites...

We kind'a have that now but it's a pretty broad spectrum that allows many a mech that would be relegated as "useless" to remain semi-viable.

Yes, because the current meta totally isn't that way. What's more, the way it is now makes weapon balancing pretty much impossible because weapon size is not restricted in any way so a mech with slots of a certain type can carry almost any weapon of that type. The exception is the AC20 and IMO that doesn't help one bit. That's why we have this stupid quirk system which doesn't really do much but band-aid mechs into a broken-into-viability state.

Restricting slot size would make a large chunk of these stupid frustrating balance band-**** (gauss charge, PPC speed, ghost heat, quirks) pointless and would revert the game to a point where it was less annoying and more intuitive to play and would allow altering weapon values without totally breaking certain mechs because they can carry 10 of that weapon.

[Joseph Mallan]

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 07:20 AM, said:

Honestly I've always found movement-restricting foolishness like getting stuck on pebbles/random stuff and hoverjets much more frustrating than anything the enemy did. There are some stupid strong mechs out there but none so bad that you can't back off and re-engage, flank or keep your distance.

That being said I can see why people have a problem with mechs carrying stuff they shouldn't be able to carry, such as the 2Gauss/AC20 K2. And a MW4-style slot system would be much easier for newer pilots to pick up.

But we have 2 Gauss carrying 60 ton Mechs in this universe, So if I cannot have the chassis I want, I can make it on something else. Back in Closed Beta I turned a Jenner into a Panther and others have turned a Raven into a Hollander OR a Blitzkrieg. I do not have a problem with players bringing the Mech they want so long as they do not violate the construction rules. It makes the game interesting.

[Mister Blastman]

Since this has been a problem since the first beta testing in June of 2012, I expect to see nothing ever change here.

[xImmortalx]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 April 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

But we have 2 Gauss carrying 60 ton Mechs in this universe, So if I cannot have the chassis I want, I can make it on something else. Back in Closed Beta I turned a Jenner into a Panther and others have turned a Raven into a Hollander OR a Blitzkrieg. I do not have a problem with players bringing the Mech they want so long as they do not violate the construction rules. It makes the game interesting.

I can sympathize with that reasoning. Unfortunately a system that allows you to replicate mechs not in the game is also a system that turns mechs into gunbags with no real identity, to only be selected for their silhouette and hitbox distribution. I have no beef with you but I would tell you to go suck an egg in an instant if it meant making more mechs viable and getting them closer to the spirit in which they were conceived, rather than turning them into interchangeable gunbags.

[Lightfoot]

Hotthedd, on 06 April 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

No you don't. In TT you could fire all the same weapon, and miss with some and those that hit would be "random" on the mech. Most people alpha (group fire) with one weapon type at a time.

Group-fire is not Alpha-Strike. Group-fire of the same weapon is hit with Ghost Heat if unbalancing levels of damage occur. Alpha-Strikes hit random sections if you are moving and the more deflection angle you present the more they are spread. Ideally you should be circle strafing or at least moving laterally, even if just rocking back and forth over the same spot. If your mech is not moving the experienced pilot will alpha-strike if the heat spike will not shut their mech down.

I see MechWarrior as having several skill sets.

Piloting Skill lowers the damage you take and prevents Alpha-Strikes from hitting one section.

Weapons Management keeps you from shutting down and enables accurately hitting your target.

Mechlab Skill lets you build the best mech you know how to.

Tactical Skill let's you lay a trap for your opponent.

It's all working just fine for me, but I learned this back in MechWarrior 3 so I was expecting the same in MWO and it is mostly.

The biggest piloting mistakes I see in MWO.

#1. Players just stand and shoot or stand, torso-twist, and shoot and all anyone needs to do is Alpha-Strike to send all weapons into their target section. And with a Mouse it is literally just point-and-click. Don't stand still under fire, ever.

#2. Players do not circle-strafe at close to medium range in duels, but instead ram their opponent. Some even pivot. Both these actions beg for an alpha-strike from their opponent. If you circle-strafe instead you force your opponent to aim and hey, they likely can't circle-strafe in which case you win.

About the only time you stay put is when you have big weapons and your opponents have to come over a hill one at a time to shoot you. Like the 300 at Thermopylae, otherwise you should be moving.

In short Piloting Skill protects you from Alpha-Strikes and being hit even if a slow assault. So it is in your hands to fix Alpha-Strikes and keep them from hitting you, and to allow you to learn when to use one.

And you thought MechWarrior was just slow stompy robots that had no defenses! Aren't you relieved that MWO takes multiple Skills to master?

Edited by Lightfoot, 07 April 2015 - 08:49 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

I can sympathize with that reasoning. Unfortunately a system that allows you to replicate mechs not in the game is also a system that turns mechs into gunbags with no real identity, to only be selected for their silhouette and hitbox distribution. I have no beef with you but I would tell you to go suck an egg in an instant if it meant making more mechs viable and getting them closer to the spirit in which they were conceived, rather than turning them into interchangeable gunbags.

I sympathize with you Immortal and JM and I butt heads on this often enough, but please keep it civil. I started this discussion the other day with regards to GH changes and it's matured into the current discussion without much anger. I'd like to keep it that way. It's been fun reading the different ideas and opinions supportive and counter to mine.

[Joseph Mallan]

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

I can sympathize with that reasoning. Unfortunately a system that allows you to replicate mechs not in the game is also a system that turns mechs into gunbags with no real identity, to only be selected for their silhouette and hitbox distribution. I have no beef with you but I would tell you to go suck an egg in an instant if it meant making more mechs viable and getting them closer to the spirit in which they were conceived, rather than turning them into interchangeable gunbags.

You are free to do so. And I will just assume you have just done so. I will just counter with Unless we actually have a way to impose a role on a chassis we cannot say a player must play his Mech "THIS" way.

Otherwise Spiders would be forced to be lightly armored Fast Popgun carrying PoSs for instance and Catapults Long Range Missile boats (the PPC variant excluded).

You and I will have to agree to disagree. The Universe we are playing in has quite a diverse selection pf Chassis to work with. But with out House restrictions Any Davion can have a Spider... even though the Davion forces have next to no Spiders and use Valkyrie instead.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 April 2015 - 08:48 AM.

[DaZur]

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Restricting slot size would make a large chunk of these stupid frustrating balance band-**** (gauss charge, PPC speed, ghost heat, quirks) pointless and would revert the game to a point where it was less annoying and more intuitive to play and would allow altering weapon values without totally breaking certain mechs because they can carry 10 of that weapon.

... And MW:O would distill down to a select few mech / build composites that represent the most efficient/effective apex examples, leaving a lot of un-vetted mech disqualified and rendered essentially useless.

I'm more inclined to have a broader selection of mechs than to have a select few...

[DaZur]

[xImmortalx]

cdlord, on 07 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

I sympathize with you Immortal and JM and I butt heads on this often enough, but please keep it civil. I started this discussion the other day with regards to GH changes and it's matured into the current discussion without much anger. I'd like to keep it that way. It's been fun reading the different ideas and opinions supportive and counter to mine.

I'm sorry that was taken hostile. I simply meant it as a hypothetical response in a hypothetical discussion. If I'd wanted it to actually be hostile it would have been fairly obvious.

Joseph Mallan, on 07 April 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

You are free to do so. And I will just assume you have just done so. I will just counter with Unless we actually have a way to impose a role on a chassis we cannot say a player must play his Mech "THIS" way.

Otherwise Spiders would be forced to be lightly armored Fast Popgun carrying PoSs for instance and Catapults Long Range Missile boats (the PPC variant excluded).

You and I will have to agree to disagree. The Universe we are playing in has quite a diverse selection pf Chassis to work with. But with out House restrictions Any Davion can have a Spider... even though the Davion forces have next to no Spiders and use Valkyrie instead.

I don't think you quite get the idea of how limited size slots worked in MW4. A Catapult C1 for instance would still have been able to run dual LRM15s, dual 20s, SRMs, Streaks, 3 Large lasers, etc. but the K2 would have never been able to run dual gauss or dual AC20s. It would have been limited to dual UAC5s or dual LBX10s for instance.

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

... And MW:O would distill down to a select few mech / build composites that represent the most efficient/effective apex examples, leaving a lot of un-vetted mech disqualified and rendered essentially useless.

I'm more inclined to have a broader selection of mechs than to have a select few...

Having a bunch of mechs that are better than all others is perfectly normal when changing a core mechanic. It doesn't have to remain that way. Devs can always buff slots on other mechs to bring them into line without breaking stock configs or the meta (LOL, quirks). The balance of this game will never be perfect and it's expected that it will be tinkered with constantly. Fixed size slots will however make weapon balancing more predictable and that's huge because right now even minor changes in certain weapons can blow up the meta.

I haven't played competitive since CB (Gausscats FTW!) so I'm not really familiar with the thought processes there anymore but are you trying to tell me that there's more than a handful of mechs from each category that a team would take against another evenly matched team assuming no restrictions other than combined tonnage? Are you telling me that given a certain tonnage a player or drop lead doesn't instantly know what mech will fill it? Are you sure this variety you're seeing isn't heavily influenced by the grind and by artificial restrictions?

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

comic

You made a very simple (though valid) point. Going from that to a mountain of evidence is...optimistic. And unless you drew this comic yourself all you're doing is using someone else's work to be a jerk.

[DaZur]

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

I'm sorry that was taken hostile. I simply meant it as a hypothetical response in a hypothetical discussion. If I'd wanted it to actually be hostile it would have been fairly obvious.



I don't think you quite get the idea of how limited size slots worked in MW4. A Catapult C1 for instance would still have been able to run dual LRM15s, dual 20s, SRMs, Streaks, 3 Large lasers, etc. but the K2 would have never been able to run dual gauss or dual AC20s. It would have been limited to dual UAC5s or dual LBX10s for instance.



Having a bunch of mechs that are better than all others is perfectly normal when changing a core mechanic. It doesn't have to remain that way. Devs can always buff slots on other mechs to bring them into line without breaking stock configs or the meta (LOL, quirks). The balance of this game will never be perfect and it's expected that it will be tinkered with constantly. Fixed size slots will however make weapon balancing more predictable and that's huge because right now even minor changes in certain weapons can blow up the meta.

I haven't played competitive since CB (Gausscats FTW!) so I'm not really familiar with the thought processes there anymore but are you trying to tell me that there's more than a handful of mechs from each category that a team would take against another evenly matched team assuming no restrictions other than combined tonnage? Are you telling me that given a certain tonnage a player or drop lead doesn't instantly know what mech will fill it? Are you sure this variety you're seeing isn't heavily influenced by the grind and by artificial restrictions?

You made a very simple (though valid) point. Going from that to a mountain of evidence is...optimistic. And unless you drew this comic yourself all you're doing is using someone else's work to be a jerk.

The reality is balance is a fallacy... The best that can be accomplished is "parity", You can take two mechs of the same class, same scale and hit-box allocation, same number a type or weapons... Place one or more of those weapon slots in different locations creates a situation where one mech can be 1st tier viable and the other 5th tier viable... and all that changed was the location of the weapons.

Quirking should be a mechanic to allow both those mechs to compete as equals...

Nope... not my cartoon. That said, I found the duality of it very befitting... Color me a jerk if you must.

[xImmortalx]

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

The reality is balance is a fallacy... The best that can be accomplished is "parity", You can take two mechs of the same class, same scale and hit-box allocation, same number a type or weapons... Place one or more of those weapon slots in different locations creates a situation where one mech can be 1st tier viable and the other 5th tier viable... and all that changed was the location of the weapons.

Totally valid point. I never claimed fixed size hardpoints (call them FSHP from now on) were a be-all end-all solution to balance/parity. All I ever said is they would ease weapon balancing and remove some of the current balancing headaches.

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Quirking should be a mechanic to allow both those mechs to compete as equals...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and expand your hypothetical with an assumption. Say the change in hardpoint locations made one mech super asymmetrical and thus very poke friendly. You would need some ridiculous quirking on the other mech to compensate for the fact that the first mech can strike with most of its firepower without receiving any return fire.

Honestly I can't think of a better way to do this without having the developers decide on an acceptable meta and trying to bring every mech in line with that meta. It was a big problem in MW4 as well and the top tier of mechs was made up of either mechs with good hardpoint locations and decent firepower that could get shots in without taking return fire (MadCat MK2, Nova Cat) or mechs with good armor and ridiculous firepower that could take return fire (Gladiator, Marauder 2). Surprisingly enough, the Awesome was just as shelved as it is here due to exactly the same reason.

I work as a software developer and I have a huge mistrust of hacks (quick & dirty fixes) which is what quirks are for the metagame. A hack might be the most efficient solution right now but someone somewhere will have to eventually find a proper solution to this problem, even if it bends/breaks lore.

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Nope... not my cartoon. That said, I found the duality of it very befitting... Color me a jerk if you must.

You do realize how much of a double edged sword it is though, right?

[DaZur]

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

Totally valid point. I never claimed fixed size hardpoints (call them FSHP from now on) were a be-all end-all solution to balance/parity. All I ever said is they would ease weapon balancing and remove some of the current balancing headaches.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and expand your hypothetical with an assumption. Say the change in hardpoint locations made one mech super asymmetrical and thus very poke friendly. You would need some ridiculous quirking on the other mech to compensate for the fact that the first mech can strike with most of its firepower without receiving any return fire.

Honestly I can't think of a better way to do this without having the developers decide on an acceptable meta and trying to bring every mech in line with that meta. It was a big problem in MW4 as well and the top tier of mechs was made up of either mechs with good hardpoint locations and decent firepower that could get shots in without taking return fire (MadCat MK2, Nova Cat) or mechs with good armor and ridiculous firepower that could take return fire (Gladiator, Marauder 2). Surprisingly enough, the Awesome was just as shelved as it is here due to exactly the same reason.

I work as a software developer and I have a huge mistrust of hacks (quick & dirty fixes) which is what quirks are for the metagame. A hack might be the most efficient solution right now but someone somewhere will have to eventually find a proper solution to this problem, even if it bends/breaks lore.

You see hack... and I see embellishment to add color and nuance. All depends on ones perspective on the end result PGI is/was trying to accomplish.

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

You do realize how much of a double edged sword it is though, right?

Oh, most definitely... I'm definitely not blind to the potential juxtaposition

That said... I'm sure you've already figured out I'm not apposed to sticking my neck out to argue discuss a point.

[Sir Wulfrick]

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

The reality is balance is a fallacy... The best that can be accomplished is "parity", You can take two mechs of the same class, same scale and hit-box allocation, same number a type or weapons... Place one or more of those weapon slots in different locations creates a situation where one mech can be 1st tier viable and the other 5th tier viable... and all that changed was the location of the weapons.

Just came back to this discussion. Excellent points made by all. In relation to the above, I'd have to disagree that "balance" is a fallacy. I would posit that parity is relatively far more easily accomplished and true balance a much more elusive goal. I'd guess that what most people actually mean when they refer to "balance" is in fact parity, whereas the only true "balance" between classes of weapon systems, various chassis and even IS/CLAN would in fact be better described as asymmetric balance.

I would wager that the finesse necessary to firstly imagine a system of, and secondly create actual asymmetric balance between, various categories of weapon systems, never mind different mech chassis, would probably be nearly impossible for a heard of optimisation theory professors, never mind the generally well meaning but occasionally (I'll say this in a charitable fashion) misguided people at PGI.

Nevertheless I think that a fairly granular system of sized hard points would provide an easier system with which to attempt to deliver parity and would offer a better chance at actual "balance" than can ever be offered by the current system of quirks. With respect to your comment about the difference between a T1 and T5 viable mech being placement of a single weapon system: while I agree with the premise behind that I think we should be careful in that the tiny difference that such a subtle change would make is only ever going to effect perhaps 5% of the player base. Perhaps another 10% would notice a difference of some sort but never stop to think about it and the final 85% would never notice a difference.

Whatever balance system PGI puts in place (god forbid they continue on the present course) will need to be effective for all, not just the top 5% comp team players. Whether or not "balance" for them would be balance for all is probably a different argument altogether.

The more I think about this the more I believe that a combination of an adjusted heat scale, some form of dynamic cone-of-fire combined with sized hard points would provide the best possible chance to achieve parity and ultimately the elusive balance.

[Joseph Mallan]

xImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

I don't think you quite get the idea of how limited size slots worked in MW4. A Catapult C1 for instance would still have been able to run dual LRM15s, dual 20s, SRMs, Streaks, 3 Large lasers, etc. but the K2 would have never been able to run dual gauss or dual AC20s. It would have been limited to dual UAC5s or dual LBX10s for instance.

I do understand how the slot limits worked in MW4, I don't think you understand I have been modifying Mechs since the 80s. I was a Beta Tester for HeavyMetal Pro (The Official Mech editor for CBT).

I also don't think you understand that I am more than happy to face any Mech that a player can build. Within the rules. The GaussPult was easy picking for my Archer Atlas, so was the SplatCat. I don't want to take away anyone's choice in how they want their Mech. If it is with in teh rules, bring it and I'll do my damnest to take it down.

So if Billy wants to make his Cat-K2 into a Hammerhands knock off... Bring it. If he wants to bring a Galahad Knock off... Bring it! I wanna play against whatever they can bring.

That to me is fun.

[TB Freelancer]

Back in MW4, everyone was crying about CERLL and how OP they were even though they weren't. Their deadly effectiveness was only a symptom of a heat scale bug. There was a bug that (I could be fudging how it worked exactly...its been a decade) dumped heat over a certain point, so if you fired a full alpha, tapped override and coolant flush, you could pretty much fire as many energy based weapons as you mech could carry as soon as they recycled all match long.

To be fair to the Devs, they did explain the nerfs shouldn't be needed, but community outrage was overwhelming. Outrage that lead to thousands of forum posts, emails to the devs, petitions, etc. demanding the weapons be nerfed led the devs to nerf the snot out of the CERLL along with a few weapons and fix the bug that dumped excess heat in the games very last official patch. Overnight a lot of weapons went from being outright broken to nearly worthless.

History repeats itself. Everyone crying about symptoms.

To make a long story short, one of my favorite sayings sums these types of threads up nicely.

When a finger points to the moon. The imbecile stares at the finger.

[xImmortalx]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

I do understand how the slot limits worked in MW4, I don't think you understand I have been modifying Mechs since the 80s. I was a Beta Tester for HeavyMetal Pro (The Official Mech editor for CBT).

I also don't think you understand that I am more than happy to face any Mech that a player can build. Within the rules. The GaussPult was easy picking for my Archer Atlas, so was the SplatCat. I don't want to take away anyone's choice in how they want their Mech. If it is with in teh rules, bring it and I'll do my damnest to take it down.

So if Billy wants to make his Cat-K2 into a Hammerhands knock off... Bring it. If he wants to bring a Galahad Knock off... Bring it! I wanna play against whatever they can bring.

That to me is fun.

This isn't about what you can and can't beat. Of course an Atlas can beat a GaussCat. The problem isn't that the GaussCat is a super-OP mech that destroys everything. It's too fragile to do that outside of a competitive environment, like back in closed beta, where entire dropdecs were built around keeping pressure off the GaussCats and allowing them to play cleanup hitter. The problem is that you shouldn't be able to put a Gauss in a hardpoint that is meant to contain a machine gun. It turns mechs into barely restricted gunbags where you just fill hardpoints of a certain type with the most effective weapon of that type. You can't really think people should be able to replace machine guns with AC20s. Some customization flexibility is fine but doesn't this seem like a bit too much?

TB Freelancer, on 08 April 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

Back in MW4, everyone was crying about CERLL and how OP they were even though they weren't. Their deadly effectiveness was only a symptom of a heat scale bug. There was a bug that (I could be fudging how it worked exactly...its been a decade) dumped heat over a certain point, so if you fired a full alpha, tapped override and coolant flush, you could pretty much fire as many energy based weapons as you mech could carry as soon as they recycled all match long.

To be fair to the Devs, they did explain the nerfs shouldn't be needed, but community outrage was overwhelming. Outrage that lead to thousands of forum posts, emails to the devs, petitions, etc. demanding the weapons be nerfed led the devs to nerf the snot out of the CERLL along with a few weapons and fix the bug that dumped excess heat in the games very last official patch. Overnight a lot of weapons went from being outright broken to nearly worthless.

History repeats itself. Everyone crying about symptoms.

To make a long story short, one of my favorite sayings sums these types of threads up nicely.

When a finger points to the moon. The imbecile stares at the finger.

No. Just like others, you totally misunderstand where the OPness of the MW4 CERLL came from. It had nothing to do with the heatscale. What you're thinking of is 'catnapping' where a mech would do a high heat alpha while at or near max heat, override (in order to get back into cover), shutdown, restart and begin cooling down immediately. This allowed mechs to keep firing indefinitely regardless of heat and while it was a bad bug, it wasn't nearly what made the CERLL so deadly. Remember the hillbug?

The CERLL was the most effective weapon in the game by far during almost the whole life of the game (until the ridiculous RailGun was introduced), regardless of damage/heat nerfs and heatscale changes because it was sticky. If your crosshairs were on an enemy mech component when you took your shot, all of your damage would go to that component regardless of what you or the enemy mech did. When you play at a high level in a game where the netcode is decent but still has issues, the ability to instantly and reliably damage the component you're aiming at is vital. Any upper-echelon team worth mentioning abused the hell out of lasers because as long as you're doing guaranteed damage to whatever you're aiming, heat is inconsequential. In fact, until the introduction of ridiculous mechs such as the SuperNova and Marauder II/Behemoth II the 6/7 CERLL Nova Cat was still one of the most effective mechs in the game despite repeated attempts to nerf it back into a niche role.

Edited by xImmortalx, 08 April 2015 - 06:07 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Immortal the Ballistic Hard Point is only meant to hold Ballistic Weapons. Any Ballistic Weapons. So Yes a Machine gun or AC 20 can be held. So your inability to accept that is the only problem with the system. And No it is not to much.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 April 2015 - 06:29 AM.

[xImmortalx]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 06:29 AM, said:

Immortal the Ballistic Hard Point is only meant to hold Ballistic Weapons. Any Ballistic Weapons. So Yes a Machine gun or AC 20 can be held. So your inability to accept that is the only problem with the system. And No it is not to much.

No, it's your inability to accept that a system invented a few decades ago for a board game doesn't freaking work in a shooter that's the problem. Your holy cow is not applicable to every medium and the utter refusal of you and others like you to accept this fact, despite the fact it's been proven in multiple games including this one, is what's holding us back and making us repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

If you want to go play TT, please do so and let the rest of us try and build a working game that provides fun and variety. I've done the gunbag thing before and all it did was do away with any possible identity a mech may have had in favor of 3D skins around virtually identical mechs. It's boring and kills most variety and replay value.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

I swear I want to jock people who say they want firing cones in this game.
No. God no. More RNG is not the answer, ever. ESPECIALLY in a FPS.

An M1 Abrams can move at 72 kph and keep its gun completely accurate.
A giant robot 1000 years in the future can and should be able to do it too.

How many times has CoF been in Mechwarrior?
Exactly.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 08 April 2015 - 07:24 AM.