61 replies to this topic

[Kiiyor]

Escef, on 24 June 2015 - 08:58 PM, said:

An interesting thing, though, is that few people agree on what is and what is not a problem in the first place. Some people considered lack of VOIP a problem, others liked it that way. Well, now we have it, like it or not. Some people feel Streaks, LRMs, ballistics, lasers, Firestarters, Clan mechs, Inner Sphere Quirks, and/or eggbeaters to be over or under powered.

For example:



There are plenty of times I agree with Kiiyor. And plenty that I don't. This is not one of the things we agree upon. I think TTK is about where it should be. I'm not going to say he's a horrible person or a bad player for having the opinion he does on this matter. But if we were both on the dev team (I'm fairly positive I'm not, and suspect Kiiyor isn't), our lack of agreement on it even being an issue would likely end up causing a lot of waste.

Just some general observations on the topic.

Well, 'twas an opinion piece after all

Also, If I were on the dev team, content drives would be a lot more abstract, and WAAAAAY more awesome.

Two words:

Mech codpieces.

[thesleepyslam]

target information sharing

[Zfailboat]

thesleepyslam, on 24 June 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

target information sharing

any calcification on this - eg - better / faster, or worse / more tactical?

very interesting to see the different view points being posted here. hopefully we may be able to keep this going and see what we can get up to.

[Smith Gibson]

True doubled ammunition to go with the already doubled armor.

[IraqiWalker]

Smith Gibson, on 24 June 2015 - 11:38 PM, said:

True doubled ammunition to go with the already doubled armor.

We already have triple the fire rate. Is double the ammo really necessary? (We did also get some ammo adjustments, btw{+50%}. For example, LRMs should be 120 per ton, not 180. AC 20 should be 5 per ton, not 7 ... etc.)

thesleepyslam, on 24 June 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

target information sharing

Elaborate please, because we do have that right now. Unless you're talking about something else.

[Bregor Edain]

I would adjust the scaling on mechs to be in line with their weight.

I would combine the 2 factions Steiner and Davion into the Federated Commonwealth with my alternative change option that should have been included in the OP.

[Zolaz]

Headshots - Way too difficult to hit the cockpit in mechs. The head on most mechs is one plane of glass of the cockpit. I guess the pilot is a contortionist that doesnt have to worry about those other glass panels. They are probably made of the same indestructible material as CW gates.

There was a greater chance in hitting the cockpit with random dice than there is in MWO. It is much easier to hit specific targets than it was in TT. Double the firing rate and making it easier to hit specific areas means people die faster than in TT.

I know a cone of fire would take some programming and some work, however it would fix Time To Kill and the super small cockpit problem.

[Moldur]

Hm, what I'm about to say I haven't ever thought of as a big issue in my mind, but given I only have 1 thing.. I think this is what would make the most people happy in this day and age balance wise.

ECM coverage should have a maximum number of mechs able to be covered. (For instance, ECM can only cover the 4 closest mechs in AOE, or only 4 mechs with higher tonnage mechs taking priority)

[IraqiWalker]

Zolaz, on 25 June 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

I know a cone of fire would take some programming and some work, however it would fix Time To Kill and the super small cockpit problem.

Why not just employ proper scaling convergence? That way you don't piss off the people who see a cone of fire mechanic as hampering down their aiming skills, while also dealing with instant convergence alphas. TTK increases easily that way, without upsetting anyone in the player base.

[thesleepyslam]

Zfailboat, on 24 June 2015 - 10:29 PM, said:

any calcification on this - eg - better / faster, or worse / more tactical?

very interesting to see the different view points being posted here. hopefully we may be able to keep this going and see what we can get up to.

Target Information Sharing.

It's really a rework of targeting in general. I'll try to express it abstractly so that we could maybe work on it together.
Targeting information should only be shared with those who have line of sight of you, like I've heard it described for table top. Targeting multiple mechs at once should also be possible, with no limits, provided you have line of sight on the enemy. Sharing of information should also be line of sight dependent, but chainable between allied mechs who have the command console/targeting computer (of sufficient power).

Example: Scout can see 3 enemies, forward lance can see scout but not enemies, assault lance can see forward lance but not scout.

Scout can relay targeting information of all three enemies to forward lance, but not assault lance, unless a member of forward lance has a command console/computer, in which case forward lance relays targeting information to assault lance.

That's the idea i had, anyway.

Edited by thesleepyslam, 25 June 2015 - 12:48 AM.

[Doman Hugin]

Fix pin point weapons convergance / Time to kill.

There's plenty of good suggestions about.

[arkani]

A new competent developer.

[Varvar86]

-----> replace all mechs destroyed leg models on something that actually looks destroyed - for example naked miomers sceleton with wires fragments hanging, sparks shooting, etc.

beacuse i dont want to go

each time i try to guess which leg to shoot.

-----> also make all damage more visual. No armor torso should look like no armor torso - with all armor plates gone or only few peaces left - so being close enough i can actually SEE myself which part is most damaged without looking on delaying hood etc.

Edited by Varvar86, 25 June 2015 - 01:57 AM.

[Zfailboat]

wow got a very nice list going here, i have to say a lot of them i dont think have seen to much public comment previously.

[Mr Pataks]

[color=#959595]PPC Speed/velocity[/color]

[Juodas Varnas]

Proper Mech-scaling.

There's no reason why a 60 ton mech should be as big as 80-90 ton mechs, while a 65 ton mech is smaller than a 50 tonner.

[Lugh]

ChapeL, on 24 June 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

Something that would have immediate impact ( pun intended) on the way we play the game.

-Physical collision between mechs ( in other words knockdowns )

This is my one thing! You and I need to march on PGI!!!

Juodas Varnas, on 25 June 2015 - 05:29 AM, said:

Proper Mech-scaling.

There's no reason why a 60 ton mech should be as big as 80-90 ton mechs, while a 65 ton mech is smaller than a 50 tonner.

Sure there is, it's called metal density and tensile strength. When the Density decreases and the tensile strength increases that allows the mech to be as big as you want it to be, that same decrease in density for the frame (endosteel) lets you mount more in to a smaller package as well.

[Decadre]

Skill Trees - Change them to suit the mech weight class, mech chassis, and finally the specific mech iteself.

example for Firestarter FS9-A

basic - unlock skills suited for light mechs and mechs with energy weapons

elite - unlock skills more directly suited for the Firestarter generic chassis (ie; Flamers and JJs, hit and run light mech style brawling)

master - unlock additional module slot AND something special directly suited for the FS9-A

NOTE: example is just something quickly thought up. Don't kill me for thinking about Flamer buffs.

[Bilbo]

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned proper hit registration. Any changes to weapons or systems in the name of balance is dubious without it. I'd be happy if it at least failed consistently. The random failures make me want to pull my hair out at times.

[caseysrevenge]

It's simple put Collision (knockdown) back in the game

Edited by ceesje, 25 June 2015 - 07:26 AM.