29 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

These 'Mechs are generally characterized by their ability to carry all of weapon types (B, E, and M), which usually consist of a single ballistic and complemented by a couple of energy and missile hardpoints. These hardpoints could be located all over the 'Mech and not clumped together.

Due to the current nature of our gameplay, if the locations of the ballistic and energy hardpoints aren't favorable (not high enough and/or clumped together), then the 'Mech probably chooses to carry missiles to maximize its firepower rather than play the long range game. But carrying LRMs could be iffy because you probably have to ditch taking a powerful ballistic due to the weight limit and no high mounted TAG (unless you want to carry light weight LRMs for "support") and this leaves us with SRMs.

I guess this is the general template of these kind of 'Mechs: a single heavy ballistic supported by SRMs and lasers. The long range firepower is usually rather tame because the heavy ballistic taking a lot of space and the lasers could be mounted low which limits their usage. These 'Mechs have to therefore move a lot and get closer to the enemies to maximize the delivery of their payload. Because of this reason, I propose that they get buffs to:

• mobility (JJs or speed)
  
• agility (acceleration and deceleration or torso twist speed)
  
• side torso armor for IS 'Mechs to give better protection to XL engines.
  
• and maybe small quirks (5-10%) to all of the weapon types just to give people incentive to carry them all.

Basically I'd like that they feel like nimble strikers which can change positions quickly to adapt to the ever changing condition on the battlefield which suits their role as generalists.

What do you think?


PS: it's perhaps somewhat sad that this kind of (IS) 'Mech needs help but so far, I haven't found a good reason to carry all of weapon types in a 'Mech unless I have to, or, am in a Clan 'Mech!

[Speedy Plysitkos]

well, what about add armor ? 25-35% on some ?

[Alistair Winter]

I know I'm just a broken record at this point, but...

Synergy

It's increasingly difficult to balance this game, because it's basically bandaids on bandaids on bandaids. I like your suggestions, I think they're very smart, but the quirks in this game are out of control, and it's easier to fix the underlying problem rather than keep inventing more and more quirk solutions.

How do you encourage mixed builds?

You balance the weapon in a way that punishes people for boating. Remember Wing Commander, with its combination of energy weapons and ballistic weapons? You used one type of weapon to take out their shields and another weapon to take out their hull. Laserbolts and mass drivers. In MWO terms, one weapon to take out their armour, and another weapon to take out their internals, for example. But that's not the only way of doing it. Another way would be to severely reduce heat for ballistics, while maintaining high DPS for lasers. Compared to a mech with both ballistics and lasers, a ballistics boat would have inferior DPS, while a laserboat would be too hot (and thus have inferior DPS)

The underlying problem in MWO is that the game doesn't encourage mixed builds. So the generalist mechs suffer. And this isn't an impossible problem, it's just a question of balancing the game right and dealing with the underlying problems before using quirks to deal with special cases (e.g. quirking certain laserboats to be equal to mixed builds)

Edited by Alistair Winter, 29 June 2015 - 05:43 AM.

[Lostdragon]

Generalists < Specialists

I think the only way to encourage more generalist builds is to create some kind of synergy between the weapons. A lower heat cap with higher dissipation might also help as that would encourage less peek, alpha, hide to cooldown play and encourage more brawling while making positioning mistakes more forgiving.

[Hit the Deck]

Alistair Winter, on 29 June 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

...
How do you encourage mixed builds?
...
The underlying problem in MWO is that the game doesn't encourage mixed builds. So the generalist mechs suffer. And this isn't an impossible problem, it's just a question of balancing the game right and dealing with the underlying problems before using quirks to deal with special cases (e.g. quirking certain laserboats to be equal to mixed builds)

I know, man. At first I wanted to title my thread as such but then people's suggestions would make it impossible for PGI to implement in a reasonable time. I like your suggestions and also the others' (such as lowering the heat limit) but what we have now as a practical balancing tool is the quirk system and small adjustments to the 'Mechs' stats that PGI can do.

Perhaps that "big balancing" that will come later will surprise us all (in a positive way).

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I tend to limit my build variety because I can only comfortably control 3 weapon groups with my configuration (4 if it's LRMs due to the odd button placement I have it assigned too).

Basically, if I can't effectively pilot it using 3 weapon groups, I tend to avoid the mech or that load out. The Atlas to me seems best with a mix of a few different blends of weapons, but I'd struggle to operate everything how I want it. That is why I avoid it (a long with being the definition of a slow and lumberiing assault in general).

I like specialized builds because it gives me more firing control over the weapons I have.

I think that is a big hurdle. If the game was slower so I had more time to reach other buttons or keys, or I had a better gaming mouse, then maybe I'd be more inclined to try more mixed builds.

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 29 June 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

I know I'm just a broken record at this point, but...

Synergy

It's increasingly difficult to balance this game, because it's basically bandaids on bandaids on bandaids. I like your suggestions, I think they're very smart, but the quirks in this game are out of control, and it's easier to fix the underlying problem rather than keep inventing more and more quirk solutions.

How do you encourage mixed builds?

You balance the weapon in a way that punishes people for boating. Remember Wing Commander, with its combination of energy weapons and ballistic weapons? You used one type of weapon to take out their shields and another weapon to take out their hull. Laserbolts and mass drivers. In MWO terms, one weapon to take out their armour, and another weapon to take out their internals, for example. But that's not the only way of doing it. Another way would be to severely reduce heat for ballistics, while maintaining high DPS for lasers. Compared to a mech with both ballistics and lasers, a ballistics boat would have inferior DPS, while a laserboat would be too hot (and thus have inferior DPS)

The underlying problem in MWO is that the game doesn't encourage mixed builds. So the generalist mechs suffer. And this isn't an impossible problem, it's just a question of balancing the game right and dealing with the underlying problems before using quirks to deal with special cases (e.g. quirking certain laserboats to be equal to mixed builds)

I'm not saying your idea is bad, but for one thing mixed ballistics and energy have always sat at the top of this game.

ACs + PPCs

Now

Lasers + ACs or Gauss.


Secondly, pushing this idea further would penalize mechs that are actually based on all energy, like most grasshoppers for example.

[Alistair Winter]

Ultimatum X, on 29 June 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

I'm not saying your idea is bad, but for one thing mixed ballistics and energy have always sat at the top of this game.
ACs + PPCs
Now
Lasers + ACs or Gauss.

The current laser+gauss meta is an extremely narrow version of the ideal. It's somewhat better after PGI improved CUACs, but they still have some way to go before people start using more ballistics to support their lasers. IS ballistics are way too hot, IMO.

The AC+PPC era was kind of special due to the similar projectile speeds at that time. And we didn't have the DPS monsters we have now, or the threat of super-tanky Timber Wolves moving at 89 kph, so the gameplay was a bit more static, making it ideal for snipers.

Ultimatum X, on 29 June 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Secondly, pushing this idea further would penalize mechs that are actually based on all energy, like most grasshoppers for example.

Like I wrote in my post above, those are the mechs that would need quirks to be effective. Make mixed builds the norm and quirk the boats. Right now, boats are the norm, and we have to give quirks to mechs that rely on mixed builds. It's kind of backwards.

Hit the Deck, on 29 June 2015 - 06:22 AM, said:

I know, man. At first I wanted to title my thread as such but then people's suggestions would make it impossible for PGI to implement in a reasonable time. I like your suggestions and also the others' (such as lowering the heat limit) but what we have now as a practical balancing tool is the quirk system and small adjustments to the 'Mechs' stats that PGI can do.
Perhaps that "big balancing" that will come later will surprise us all (in a positive way).

I get it. I do think your suggestion is a good bandaid, but since you asked how I would do it, I figured I might as well seize the moment

[kapusta11]

Generalist mechs don't need help, they need purpose.

Edited by kapusta11, 29 June 2015 - 07:11 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If PGI could add triggered quirks, then synergy would be easy. For example:

Universal 10% Cooldown, if you have 1+ M, 1+ B, and 1+ E equipped.

Armor, Agility, and IS buffs could also help, as they're applicable to every build in that mech, though they do nothing to encourage mixed loadouts.

[ChapeL]

We could approach this like armor sets in an MMO: ( which give bonus if you wear a full/half a given set )

You're Orion has nothing special about it UNLESS it has a mix of E/B/M weapon systems at which point it gets XYZ quirks... ?

Edited by ChapeL, 29 June 2015 - 07:17 AM.

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 29 June 2015 - 07:04 AM, said:

The current laser+gauss meta is an extremely narrow version of the ideal. It's somewhat better after PGI improved CUACs, but they still have some way to go before people start using more ballistics to support their lasers. IS ballistics are way too hot, IMO.

The Laser Gauss combo is not that different from AC+PPC combos.

You avoid ghost heat, you have weapons that you can fire when you run hot and you have weapons you can fire to take advantage of your heat bar (vs. a Ballistics only build) for a much higher damage spike - and to extent the lower need to lead Gauss lets it synergize with laser beams.

The concept is the same, even if PPFLD is not part of the current gameplay.




It's also not the heat of ballistics.

It's the weight and the (generally) low alpha for that tonnage.


This does not link up with how Lasers function, and it also doesn't let you bring the kind of DHS you really want to support several big lasers.


Lasers are high heat, high alpha.


On top of this, they have completely different firing mechanisms - you have to lead ballistics, you have to stay directly on target for lasers.


This forces you to expose yourself more/longer and probably eat more damage, and die quicker if you alternate firing one then the other system.


This is the single biggest reason why we see people avoiding certain weapon combos.

No one wants to die faster, no one wants to miss AC 5 shots or whizz their lasers all over the ground because their target is moving and they can either lead or not lead and miss with one of their weapon systems.




For IS mechs there are more issues. The instant you add big ballistics your choice is usually drop to MLAS for backup or go to XL and die easier with your now, even worse, extended face time build with multiple firing systems.

Alistair Winter, on 29 June 2015 - 07:04 AM, said:

Like I wrote in my post above, those are the mechs that would need quirks to be effective. Make mixed builds the norm and quirk the boats. Right now, boats are the norm, and we have to give quirks to mechs that rely on mixed builds. It's kind of backwards.

You can't solve this issue unless you want to revise all firing mechanics, and create artificial reasons for mechs that carry 3 weapon systems to exist.


Even the best Atlas brawl builds only carry a couple of token MLAS for backup, the real build is the AC 20 and ASRM 6s - in other words, primarily two weapon systems.

1) That have similar firing mechanisms (front loaded)
2) similar optimal ranges
3) function at a range close enough that their speed difference is minimized
4) Have similar/same cooldown cycles




So that's that, even the poster boy for mixed loadout builds is basically showing you clearly why some things work and somethings do not work.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 29 June 2015 - 07:24 AM.

[Speedy Plysitkos]

Agree with the limitation of maximum 3 operating weapon groups. Mouse button 1+2 and side button for SRM/LRM/MG only. wheel button for alpha.

[Sjorpha]

I'm not sure I would, because I don't see how that has any intrinsic value.

Imo a team of different specialists is more interesting than a team of generalists.

That's not to say I would be against making more types of builds competitive, such as making more short range builds and more lrm builds worth using, but I don't care particularly about how many weapons systems are on a mech.

[Abisha]

I think MWO is just fine as it stands now.

last weekend i was having a blast with LRM and those fools die each match with +4 counter on my kill. (with zero deaths)
i added 0.1 to my kill-date rate from 1.75 to 1.76 =)

[stjobe]

Well,

The reason boating is better is instant convergence (and to a lesser degree pin-point accuracy and front-loaded damage).

Basically, two weapons fired at the same time merge together into a mega-weapon, unless their beam duration/projectile speed is too dissimilar - hence taking more of the same weapon is best.

If you "boat" 4 MLs, you do 20 damage to the location(s) your beam hits - it's no longer four beams, it's one.
If you "boat" 2 (IS) AC/20s, you do 40 damage to the (single) location your projectile hits - it's no longer two projectiles, it's one.
Hell, if you "boat" six MGs, they behave like one mega-MG (although they still spread damage in a cone of fire and do diddly-squat to armour, so they still suck).

So the best buff generalist 'mechs could get would be for PGI to finally work out how to delay convergence, reduce pin-point accuracy, and perhaps even reduce front-loaded damage.

But as the game stands, boating will always be better than not boating. Sadly, because I like my old TRO:3025 load-outs.

[CyclonerM]

I find "generalistic" builds much more interesting than boating lasers or ACs. I like the OP suggestions, and while i totally agree that quirks got out of hands, small quirks to incentivize specialization on specialized 'Mechs and generalizations of generalist 'Mechs could be used, though i think that would complicate the balance with the new MWO BV that Russ hinted about in the last townhall...

[Hit the Deck]

Alistair Winter, on 29 June 2015 - 07:04 AM, said:

...
I get it. I do think your suggestion is a good bandaid, but since you asked how I would do it, I figured I might as well seize the moment

Then I hope that your suggestions catch on!

Sjorpha, on 29 June 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

I'm not sure I would, because I don't see how that has any intrinsic value.

Imo a team of different specialists is more interesting than a team of generalists.

That's not to say I would be against making more types of builds competitive, such as making more short range builds and more lrm builds worth using, but I don't care particularly about how many weapons systems are on a mech.

Just to be clear, it's actually not about builds but about certain mechs like Shadowhawk, Orion, Victor, Highlander, or even Atlas. They have that kind of hardpoints I mention in my OP.

But it would also be good for the game if generalist builds have some kind of purpose.

[Ultimax]

stjobe, on 29 June 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

Well,

The reason boating is better is instant convergence (and to a lesser degree pin-point accuracy and front-loaded damage).

This is a part of it, but even delaying convergence won't suddenly make choosing completely different firing mechanisms a good option.

[stjobe]

Ultimatum X, on 29 June 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

This is a part of it, but even delaying convergence won't suddenly make choosing completely different firing mechanisms a good option.

Which was what my next sentence - which you deemed not necessary to include in your quote for some reason - explicitly stated:

stjobe, on 29 June 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

Basically, two weapons fired at the same time merge together into a mega-weapon, unless their beam duration/projectile speed is too dissimilar - hence taking more of the same weapon is best.

"more of the same weapon is best" - how you got from that statement to "choosing completely different firing mechanisms" is beyond me.