31 replies to this topic

[MadMaxMKII]

As stated above, I think a big problem of this game is the massive abuse of alpha striking. but an alpha strike should always be just an extreme measure in extreme situations. But MWO is turning to a kind of Instagib game. So how about it is only possible to alpha strike once in a game and any further alpha strike would cause the engine to get damaged.

[Nightmare1]

How about no?

Seriously, Alphas are fine as they are. Use cover, don't tank in Lights and Mediums, and you're A-OK. In the lore, you could Alpha Strike multiple times during battle. Not only is your suggestion not Lore friendly, but it's also not game friendly and fails to address the underlying problem with regard to taking too much damage.

[MadMaxMKII]

Nightmare1, on 10 June 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

How about no?

Seriously, Alphas are fine as they are. Use cover, don't tank in Lights and Mediums, and you're A-OK. In the lore, you could Alpha Strike multiple times during battle. Not only is your suggestion not Lore friendly, but it's also not game friendly and fails to address the underlying problem with regard to taking too much damage.

I run mainly IS medium mechs. moving with only 80-90 kph in those things is no fun at all when even a 70t mech can amputate your limbs with one shot. maybe another option would be, that we get rid of the "locked arms" option and that it would take more time for the arms circle and torso crosshair to synconize.

[sycocys]

I think far less people alpha strike than your realize, and far more people shoot at whoever pokes their head out over and over again thinking they are fast enough to get into cover before they get hit.

[Nightmare1]

MadMaxMKII, on 10 June 2015 - 06:06 AM, said:

I run mainly IS medium mechs. moving with only 80-90 kph in those things is no fun at all when even a 70t mech can amputate your limbs with one shot. maybe another option would be, that we get rid of the "locked arms" option and that it would take more time for the arms circle and torso crosshair to synconize.

I don't actually have this problem because I don't try to take 70 tonners with my lil' old Meds.

Seriously, you're in a Medium, not an Assault. You don't have much armor. Fight a bit smarter and you won't have any issues. Personally speaking, I'm often able to get through a match relatively intact. If you do some torso twisting, then you can spread the damage and help protect yourself.

As for arm lock, that again isn't really a major problem. I myself only use it on a few of my Mechs; it's very restrictive! But even with arm lock fully eliminated, you will likely still have the problem occur to you.

[Hotthedd]

Nightmare1, on 10 June 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

How about no?

Seriously, Alphas are fine as they are. Use cover, don't tank in Lights and Mediums, and you're A-OK. In the lore, you could Alpha Strike multiple times during battle. Not only is your suggestion not Lore friendly, but it's also not game friendly and fails to address the underlying problem with regard to taking too much damage.

Alpha striking in lore, however, was only used as a last ditch effort. It was NOT the alpha striking we see in MW:O. In lore, in TT, in EVERYTHING canon, alpha strikes did not all hit the same spot.

Honestly, shouldn't it take more skill to land multiple shots in one component than click, cool down, repeat?

[Spleenslitta]

MadMaxMKII, on 10 June 2015 - 06:06 AM, said:

I run mainly IS medium mechs. moving with only 80-90 kph in those things is no fun at all when even a 70t mech can amputate your limbs with one shot. maybe another option would be, that we get rid of the "locked arms" option and that it would take more time for the arms circle and torso crosshair to synconize.

You got enough speed to get on the enemy flank. Remember this....if you join the firingline and shoot from the same general area as the majority of your team your speed is almost nullified.
How so?

Imagine you see 2-3 teammates come in and out of cover to shoot. You decide to join them to shoot the same enemies they do.
Focus fire and all that.
The enemy is allready looking in that direction so it's very likely that you will get shot as soon as you break cover.

But if you go on the flank the majority of the enemy will be looking in the direction of your team rather than you.
Shoot once or twice and get back into cover before the enemy can return fire. I'm not talking about small relocations either...i'm talking about 300-500 meters.
The reason you relocate so far between shots is to be less predictable.

The best shot you can make is one where you do not receive any return fire. Worried light mechs will run you over?
Get back to the safety of your teammates after 2-3 relocations to minimise the risk.

[Nightmare1]

Hotthedd, on 10 June 2015 - 08:51 AM, said:

Alpha striking in lore, however, was only used as a last ditch effort. It was NOT the alpha striking we see in MW:O. In lore, in TT, in EVERYTHING canon, alpha strikes did not all hit the same spot.

Honestly, shouldn't it take more skill to land multiple shots in one component than click, cool down, repeat?

I don't recall Alphas being only last-ditch resorts.

As for your hitting the same spot comment, here are the reasons why:

1) TT had dice rolls. This ain't TT.
2) Novel Lore had real-world conditions that would influence whether someone Alpha'd or not, something PGI cannot emulate.
3) Most Lore builds were stock. We don't normally run stock builds. Don't say we should either; that removes half the fun of the game which is tearing down and rebuilding your Mechs.
4) PGI can't do anti-convergence or anything like that. They tried it back in Closed Beta. It was awful. I'd rather not ever see that return.
5) The only time you have weapons hitting the same spot is if you are using the same weapon (or weapon type), if the enemy is sufficiently far in front of you (no face hugging), if you have your torso locked, and if your enemy is too stupid to spread the damage by twisting, shielding, and moving. Simply put, if I fire an AC/20, three MLs, and an LRM 5 all at once, I will have three separate strikes against the target for which I must compensate. The lasers will need me to focus on the component. The AC/20 will require lead time and elevation to counter its drop. The LRMs will require that I maintain a lock, which is easiest done by not using arm lock.

Simply put, if you keep moving and torso twisting against enemies using multiple weapon types, then you make it very difficult to put all those shots into a single component. If you stand still with a neon sign pointing to you saying, "Shoot me!" then you can expect to get owned.

Even against something like a HBK-4P with all MLs, you can still spread the damage and prevent it all from striking the same component.

So, no, don't limit Alphas. That's absurd and entirely unneeded. Just fight smarter.

[Hotthedd]

Nightmare1, on 10 June 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

I don't recall Alphas being only last-ditch resorts.

As for your hitting the same spot comment, here are the reasons why:

1) TT had dice rolls. This ain't TT.
2) Novel Lore had real-world conditions that would influence whether someone Alpha'd or not, something PGI cannot emulate.
3) Most Lore builds were stock. We don't normally run stock builds. Don't say we should either; that removes half the fun of the game which is tearing down and rebuilding your Mechs.
4) PGI can't do anti-convergence or anything like that. They tried it back in Closed Beta. It was awful. I'd rather not ever see that return.
5) The only time you have weapons hitting the same spot is if you are using the same weapon (or weapon type), if the enemy is sufficiently far in front of you (no face hugging), if you have your torso locked, and if your enemy is too stupid to spread the damage by twisting, shielding, and moving. Simply put, if I fire an AC/20, three MLs, and an LRM 5 all at once, I will have three separate strikes against the target for which I must compensate. The lasers will need me to focus on the component. The AC/20 will require lead time and elevation to counter its drop. The LRMs will require that I maintain a lock, which is easiest done by not using arm lock.

Simply put, if you keep moving and torso twisting against enemies using multiple weapon types, then you make it very difficult to put all those shots into a single component. If you stand still with a neon sign pointing to you saying, "Shoot me!" then you can expect to get owned.

Even against something like a HBK-4P with all MLs, you can still spread the damage and prevent it all from striking the same component.

So, no, don't limit Alphas. That's absurd and entirely unneeded. Just fight smarter.

I'm not against Alpha Strikes, I'm against the abuse of Alpha Strikes. IMO, AlphaStrikeWarrior:Online is easy mode.
IF PGI has determined that the engine cannot handle multiple weapons hitting multiple areas simultaneously, then SOMETHING needs to be done.

You make valid points, but mixed-loadout 'Mechs alpha striking is not the problem. Heck, even same weapon alpha striking with hitscan or spread damage weapons is not a big deal, as you pointed out.
HOWEVER, FLPPD Alpha Strikes, whether it is I.S. ACs, PPCs, or Pulse Lasers IS a problem. It is just flat out easier to kill or cripple even the mightiest 'mechs with a single click of the mouse. You cannot torso twist to spread the damage of 2 AC/20s. All of the damage is applied at the same instant.

So....We end up with ghost heat. We end up with negative quirks. We get band-aid solutions because the core issue will not be addressed.

PGI could get rid of ghost heat if they made all weapons either hit-scan, or spread. They could reserve PPFLD weapons to Gauss Rifles (which have a charge-up, AND are very fragile), PPCs (which have high heat and some splash, and introduce slug ammo for the LB-X ACs (but reduce the ammo/ton for slugs)

In general, I believe that being able to insta-gib what (in lore) are the mightiest war machines in the known galaxy kind of detracts from the feeling (immersion) of piloting the mightiest war machine in the known galaxy.

[Nightmare1]

Hotthedd, on 11 June 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:

I'm not against Alpha Strikes, I'm against the abuse of Alpha Strikes. IMO, AlphaStrikeWarrior:Online is easy mode.
IF PGI has determined that the engine cannot handle multiple weapons hitting multiple areas simultaneously, then SOMETHING needs to be done.

You make valid points, but mixed-loadout 'Mechs alpha striking is not the problem. Heck, even same weapon alpha striking with hitscan or spread damage weapons is not a big deal, as you pointed out.
HOWEVER, FLPPD Alpha Strikes, whether it is I.S. ACs, PPCs, or Pulse Lasers IS a problem. It is just flat out easier to kill or cripple even the mightiest 'mechs with a single click of the mouse. You cannot torso twist to spread the damage of 2 AC/20s. All of the damage is applied at the same instant.

So....We end up with ghost heat. We end up with negative quirks. We get band-aid solutions because the core issue will not be addressed.

PGI could get rid of ghost heat if they made all weapons either hit-scan, or spread. They could reserve PPFLD weapons to Gauss Rifles (which have a charge-up, AND are very fragile), PPCs (which have high heat and some splash, and introduce slug ammo for the LB-X ACs (but reduce the ammo/ton for slugs)

In general, I believe that being able to insta-gib what (in lore) are the mightiest war machines in the known galaxy kind of detracts from the feeling (immersion) of piloting the mightiest war machine in the known galaxy.

Thanks!

The core problem isn't the weapons or the builds though; it's the players. Sure, take the TDR-5SS with all those MPLs. It's got a lot of PPFLD. However, it's also very vulnerable to ranged fighters. The same goes for the Boom"InsertMechNameHere." Lots of PPFLD but limited range. Any time you have a Mech built around PPFLD, there are limitations placed on that Mech by its build. Simply play to those limitations, and the Mech is at your mercy.

I tend to fight more at range, so these builds of which you speak aren't a problem for me. I like using AC/5s a lot, so I can peg Boom Jagers from a safe distance. If I'm running something like a CN9-YLW, with my own short-range limitations, then I will use my heightened speed and agility to out maneuver and eliminate my opponent. Also, just fyi, you can torso twist to spread AC/20 damage from a Boom Jager. I've done it. You can't hesitate though; as soon as you see that Boom Jager, you have to turn your torso. What happens, is that you change the striking angle. Since AC/20s don't converge as quickly as other weapons due to their slower speeds, you can continue running towards the Boom Mech as you twist. Changing the angle while running slips you inside the Boom Mech's convergence and splits the convergence path in half, making each shell strike a different component. It's not easy to do, but it's possible.

This game already has a pretty good weapons balance built into it. The reason why it doesn't work is because people don't fight tactically. They want to build these PPFLD Mechs and run up to each other and slug it out. When that doesn't work, they get frustrated. But MWO is more about the skirmishing than it is the brawling. If you charge around a corner, you can expect to get gimped. It's that simple.

What's also worth noting is that it's not the PPFLD that gimps you so much as the focus fire from multiple Mechs. My Unit recently hosted a dueling event with physical prizes for all four weight classes. There were, of course, a lot of PPFLD builds entered. You would be surprised at how long a log of those matches lasted. I went all the way to second place in Mediums using SRMs with their spread damage, beating out every PPFLD enemy that I fought. Individually, the PPFLD isn't that bad. It's the additive effect that you feel out on the battle field resulting from multiple Mechs firing at you.

Quirks, Ghost Heat, "balancing;" none of that matters in the long run because no matter what PGI does, the problem will remain. People don't fight smart. The end result, is that the smart players who actually fight like they are supposed to, will be penalized because of the dumb fighters.

Frankly, I would rather PGI kept all weapons exactly as they are now (balance feels very good), and introduce new weapon systems instead. New systems would provide more options and would help with the PPFLD problem by alleviating the heavy usage of the same systems over and over again.

It's telling that this thread exists, complaining about PPFLD, while at the same time, there are other threads complaining that burst fire ACs and Streaks are too powerful. Those are anything but PPFLD since they all incorporate spread damage.

My point in all this, is that the weapons and builds themselves don't matter; the pilots are what really matters. Until people realize this and adjust their playstyles to adapt to their enemies or situations, there is nothing PGI can do to "fix" the problem.

So, why break the game in the meantime to even try? This is why we need the Mentorship Systems. By pairing underperforming or trouble-prone players with seasoned vets, we can "train-up" pilots to start thinking more tactically and to have a better understanding of the game. That will go much farther towards balancing things than anything PGI can do on their end.

[Hotthedd]

I don't see how any of the suggestions I made would break the game in any way.

Focus fire: You are absolutely correct, when that happens your 'mech should not make it out in good shape if at all.

I get that the current state of the game favors skirmishing (Yay - it's my favorite playstyle) and to an extent sniping, but all playstyles - including brawling - need to be just as viable. On the one hand, i like that some players can be excellent brawlers, some can be excellent scouts, etc, but with the already steep learning curve for newer players it kind of forces them towards playing a skirmisher, sniper, or LRM boat (I know the LRM boat is not a great build, but new players will tend to want to survive in the rear after being constantly one-shotted by PPFLD alphas)

You make good points about each playstyle having limitations. Experienced players like yourself have adapted. I'm not too worried about you (or me for that matter) as we will find a way to kill stompy robots in our stompy robots. I'm more concerned about the percentage of new players that will never become veteran players because of how unforgiving the PPFLD Alpha strike is to them. Remember, although TTK goes up for you, it goes up for the red team too. IMO this makes the match more dynamic, more tactical, and (for a lot of people) more fun. Spectating a match is a great way for newer players to learn, it just isn't that fun for them.

This is where I wish PGI paid more attention to the forums: We are each making valid points, and could probably find a good solution given enough time to iron it all out.

[Nightmare1]

Hotthedd, on 11 June 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

I don't see how any of the suggestions I made would break the game in any way.

Focus fire: You are absolutely correct, when that happens your 'mech should not make it out in good shape if at all.

I get that the current state of the game favors skirmishing (Yay - it's my favorite playstyle) and to an extent sniping, but all playstyles - including brawling - need to be just as viable. On the one hand, i like that some players can be excellent brawlers, some can be excellent scouts, etc, but with the already steep learning curve for newer players it kind of forces them towards playing a skirmisher, sniper, or LRM boat (I know the LRM boat is not a great build, but new players will tend to want to survive in the rear after being constantly one-shotted by PPFLD alphas)

You make good points about each playstyle having limitations. Experienced players like yourself have adapted. I'm not too worried about you (or me for that matter) as we will find a way to kill stompy robots in our stompy robots. I'm more concerned about the percentage of new players that will never become veteran players because of how unforgiving the PPFLD Alpha strike is to them. Remember, although TTK goes up for you, it goes up for the red team too. IMO this makes the match more dynamic, more tactical, and (for a lot of people) more fun. Spectating a match is a great way for newer players to learn, it just isn't that fun for them.

This is where I wish PGI paid more attention to the forums: We are each making valid points, and could probably find a good solution given enough time to iron it all out.

Generally, I agree with you, but I really don't think that altering gameplay mechanics is the way to fix this. The big problem for new players is that the MM will put them into matches with top guns to balance the average elo out per team. This is what makes the game grueling for them.

Think of it this way. If you toss a few baby seals into a tank of sharks that want to "play," do you think the seals will have fun? To "balance" things so that the seals don't have as bad a time, is it better to remove some of the sharks' teeth? Or is it better to simply put the seals into a tank with other seals and keep the sharks in a tank with other sharks?

I don't think I expounded on this well previously, but, aside from fighting smart (something new players won't do because they don't understand the game right away), you also need to have equal teams. That's why there's nothing PGI can do on the weapon/Mech balancing side to fix things; a stomp is still going to be a stomp. A grueling grind will still be a grueling grind. If anything, the constant changes will make things more frustrating for new players because every time they learn something, PGI the "balances" it and makes them relearn it to a certain extent.

If we had a viable Mentorship System and a MM that matches players based on individual skill level instead of collective skill level, then I think everyone would be able to get what they want. Veteran pilots that have been around for a while won't have to undergo yet another series of nerfs and meta shifts, while new players get a better introductory experience.

I guess you could say that, in my view of things, the problem that needs to be addressed is the MM and the new player resources, more so than game balance. That will go a very long ways towards balancing the game on a per skill basis rather than trying to do it across all skill levels as an average that only serves to make everyone miserable.

Hotthedd, on 11 June 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

I don't see how any of the suggestions I made would break the game in any way.

Focus fire: You are absolutely correct, when that happens your 'mech should not make it out in good shape if at all.

I get that the current state of the game favors skirmishing (Yay - it's my favorite playstyle) and to an extent sniping, but all playstyles - including brawling - need to be just as viable. On the one hand, i like that some players can be excellent brawlers, some can be excellent scouts, etc, but with the already steep learning curve for newer players it kind of forces them towards playing a skirmisher, sniper, or LRM boat (I know the LRM boat is not a great build, but new players will tend to want to survive in the rear after being constantly one-shotted by PPFLD alphas)

You make good points about each playstyle having limitations. Experienced players like yourself have adapted. I'm not too worried about you (or me for that matter) as we will find a way to kill stompy robots in our stompy robots. I'm more concerned about the percentage of new players that will never become veteran players because of how unforgiving the PPFLD Alpha strike is to them. Remember, although TTK goes up for you, it goes up for the red team too. IMO this makes the match more dynamic, more tactical, and (for a lot of people) more fun. Spectating a match is a great way for newer players to learn, it just isn't that fun for them.

This is where I wish PGI paid more attention to the forums: We are each making valid points, and could probably find a good solution given enough time to iron it all out.

Generally, I agree with you, but I really don't think that altering gameplay mechanics is the way to fix this. The big problem for new players is that the MM will put them into matches with top guns to balance the average elo out per team. This is what makes the game grueling for them.

Think of it this way. If you toss a few baby seals into a tank of sharks that want to "play," do you think the seals will have fun? To "balance" things so that the seals don't have as bad a time, is it better to remove some of the sharks' teeth? Or is it better to simply put the seals into a tank with other seals and keep the sharks in a tank with other sharks?

I don't think I expounded on this well previously, but, aside from fighting smart (something new players won't do because they don't understand the game right away), you also need to have equal teams. That's why there's nothing PGI can do on the weapon/Mech balancing side to fix things; a stomp is still going to be a stomp. A grueling grind will still be a grueling grind. If anything, the constant changes will make things more frustrating for new players because every time they learn something, PGI the "balances" it and makes them relearn it to a certain extent.

If we had a viable Mentorship System and a MM that matches players based on individual skill level instead of collective skill level, then I think everyone would be able to get what they want. Veteran pilots that have been around for a while won't have to undergo yet another series of nerfs and meta shifts, while new players get a better introductory experience.

I guess you could say that, in my view of things, the problem that needs to be addressed is the MM and the new player resources, more so than game balance. That will go a very long ways towards balancing the game on a per skill basis rather than trying to do it across all skill levels as an average that only serves to make everyone miserable.

[Xoco]

Just out of curiosity--what's the difference between Alpha strike and facemashing your keyboard to fire everything at once?

[Nightmare1]

Xoco, on 11 June 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Just out of curiosity--what's the difference between Alpha strike and facemashing your keyboard to fire everything at once?

The level of induced panic?

[Hotthedd]

Nightmare1, on 11 June 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

Generally, I agree with you, but I really don't think that altering gameplay mechanics is the way to fix this. The big problem for new players is that the MM will put them into matches with top guns to balance the average elo out per team. This is what makes the game grueling for them.

Think of it this way. If you toss a few baby seals into a tank of sharks that want to "play," do you think the seals will have fun? To "balance" things so that the seals don't have as bad a time, is it better to remove some of the sharks' teeth? Or is it better to simply put the seals into a tank with other seals and keep the sharks in a tank with other sharks?

I don't think I expounded on this well previously, but, aside from fighting smart (something new players won't do because they don't understand the game right away), you also need to have equal teams. That's why there's nothing PGI can do on the weapon/Mech balancing side to fix things; a stomp is still going to be a stomp. A grueling grind will still be a grueling grind. If anything, the constant changes will make things more frustrating for new players because every time they learn something, PGI the "balances" it and makes them relearn it to a certain extent.

If we had a viable Mentorship System and a MM that matches players based on individual skill level instead of collective skill level, then I think everyone would be able to get what they want. Veteran pilots that have been around for a while won't have to undergo yet another series of nerfs and meta shifts, while new players get a better introductory experience.

I guess you could say that, in my view of things, the problem that needs to be addressed is the MM and the new player resources, more so than game balance. That will go a very long ways towards balancing the game on a per skill basis rather than trying to do it across all skill levels as an average that only serves to make everyone miserable.

We are opening up a whole different can of worms with that one.

I agree that there needs to be something. I am in the camp of a tutorial campaign that must be completed BEFORE the Cadet period starts, and a tiered system for the MM.

Still, there is no reason that insta-gibbing should be the preferred (Most effective) style of play in MW:O. It was supposed to be a thinking man's shooter, right?

Ideally, there would be no single playstyle that was just flat out more efficient than every other. Therefore the "meta" would have to evolve into a mixed role team to counter the enemy's unknown mixed loadout. Unfortunately we do not have that right now, and that has nothing to do with newer players.

[Nightmare1]

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 04:39 AM, said:

We are opening up a whole different can of worms with that one.

I agree that there needs to be something. I am in the camp of a tutorial campaign that must be completed BEFORE the Cadet period starts, and a tiered system for the MM.

Still, there is no reason that insta-gibbing should be the preferred (Most effective) style of play in MW:O. It was supposed to be a thinking man's shooter, right?

Ideally, there would be no single playstyle that was just flat out more efficient than every other. Therefore the "meta" would have to evolve into a mixed role team to counter the enemy's unknown mixed loadout. Unfortunately we do not have that right now, and that has nothing to do with newer players.

I really don't see the insta-gibbing of which you speak. Everytime I've dueled Mechs of equal weight class, it's been a battle that lasts for a while. See below:












The only time I see, "Insta-Gibbing" is when a Mech of a lesser weight class goes up against a Mech of a higher weight class. For example, a Light or Medium against an Assault. That's resonable though and not a problem.

As for being a thinking shooter, this game remains very much a thinking shooter; perhaps more so due to the lethality of the present weapons. If you don't think through your actions carefully before executing them, you will be killed quickly. There is severe punishment for failing to think. The team with the better strategist is also the team that typically wins.

What I've learned from scenarios like this thread, is that the people complaining that TTK is too low or that there is too much "insta-gibbing" are often making the mistake of assuming that they are being shot by a single enemy when, in fact, they are being hit by multiple enemies. When you are the subject of focused fire, it doesn't matter how powerful the weapon systems are; you are going down hard and fast compared to if you were simply fighting a duel with a single opponent.

My point, in all of this, is that it is not a problem on a per-Mech basis. The insta-death is a result of focused firepower. I know this because I am a strategic drop caller for my Unit. Whenever we drop, we stay together and move as a Unit. I call out targets and we focus our firepower on them. The burden is on me to achieve victory for my team by not placing it in an untenable situation or by failing to properly prioritize targets. It's also my responsibility to keep up the forward momentum we have. If I fail in any of that, then I hand control of the battle back over to my enemies. It is this group action that demolishes Mechs so quickly. It's collective. Nerfing weapons or Mechs to decrease damage will not fix the problem. Sure, you might increase TTK in the group-firing scenario, but you will then ruin single dueling.

Somewhere, a line must be drawn. PGI has balanced things very well in the 1v1 combat scenario. Now they are attempting to do it collectively. That's not really possible though since they can't address the reason itself, which is teamwork, or, basically, human thinking.

As for metas, trying to eliminate them is wishful thinking. Every game has a meta; it's unavoidable. You can't effectively balance such incredibly diverse weapons as what are available in this game, which makes it even more susceptible to metas. Quirks have gone a long way towards breaking the single meta into a weaker one with sub-parts based on Mechs, but we will never, ever be rid of the meta.

It's time to give up on the meta and move on to creating new content. I think new weapon systems, maps, and game modes would go a long way towards helping with balance. So long as we have only arena play though, this is probably the best we'll see for MWO balance.

[Hotthedd]

Nightmare1, on 12 June 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

I really don't see the insta-gibbing of which you speak. Everytime I've dueled Mechs of equal weight class, it's been a battle that lasts for a while. See below:












The only time I see, "Insta-Gibbing" is when a Mech of a lesser weight class goes up against a Mech of a higher weight class. For example, a Light or Medium against an Assault. That's resonable though and not a problem.

As for being a thinking shooter, this game remains very much a thinking shooter; perhaps more so due to the lethality of the present weapons. If you don't think through your actions carefully before executing them, you will be killed quickly. There is severe punishment for failing to think. The team with the better strategist is also the team that typically wins.

What I've learned from scenarios like this thread, is that the people complaining that TTK is too low or that there is too much "insta-gibbing" are often making the mistake of assuming that they are being shot by a single enemy when, in fact, they are being hit by multiple enemies. When you are the subject of focused fire, it doesn't matter how powerful the weapon systems are; you are going down hard and fast compared to if you were simply fighting a duel with a single opponent.

My point, in all of this, is that it is not a problem on a per-Mech basis. The insta-death is a result of focused firepower. I know this because I am a strategic drop caller for my Unit. Whenever we drop, we stay together and move as a Unit. I call out targets and we focus our firepower on them. The burden is on me to achieve victory for my team by not placing it in an untenable situation or by failing to properly prioritize targets. It's also my responsibility to keep up the forward momentum we have. If I fail in any of that, then I hand control of the battle back over to my enemies. It is this group action that demolishes Mechs so quickly. It's collective. Nerfing weapons or Mechs to decrease damage will not fix the problem. Sure, you might increase TTK in the group-firing scenario, but you will then ruin single dueling.

Somewhere, a line must be drawn. PGI has balanced things very well in the 1v1 combat scenario. Now they are attempting to do it collectively. That's not really possible though since they can't address the reason itself, which is teamwork, or, basically, human thinking.

As for metas, trying to eliminate them is wishful thinking. Every game has a meta; it's unavoidable. You can't effectively balance such incredibly diverse weapons as what are available in this game, which makes it even more susceptible to metas. Quirks have gone a long way towards breaking the single meta into a weaker one with sub-parts based on Mechs, but we will never, ever be rid of the meta.

It's time to give up on the meta and move on to creating new content. I think new weapon systems, maps, and game modes would go a long way towards helping with balance. So long as we have only arena play though, this is probably the best we'll see for MWO balance.

By "insta-gibbing" I don't mean insta-killing. I mean one mouse click can destroy a leg or side torso, or at least strip all of the armor off so that a couple of laser sweeps from the rest of the team will destroy it.

It can happen to almost any 'mech from any weight class. Ever see a 6 MPL Firestarter? Those things can take off whole legs of even heavy 'mechs, or if they get behind one, one click kill an assault. IMO, this should not be the case. 6 MPLs should not be able to be simultaneously fired AND hit the same component. It just isn't part of the BattleTech universe.

One can think, plan, strategize, and have sound effective tactics AND still be rendered ineffective by one well placed (or lucky) click. To me, that takes the "thinking" out of it. The enemy can be right (as far as tactics and position) all day long, but if I have a 45 point alpha, I only have to be right once.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that many times people believe they were one-shot by a single enemy when they were in fact focused. The death screen does not make it easier, as you don't know if that Medium laser that killed you was a medium laser, or 6 medium lasers fired from one 'mech. That being said, I have one-shot opponents, been one-shot by opponents, and spectated teammates one-shotting opponents hundreds of times. I happens a lot, and again, it doesn't feel like battletech when that happens, at least to me (and others).

Here is where we disagree: I also run drops with my unit. None of the things you mention would change EXCEPT for TTK. Some 'mechs ARE more of a problem than others due to the sheer amount of same-weapon PPFLD alphas they can deliver. I believe TTK should be higher when trying to kill the ultimate war machine of the 31st century. As far as one-on-one dueling? To me, it would be EPIC for it to last longer, each 'mech whittling down the other until one finally gets in the position for the death blow, rather than each 'mech trying to get their full alpha off first.

You are right, PGI cannot balance teamwork. As a matter of fact that isn't their job. As stated and agreed before, only a tiered system can even BEGIN to help that, and even then there won't be even balance. PGI CAN balance weapons so that there is not one or two "must boat" weapons while others are nearly useless. There will always be a "meta" (We are using that term incorrectly, BTW, but we both know what we mean), but the meta CAN be diversified team layout. Role warfare. Coordinated but separate units, instead of the deathball. As long as we have PPFLD alphas, zerging will be effective. Even if it ceases to be the "meta", it will ALWAYS be effective due to the ability of focused fire coupled with PPFLD alphas reduce TTK to nearly instant.

I'm 100% with you on new content: maps, allowable weapons, and for the love of Blake game modes!! And that definitely COULD help with balance, but I am thinking in terms of immersion and game mechanics more than balance.

P.S. Good debate

[Nightmare1]

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

By "insta-gibbing" I don't mean insta-killing. I mean one mouse click can destroy a leg or side torso, or at least strip all of the armor off so that a couple of laser sweeps from the rest of the team will destroy it.

Right, I understand what gibbing means.

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

It can happen to almost any 'mech from any weight class. Ever see a 6 MPL Firestarter? Those things can take off whole legs of even heavy 'mechs, or if they get behind one, one click kill an assault. IMO, this should not be the case. 6 MPLs should not be able to be simultaneously fired AND hit the same component. It just isn't part of the BattleTech universe.

Actually, that's not correct. If you watch one of the videos, you will notice that I take a TDR-5SS 7xMPL build against a Grasshopper and fail to insta-gib any of its components. In fact, the fight lasts for a while with both pilots landing very solid blows. As for insta-killing an Assault, the Firestarter in question cannot do that. Assuming no armor, the CT of an Assault will still be more than 36 points of health; the max that your FS example can generate in terms of damage. Add in some rear armor, and the FS will be unable to insta-kill, or even gib, the Assault. As for Heavies, this is also not an accurate statement. I run FS Mechs and can attest that they are not as powerful as you think. The only thing I've ever been able to "gib" has been other Light Mechs.

BT is a board game depending on random dice rolls. As such, there are many things that cannot be translated into an actionable FPS. What we currently have, is a game not unlike MW4, which, in my opinion, did a very good job with the MechWarrior/BattleTech franchise. MWO has its flaws, but PPFLD is not one of them.

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

One can think, plan, strategize, and have sound effective tactics AND still be rendered ineffective by one well placed (or lucky) click. To me, that takes the "thinking" out of it. The enemy can be right (as far as tactics and position) all day long, but if I have a 45 point alpha, I only have to be right once.

That does not make much sense for two reasons. You are essentially saying that, by placing one lucky alpha strike, you can defeat an entire enemy team. That is, of course, assuming a head shot on a fully armored Mech or an alpha into a heavily damaged component; it would take more than one alpha to kill a Mech otherwise. The other flaw is that you are assuming that by killing the Drop Caller, you are "severing the head that the body may die." That doesn't work. A good drop caller Spectates, rapidly cycling through his pilots' cockpits to get an exceptional view of the battle. If anything, dying makes the drop caller stronger and increases the tactical efficiency of the team.

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

Yes, you are absolutely correct that many times people believe they were one-shot by a single enemy when they were in fact focused. The death screen does not make it easier, as you don't know if that Medium laser that killed you was a medium laser, or 6 medium lasers fired from one 'mech. That being said, I have one-shot opponents, been one-shot by opponents, and spectated teammates one-shotting opponents hundreds of times. I happens a lot, and again, it doesn't feel like battletech when that happens, at least to me (and others).

I am not one-shotted very often. That's only happened a couple of times, generally when I'm running something like a Centurion with thin rear armor. Each time it's happened, I have already sustained substantial damage, so I actually hesitate to call it one-shotting. The only time I've ever truly been one-shotted was when a Dire Wolf walked into my flank when I was piloting a CN9-YLW. That was a hurtful encounter.

Setting focus fire aside, I also can't say that I have beem gibbed much either. I recall one match from the recent "I Need A Hero" Event where I lost my LA in a single salvo from an Assault (I don't recall the Mech), but I had been careless and deserved it.

Maybe it is the difference in our elo, but, for my games, one-shotting is a rare occurence. Most pilots are too mobile to allow it to happen. The gibbing and insta-kill, on my end, tend to only occur when the battle lines finally close and the two teams begin focus-firing for effect. I've yet to see any insta-kill or gibbing happen in 1v1 matches.

In fact, I even have a vid somewhere of my TDR taking a BoomJager without getting insta-gibbed. I wound up dying, but it still took several AC/20 rounds to finish me, and I wrecked the BoomJager before dying.

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

Here is where we disagree: I also run drops with my unit. None of the things you mention would change EXCEPT for TTK. Some 'mechs ARE more of a problem than others due to the sheer amount of same-weapon PPFLD alphas they can deliver. I believe TTK should be higher when trying to kill the ultimate war machine of the 31st century. As far as one-on-one dueling? To me, it would be EPIC for it to last longer, each 'mech whittling down the other until one finally gets in the position for the death blow, rather than each 'mech trying to get their full alpha off first.

Longer duels wouldn't be too much of a problem. The main issue is that the longer amounts of time would favor farming of new players by veteran ones, making the new player experience worse.

Frankly, I rather like the current build of the game. With some decisive drop calling, we can finish a match in 5-8 minutes and move on to the next one. I remember back when matches were ending on time out; those simply took too long. The current, high-risk, high-reward gameplay is not only exciting, but also realistic, I think.

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

You are right, PGI cannot balance teamwork. As a matter of fact that isn't their job. As stated and agreed before, only a tiered system can even BEGIN to help that, and even then there won't be even balance. PGI CAN balance weapons so that there is not one or two "must boat" weapons while others are nearly useless. There will always be a "meta" (We are using that term incorrectly, BTW, but we both know what we mean), but the meta CAN be diversified team layout. Role warfare. Coordinated but separate units, instead of the deathball. As long as we have PPFLD alphas, zerging will be effective. Even if it ceases to be the "meta", it will ALWAYS be effective due to the ability of focused fire coupled with PPFLD alphas reduce TTK to nearly instant.

Generally agreeing with you here. However, you can''t touch PPFLD until you introduce role warfare and increase the amount of game content and features. The reason is, again, focus firing. Until there is a reason not to focus fire, that will remain the key feature in the game. Increasing TTK by decreasing weapon damage or effectiveness will simply make the competitive pilots huddle even closer to further maximize their grouped PPFLD, while the more inexperienced pilots, feeling more resilient, will be more inclined to wander about on their own. In short, without putting something in to take the place of PPFLD, trying to reduce it will only widen the disparity of "good" and "bad" matches because pilots without leaders will continue to make bad choices, while pilots with leaders will simply tighten up their gameplay.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider TTK to be? I have two definitions for it:
1) Match Time To Kill: How long before you die with the match start as a reference. I find five minutes to be a good number considering that most matches end in less than eight.
2) Personal Time To Kill: How long before you die after entering an engagement with the enemy. I find that "instant" is good for focus fire (It's Lore-based too), while ten seconds is a good minimum for dueling with a Mech of equal weight.

Hotthedd, on 12 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

I'm 100% with you on new content: maps, allowable weapons, and for the love of Blake game modes!! And that definitely COULD help with balance, but I am thinking in terms of immersion and game mechanics more than balance.

P.S. Good debate

Thanks! I think the main issue is not that we disagree that there is a problem, but more on what the problem is and how to solve it. You would like to see TTK increased by nerfing weapons somehow (damage, balance, convergence, etc.). Personally, I'm really tire of all the nerfs I've endured for the last three years, and would rather see new content introduced to balance the game. Things like new weapons, maps, game modes, role warfare, tier systems, etc. would go a long way, I think, towards improving TTK without needing resort to nerfs. At the very least, it's all needed anyways, so the sooner it's in game the better. Once it's all here, we can then revisit balancing. Until the game is more developed, any balancing attempts will just contribute to the game's instability by perpetuating these "Flavor of the Month" metas and discouraging players with the inherent inconsistencies.

Good debate and have a great weekend! Luck to you on the Event..

[Mazzyplz]

when i alpha it is certainly last ditch... it is WAY more useful to actually - you know... MANAGE the weapon groups?

[Nightmare1]

Mazzyplz, on 12 June 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

when i alpha it is certainly last ditch... it is WAY more useful to actually - you know... MANAGE the weapon groups?

Agreed; I run five separate triggers for my weapons; none of which are Alpha triggers. If I want to Alpha, I have to press at least two (often three) triggers together. It's better to fire in groups.

That being said, I do know some pilots (several in my Unit, actually) that only own two-button mice and can't afford to upgrade to gaming mice. That limits them to an Alpha trigger and a chainfire trigger on their boats. That's another reason not to limit Alphas.