757 replies to this topic

[Pinkamena Diane Pie]

pshhh misread it to HELL whoops

Edited by Pinkamena Diane Pie, 27 May 2015 - 06:22 AM.

[The Great Unwashed]

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

sized hardpoints should be off the table. I've always hated that system, and never saw the sense in it.

Other than me disagreeing with you there, hating a particular system isn't a good argument in any direction. I'm all for it because I feel AC20 ravens should not be able to exist and you can exert a bit of control over certain fun builds.

[IraqiWalker]

The Great Unwashed, on 27 May 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:

Other than me disagreeing with you there, hating a particular system isn't a good argument in any direction. I'm all for it because I feel AC20 ravens should not be able to exist and you can exert a bit of control over certain fun builds.

Hating isn't the reason to remove it. It's the "double slot cost" problem.

There is nothing in the mech construction, or customization rules that says a hardpoint should be restricted in size. I never liked that system, because it didn't make sense. If i had the tonnage, and space, I should be able to slap any weapon I want in there (obviously, we have hardpoints to restrict that). There's nothing in fluff, or crunch that says AC 20 ravens shouldn't or can't exist.

So while I understand that some builds are hated, that's not really a good reason for it. Those are the reasons why I hate the system, and think it should be off the table.

[Lankaster]

Battletech has been around for 20+ years. Its pretty well balancesd. Why not use the rule like every other Mechwarrior game? You know, the rules with the balance built in. Then the game would be reduced to skill and tactics. Look to the past to improve the future.

[IraqiWalker]

Lankaster, on 27 May 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

Battletech has been around for 20+ years. Its pretty well balancesd. Why not use the rule like every other Mechwarrior game? You know, the rules with the balance built in. Then the game would be reduced to skill and tactics. Look to the past to improve the future.

Sadly that doesn't work here. Because the TT rules don't apply to real time gameplay. Not to mention that we have things the TT rules never considered. Like Hitboxes.

[Yokaiko]

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Sadly that doesn't work here. Because the TT rules don't apply to real time gameplay. Not to mention that we have things the TT rules never considered. Like Hitboxes.

....or pinpoint convergence.

[MrEdweird]

Lankaster, on 27 May 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

Battletech has been around for 20+ years. Its pretty well balancesd. Why not use the rule like every other Mechwarrior game? You know, the rules with the balance built in. Then the game would be reduced to skill and tactics. Look to the past to improve the future.

Hah. I'll go easy and just say that many of those rules just don't make any sense at all in an online game.
This has been discussed ad nauseam and at too many occasions to be worth counting.

[IraqiWalker]

Yokaiko, on 27 May 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

....or pinpoint convergence.

Pinpoint convergence existed in TT (Targeting computers did that just fine). The problem is INSTANT pinpoint convergence. The INSTANT part is what's really killing this.

[Lankaster]

Really? Four sucessfukl games useing weapon and equipment with tabletop rules stats. Mech outfitting useing tabletop rules stats. That will not work here? Please. You want this game fixed? Less FPS and more SIM. End of story.

Edited by Lankaster, 27 May 2015 - 08:56 AM.

[Yokaiko]

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 08:51 AM, said:

Pinpoint convergence existed in TT (Targeting computers did that just fine). The problem is INSTANT pinpoint convergence. The INSTANT part is what's really killing this.

Yeah, and it was still a very luck roll to make called shots.

[IraqiWalker]

Lankaster, on 27 May 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

Really? Four sucessfukl games useing weapon and equipment with tabletop rules stats. Mech outfitting useing tabletop rules stats. That will not work here? Please. You want this game fixed? Less FPS and more SIM. End of story.

What are you talking about? The MW games were broken in PVP. Singly player, sure, they could get away with making the game as broken as possible. Did you EVER play MW4 multiplayer? It was endless seas of IS battlemechs, with clan weapons. There was no real balance.

[GentlemanBryan]

HAIL to MW4!!

[Lankaster]

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

What are you talking about? The MW games were broken in PVP. Singly player, sure, they could get away with making the game as broken as possible. Did you EVER play MW4 multiplayer? It was endless seas of IS battlemechs, with clan weapons. There was no real balance.

AND? If you were any good at driving AND shooting you could excell in any chassis.

[IraqiWalker]

Lankaster, on 27 May 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

AND? If you were any good at driving AND shooting you could excell in any chassis.

What does THAT have to do with balancing the game? Your posts aren't even making any sense.

You say "how about we go back to TT rules"

I explain to you that they don't work in a real time PVP game.

You ask with "but what about the previous MW games?"

I respond with "They were broken from the ground up, you didn't notice because you were playing a SINGLE PLAYER GAME. The Multiplayer was absolutely broken"

Your next comment is : "if you were any good at driving AND shooting, you could excel in any chassis"

Follow that trail, and tell me, how in Gork's big stompy foot, did that last post make any sense?

What does balance have to do with my skill at piloting the mechs? It doesn't matter if I'm good at driving and shooting, if I'm in a moped, and you're in an M1A1 Abrams tank. New to the forums or not. That post just fails at every conceivable level of basic human brain functionality.

[The Great Unwashed]

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

There is nothing in the mech construction, or customization rules that says a hard point should be restricted in size. I never liked that system, because it didn't make sense. If i had the tonnage, and space, I should be able to slap any weapon I want in there (obviously, we have hard points to restrict that). There's nothing in fluff, or crunch that says AC 20 ravens shouldn't or can't exist.

Well, if the mech people thought they needed the Hunchback or Hollander engineered around the AC20 and Gauss rifle, respectively, then that implies these weapons are large are not really of the "fit anywhere" category. So, restricting these weapons from some mechs seems to make sense; a Firestarter with a ballistic slot in an arm just should not be able to carry that weapon. The weapon is too large, too heavy (the man is too big, too strong?). This restriction should rapidly evaporate once you get into the medium weight category and gone for larger mechs but some restrictions might remain. One thing that annoys me greatly is that the Hellbringer as three (three!) energy slots in its left ECM torso and you can throw an entire Awesome of weaponry there. It feels wrong as it should just not fit... these large weapons belong in the arms (1 ERPPC each) or on a very large energy hard point that the Hellbringer simply does not have in its torse (It's not an Awesome!).

On a tangent, if one arm has 2B slots and the same mech with another arm as 1B slots, what's the point of that 1B arm? With restrictions you can throw an AC20 to the 1B slot but not the 2B arm (just an example).

Instead of weapon slot sizes, you could also try weapon criticals. More of the same I guess, and perhaps too MW4, but you can restrict weapon use by assigning a limited number of criticals per mech section. It would not solve the problem of the clan laser boat due to the very small size of the cERLL. I think energy weapons are too small (especially clans) in terms of criticals, but the base problem is that all mechs of all sizes and weight have the same number of criticals and that is the root cause of problems of the online interpretation of BT that is MWO.

The energy/recharge mechanics make more sense though for energy weapons and I'd be for it. But not for ballistics. I still think a weapon like the AC20 does not belong on Ravens

Edited by The Great Unwashed, 27 May 2015 - 12:38 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

The Great Unwashed, on 27 May 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Well, if the mech people thought they needed the Hunchback or Hollander engineered around the AC20 and Gauss rifle, respectively, then that implies these weapons are large are not really of the "fit anywhere" category. So, restricting these weapons from some mechs seems to make sense; a Firestarter with a ballistic slot in an arm just should not be able to carry that weapon. The weapon is too large, too heavy (the man is too big, too strong?). This restriction should rapidly evaporate once you get into the medium weight category and gone for larger mechs but some restrictions might remain. One thing that annoys me greatly is that the Hellbringer as three (three!) energy slots in its left ECM torso and you can throw an entire Awesome of weaponry there. It feels wrong as it should just not fit... these large weapons belong in the arms (1 ERPPC each) or on a very large energy hard point that the Hellbringer simply does not have in its torse (It's not an Awesome!).

On a tangent, if one arm has 2B slots and the same mech with another arm as 1B slots, what's the point of that 1B arm? With restrictions you can throw an AC20 to the 1B slot but not the 2B arm (just an example).

Instead of weapon slot sizes, you could also try weapon criticals. More of the same I guess, and perhaps too MW4, but you can restrict weapon use by assigning a limited number of criticals per mech section. It would not solve the problem of the clan laser boat due to the very small size of the cERLL. I think energy weapons are too small (especially clans) in terms of criticals, but the base problem is that all mechs of all sizes and weight have the same number of criticals and that is the root cause of problems of the online interpretation of BT that is MWO.

The energy/recharge mechanics make more sense though for energy weapons and I'd be for it. But not for ballistics. I still think a weapon like the AC20 does not belong on Ravens

If the hunchback was only designed around carrying the AC 20, I could agree, but that's not the case. It's more so that the AC 20 was one of the weapons they could fit on the hunchback. If an urbie can pack an AC 20 in the arm, there's no reason a Raven can't pack it in the Side torso.

What we need for this isn't sized hardpoints. We need weapon variants.

For example, the UAC 20 on the Cauldron born was the biggest one ever, and I think it fired a single shell. It's the ONLY AC 20 that fired a single shell. On the other hand, the AC 20 on the Victor was the Pontiac 100. Which fired 100 20mm shells, each dealing 0.2 damage within 10 seconds (totaling up to 20 damage in one turn). So yeah, the big Cauldron born AC 20 would be too clunky to fit on a light, maybe. However, the Pontiac 100, should fit just fine.

I know you don't want those AC 20 ravens around XD, but the fact is, there is no basis for them not having an AC 20 on a raven. The rules state that if you can fit the weapon, you can mount it. All you need is the tonnage, and the slot space to fit it.

As for 1B 2B arms. That solution is easy. We already have implemented in MWO actually. Quirks! The pods with fewer, or no hardpoints give positive benefits to your mech's mobility, and nimbleness.

[Lankaster]

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Sadly that doesn't work here. Because the TT rules don't apply to real time gameplay. Not to mention that we have things the TT rules never considered. Like Hitboxes.

Really dude? Your trying to tell me that a hitbox and a hit location are different?

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

What are you talking about? The MW games were broken in PVP. Singly player, sure, they could get away with making the game as broken as possible. Did you EVER play MW4 multiplayer? It was endless seas of IS battlemechs, with clan weapons. There was no real balance.

Yes I plaed the **** out of MW4 online. Its a war game where technology isn't balanced, just like real life. You have to be a better player instead of crying because Johnny has a bigger gun. Grow Up.

IraqiWalker, on 27 May 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

What does THAT have to do with balancing the game? Your posts aren't even making any sense.

You say "how about we go back to TT rules"

I explain to you that they don't work in a real time PVP game.

You ask with "but what about the previous MW games?"

I respond with "They were broken from the ground up, you didn't notice because you were playing a SINGLE PLAYER GAME. The Multiplayer was absolutely broken"

Your next comment is : "if you were any good at driving AND shooting, you could excel in any chassis"

Follow that trail, and tell me, how in Gork's big stompy foot, did that last post make any sense?

What does balance have to do with my skill at piloting the mechs? It doesn't matter if I'm good at driving and shooting, if I'm in a moped, and you're in an M1A1 Abrams tank. New to the forums or not. That post just fails at every conceivable level of basic human brain functionality.

Actually it sounds to me like the whole problem is your skill level. Also your understanding of the source material and the concept / spirit of the game.

Become a better player and quite bitching about this nerf or that buff, because the more people complain abiout the little stuff, the more focus is taken off of the big stuff. Like CW that dosen't suck. The next was of IS weaponry that is missing. MORE MAPS. Sensors that are not crap. UAC's that work properly. eyc., etc., etc.

[ScarecrowES]

I know the topic has derailed a bit... the tangent isn't great so maybe to bring it back...

Tabletop rules are a great place to start when we're building a video game, but it doesn't work to be slavish to book-stats, as MWO shows. You can't find balance merely by messing with things that the books don't explicitly call out (laser burn times used to offset clan laser superiority, for instance). At some point, you have to look at messing with the base traits of a weapon to get the feel right, and PGI seems fearful to stray far from tabletop. I don't think they should be. Balance should be achieved in design, not in trying to knock the corners off a square peg to make it squeeze into a round hole. Build a balanced system that discourages massive amounts of simultaneous damage output, and you don't have to worry about quirking the crap out of individual chassis if their configurations allow high alphas by design.

Also, "get on my level scrub" is not an actual counterargument to anything, Lankaster.

[IraqiWalker]

Lankaster, on 27 May 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Really dude? Your trying to tell me that a hitbox and a hit location are different?

Ah, thank God. Now i know I'm talking to an idiot. A hit location is not even close to the same thing. The awesome is not rendered at the bottom of the bucket of kinda useful mechs because it's hit locations are off. Having a torso the size of Baghdad will render it there. TT never accounted for that. AT ALL.

Lankaster, on 27 May 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Yes I plaed the **** out of MW4 online. Its a war game where technology isn't balanced, just like real life. You have to be a better player instead of crying because Johnny has a bigger gun. Grow Up.

How idiotic are you? This is a PVP game, not a single player game. Both sides HAVE TO BE BALANCED. Otherwise, why would anyone play the weaker side?

Lankaster, on 27 May 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Actually it sounds to me like the whole problem is your skill level. Also your understanding of the source material and the concept / spirit of the game.

Become a better player and quite bitching about this nerf or that buff, because the more people complain abiout the little stuff, the more focus is taken off of the big stuff. Like CW that dosen't suck. The next was of IS weaponry that is missing. MORE MAPS. Sensors that are not crap. UAC's that work properly. eyc., etc., etc.

Let me put it this way. If we are going to have a discussion about the source material. You've already proven your understanding is beyond weak. I know what I'm talking about, not just Fluff, but crunch too. I've not only played the Tabletop, and RPG games, but I've ran campaigns. I'm talking 3 long term campaigns, one of which literally lasted a whole year IRL.

So please, stop trying to bring the source material in here, when you clearly don't understand it, or the problems with translating a turn based system into a real time system.

Before you make another post further humiliating your self, let me explain to you something you don't understand:

I have, to this day, had little to no trouble dealing with either clan or IS tech. I own mechs of both sides, and I do just fine in them.

What I'm more concerned about is making sure the game is balanced, instead of leaving it broken, because idiots like you can't play unless they are in OP mechs. Since they lose every fair fight they get into.

So how about you Learn to play better, stop trying to protect your "I Win" button, the only thing stopping you from losing 24/7.

P.S.: I don't care if you have clan tech or not. You've been trying to do nothing but attacking me personally, while failing to present a case for why tech should be imbalanced in a PVP game.


Now, on to people who actually know what they're talking about, and aren't complete blithering idiots.

ScarecrowES, on 27 May 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

I know the topic has derailed a bit... the tangent isn't great so maybe to bring it back...

Tabletop rules are a great place to start when we're building a video game, but it doesn't work to be slavish to book-stats, as MWO shows. You can't find balance merely by messing with things that the books don't explicitly call out (laser burn times used to offset clan laser superiority, for instance). At some point, you have to look at messing with the base traits of a weapon to get the feel right, and PGI seems fearful to stray far from tabletop. I don't think they should be. Balance should be achieved in design, not in trying to knock the corners off a square peg to make it squeeze into a round hole. Build a balanced system that discourages massive amounts of simultaneous damage output, and you don't have to worry about quirking the crap out of individual chassis if their configurations allow high alphas by design.

Also, "get on my level scrub" is not an actual counterargument to anything, Lankaster.

Yeah. Things like incorporating the engine power output, to limit the amount of weapons fired simultaneously. Reducing the heat cap across the board. Or even just introducing a simple scaling convergence system. All of that can really help out.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 27 May 2015 - 03:32 PM.

[Lankaster]

I wasn't saying get on my level, I actually am very mediocre at best, but I can see where I came off that way. That being said, the balance is in the sourece material. If you are getting smoked all the time the problem isn't in the tech its in the player. Seriously, have you spent any time spectating? I have seen folks with founders tags who don't belong in mechs. I am saying with the diversity of cahssis and loadouts you cannot waste the time micro-tweaking each on at the developer level. Let the player sort it out with loadout and playstyle, and focus on the real issues.

Iraqiwalker, why are you calling me idiot? I never attacked you. You obvliously have all the answers. Why don't you see if PGI is hiring. You could contribute so much.

Edited by Lankaster, 27 May 2015 - 03:49 PM.