159 replies to this topic

[Roadkill]

cdlord, on 29 February 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

They've already countered the 10 second turn though by doubling armor. Either double armor again, or half damages, or increase cooldowns to 5 seconds across the board (though this will hurt the AC2 and ammo would have to be increased more, etc.).

Not the point I'm making.

If an "AC/20" is simply a class of weapons that do 20 damage in one 10-second turn, then why do those 20 damage always hit the same location while the obviously independent LRMs from an LRM-20 spread all over the target?

Hint: because that whole "20 damage over one 10-second turn" is fluff. TT was clearly designed with autocannons being single-shot weapons because they actually have a mechanic to represent weapons that do damage via multiple munitions.

[Pjwned]

cdlord, on 29 February 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

They've already countered the 10 second turn though by doubling armor. Either double armor again, or half damages, or increase cooldowns to 5 seconds across the board (though this will hurt the AC2 and ammo would have to be increased more, etc.).

That's not why armor was doubled, nor is it (or ever was) a reason to change anything.

[CDLord HHGD]

Roadkill, on 29 February 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

Not the point I'm making.

If an "AC/20" is simply a class of weapons that do 20 damage in one 10-second turn, then why do those 20 damage always hit the same location while the obviously independent LRMs from an LRM-20 spread all over the target?

Hint: because that whole "20 damage over one 10-second turn" is fluff. TT was clearly designed with autocannons being single-shot weapons because they actually have a mechanic to represent weapons that do damage via multiple munitions.

Lore-wise it's in the air if they are single shot or multi-shot though I do agree with you, TT rules say they are single shot because of the differences you reference.

Double armor (again): "Why won't he just DIE??"
Halve weapon damage: "Nobody fears my AC20!!"
Increase global cooldowns has the fewest negatives.

One point though, I think the cooldowns we have and most everything else is pretty good. The only things I ask for are sized hardpoints, a proper heat scale, and for the mechlab build ruleset to be fixed to show proper tonnages and account for all the various component weights (this isn't as important as the others).

Pjwned, on 29 February 2016 - 02:02 PM, said:

That's not why armor was doubled, nor is it (or ever was) a reason to change anything.

No, armor was doubled to increase TTK (sound familiar?) but it has other more impactful effects (gasp!).

[Pjwned]

cdlord, on 29 February 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

No, armor was doubled to increase TTK (sound familiar?)

Right, it was done to increase TTK which was a valid solution at the time, but it was done because armor values were too low for a game where you don't roll dice for hit locations; it wasn't done because of any supposed "turn length" from TT.

Quote

but it has other more impactful effects (gasp!).

Never said it doesn't.

Edited by Pjwned, 29 February 2016 - 03:12 PM.

[J0anna]

While I am definitely a TT player. I recognize that a one-for-one implementation of TT rules would never work. However, PGI has thrown out some TT rules without proper consideration of WHY the rule was there. Heat is the classic example. TT had a fixed heat scale, with worsening effects the higher heat you had at the end of the round. This wouldn't work if exactly implemented in a real time game like MWO, but by increasing the heat scale, PGI has forced themselves to nerf heat sinks as well as come up with their "ghost" heat system. Which apparently they are re-creating that wheel again. Perhaps they should have evaluated the changing of this rule a bit more. PGI should have spent the time upfront to decide which rules they were going to ignore and why, they don't seem to have done that.

On the other hand, lore is a completely different issue. While PGI can claim to ignore rules for "balance", ignoring lore has nothing to do with balance. While I understand their decision to ignore some lore: For example Steiner and Federated Suns had long been united into the Federated Commonwealth by 3050, not to mention that Marik, Kurita and Liao had a non-aggression pact and had agreed to support each other against the FC. Lastly Kurita wouldn't have attacked the FRR during this time or risk a Comstar interdiction. So if PGI really wanted to allow the houses to fight, then ignoring lore there makes sense. But this should be the exception, not the rule. There is no reason why St. Ives isn't in game. If PGI is going to forbid groups from naming themselves "Wolf's Dragoons, or Kell Hounds, or Grey Death", then they should be providing updates/information on these units. There is so very much more PGI could be doing with Lore, their excuse for ignoring lore boils down to laziness.

[CDLord HHGD]

J0anna, on 29 February 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

While I am definitely a TT player. I recognize that a one-for-one implementation of TT rules would never work. However, PGI has thrown out some TT rules without proper consideration of WHY the rule was there. Heat is the classic example. TT had a fixed heat scale, with worsening effects the higher heat you had at the end of the round. This wouldn't work if exactly implemented in a real time game like MWO, but by increasing the heat scale, PGI has forced themselves to nerf heat sinks as well as come up with their "ghost" heat system. Which apparently they are re-creating that wheel again. Perhaps they should have evaluated the changing of this rule a bit more. PGI should have spent the time upfront to decide which rules they were going to ignore and why, they don't seem to have done that.

On the other hand, lore is a completely different issue. While PGI can claim to ignore rules for "balance", ignoring lore has nothing to do with balance. While I understand their decision to ignore some lore: For example Steiner and Federated Suns had long been united into the Federated Commonwealth by 3050, not to mention that Marik, Kurita and Liao had a non-aggression pact and had agreed to support each other against the FC. Lastly Kurita wouldn't have attacked the FRR during this time or risk a Comstar interdiction. So if PGI really wanted to allow the houses to fight, then ignoring lore there makes sense. But this should be the exception, not the rule. There is no reason why St. Ives isn't in game. If PGI is going to forbid groups from naming themselves "Wolf's Dragoons, or Kell Hounds, or Grey Death", then they should be providing updates/information on these units. There is so very much more PGI could be doing with Lore, their excuse for ignoring lore boils down to laziness.

Very well said.

[SuomiWarder]

Well MechWarrior is a trademark attached to the BattleTech trademark owners so in short - yes it has to be based on the BattleTech table top game to be an actual MechWarrior game. They could have made a DarkAge game and based on the click factor table top instead for example. How closely it has to match the table top is completely up to the designers and the fans. Get too far way, some fans will leave. Try to adhere too close and you get a crummy first person experience as the table top rules were written for a multi unit under one player experience that fit within the confines of a standard dining room table. (Thus the small ranges compared to real world weapons).

[C E Dwyer]

Ted Wayz, on 28 February 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

LOL.

Elder Scrolls Online a failure? That was (past tense used properly) the popular but sadly uninformed opinion. I am sure PGI would give their left nut for one quarter the active subscribers of ESO when it was thought to be "failing" in 2014. And they have micro-transactions down.

On topic, Battletech TT rules were conceived in the 1980's imagining technology hundreds of years in advance by people who were not even aware of 1980's technology. Much of it does not make any sense from a technical perspective.

In other words there is more probability of sentient bird people than a futuristic battle mech falling over because an Atlas looked at it.

WHUT ?


The only reason games either T.T or PC have implausibly short weapon ranges is so that people can play it at home and not need a playing area the size of a swimming pool in the case of TT. in the case of PC play its so that matches do not last for hours when one side has clearly won, developers are not going to make a battle field 40 by 50 miles just so LRMs can have a realistic range.

In Finishing I am seriously laughing at the delusional people that think that their FPS game is bad because they are restrained by the TT universe.

Hawken has none of the lore, and no TT to be blamed yet the weapon ranges are just as short the maps are just as small, and the game play is worse than this.

Seriously get your heads out your butts

[Sandpit]

Pjwned, on 29 February 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

And the answer in this particular case is "no."

matter of opinion

[Wolfways]

Roadkill, on 29 February 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:

Ah, so somehow, magically, all 20 damage from an AC/20 always manages to hit the same location? But LRMs specifically spread based on a separate mechanic?

I know what the current official story is, but I'm not buying it. You get to fire your weapons once every 10 seconds no matter what fluff they spin around it.

Yes, it's simplified. The same way that in some TT games a "base" of a dozen infantry roll 1 dice to hit another base of infantry. If successful the target base is killed. You don't always roll for every shot or even every infantryman.
BT weapons have different RoF depending on manufacturer, but no matter how fast the weapon fires an AC20 still does 20 damage/turn for simplicity.
BT didn't do the weapons wrong, pgi did.

Edited by Wolfways, 29 February 2016 - 07:48 PM.

[Roadkill]

Wolfways, on 29 February 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

BT weapons have different RoF depending on manufacturer, but no matter how fast the weapon fires an AC20 still does 20 damage/turn for simplicity.
BT didn't do the weapons wrong, pgi did.

You're missing the point.

TT contains rules for weapons that stream fire multiple munitions to do their damage. LRMs roll their damage in groups of 5 (after determining how many missiles hit). That exact same table could be used to spread the damage of an MWO Clan-style AC/20, but it is not used. Why?

Because autocannons in TT are designed as single-round large caliber weapons. The fluff about different fire rates is just that: fluff. The mechanics of the game tell the true story by doing all of the damage to a single location.

THAT is why the AC/20 is feared in TT. Because a single shot can leg your light. If they were stream fire in TT they'd be no more fearsome than an LRM-20.

[Metus regem]

Roadkill, on 29 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

THAT is why the AC/20 is feared in TT. Because a single shot can leg your light. If they were stream fire in TT they'd be no more fearsome than an LRM-20.

5 damage to any location on a light is still devastating.... Even the might Jenner only has 10 armour on the front CT....

[Wolfways]

Roadkill, on 29 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

You're missing the point.

TT contains rules for weapons that stream fire multiple munitions to do their damage. LRMs roll their damage in groups of 5 (after determining how many missiles hit). That exact same table could be used to spread the damage of an MWO Clan-style AC/20, but it is not used. Why?

Because autocannons in TT are designed as single-round large caliber weapons. The fluff about different fire rates is just that: fluff. The mechanics of the game tell the true story by doing all of the damage to a single location.

THAT is why the AC/20 is feared in TT. Because a single shot can leg your light. If they were stream fire in TT they'd be no more fearsome than an LRM-20.

I don't know. Maybe it's because LRM20's have a much longer range than an AC20 so LRM's would be far too OP if they hit one location like AC's.

Tbh I like AC's doing their "full damage" per shot, but I think that their RoF should be lowered (although I think all RoF should be slower).

[Roadkill]

Wolfways, on 29 February 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

I don't know. Maybe it's because LRM20's have a much longer range than an AC20 so LRM's would be far too OP if they hit one location like AC's.

ER PPC has longer range that LRMs and hits one location. So does Gauss Rifle. It's not a range issue.

Quote

Tbh I like AC's doing their "full damage" per shot, but I think that their RoF should be lowered (although I think all RoF should be slower).

I do too, but to me that's the way they should be in order to conform to TT. I don't mind using multi-fire as a balancing feature for Clan autocannons, but to me that feels like a (deliberate and appropriate) divergence from TT.

I'd be fine with slower overall ROF in MWO, too. It's not too far off, though. I think even 25% slower overall might do the trick.

[Sandpit]

Roadkill, on 29 February 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

ER PPC has longer range that LRMs and hits one location. So does Gauss Rifle. It's not a range issue.


I do too, but to me that's the way they should be in order to conform to TT. I don't mind using multi-fire as a balancing feature for Clan autocannons, but to me that feels like a (deliberate and appropriate) divergence from TT.

I'd be fine with slower overall ROF in MWO, too. It's not too far off, though. I think even 25% slower overall might do the trick.

I dunno about a 25% slowdown universally, but I think some of the weapons could use adjustments.

I love my AC2 boats, but they fire way to fast in my opinion. They're RoF is ridiculous

[Wolfways]

Roadkill, on 29 February 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

ER PPC has longer range that LRMs and hits one location. So does Gauss Rifle. It's not a range issue.

ERPPC generates a lot of heat though, and a Gauss is very heavy with little ammo/ton.

Could just be that the designers just wanted some variety in the game for all I know

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 29 February 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

I dunno about a 25% slowdown universally, but I think some of the weapons could use adjustments.

I love my AC2 boats, but they fire way to fast in my opinion. They're RoF is ridiculous

Nerfing AC/2 firing rate with the current damage per shot (2) would make them useless. Even with the so-called "way too fast" firing rate they are outclassed by many other options.


If we want them to shoot slower without making them useless, we're gonna have to increase the upfront damage they deal per mouse click.

Since PGI has a hard stance that "AC number always equals damage per shot," this means that each shell "has to" deal only 2 damage...but a sneaky way around that might be to make it shoot a burst of 2 shells that each do 2 damage, for each trigger click.

Then we can increase the cooldown. For the same DPS that it has now, since it now shoots 2x2 damage per volley, that sets the cooldown to 1.44s (current value of 0.72s).

Edited by FupDup, 29 February 2016 - 09:41 PM.

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 29 February 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Nerfing AC/2 firing rate with the current damage per shot (2) would make them useless. Even with the so-called "way too fast" firing rate they are outclassed by many other options.


If we want them to shoot slower without making them useless, we're gonna have to increase the upfront damage they deal per mouse click.

Since PGI has a hard stance that "AC number always equals damage per shot," this means that each shell "has to" deal only 2 damage...but a sneaky way around that might be to make it shoot a burst of 2 shells that each do 2 damage, for each trigger click.

Then we can increase the cooldown. For the same DPS that it has now, since it now shoots 2x2 damage per volley, that sets the cooldown to 1.44s (current value of 0.72s).

YOu don't have to make it a major reduction in RoF. They just need to be slowed down just a smidge. I'm not talking adding 2-3 seconds to their recycle time. Start with .25 secs and see how that goes. You can do thing in small increments.

Right now I feel that's about where the overall weapon balance is at personally. A few weapons need a few adjustments here and there and just small incremental changes. The AC2's just fire way too fast and when that AC2 cooldown module hits the game....

Well it's going to be like AC2 MGs just a steady stream of fire. With every shot doing 2 damage and firing every half second, that's going to be a nightmare. Plus toss in their velocity and it's one of the few (at least in my opinion) truly unbalanced weapons. Then if you toss in a mech that's quirked for ballistics it gets even faster.

[pbiggz]

80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie, on 28 February 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

Bam, this.

Keep the purpose and general idea of what the equipment/weapons are described to do : Ignore the literal number values.

Pulse lasers described as "Accurate Laser Machine guns?" Make them laser machine guns.

Gauss Rifle a giant *** magnetic cannon? Make it a giant *** magnetic cannon

etc. etc. The number values derived from Table Top rules should have no place in this game. All it does is cause a massive headache and pain in the *** to get things making sense. Case and point ******* machine guns.

MW:LL did it right and completely rewrote how damage/armor values worked from scratch.

pbiggz, on 27 February 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

The more experienced I get the more i understand why MW4 abandoned TT build rules. They didn't necessarily do a perfect job, but I get why they did it.

The best mechwarrior game, the one that may still be years ahead of us (cause god knows, this ones good but its not the best) will have its own build system. I promise you that.

[Pjwned]

Sandpit, on 29 February 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

matter of opinion

I would be more convinced otherwise if there was a valid suggestion offered to somehow make the damage output in MWO be closer to "10 second turns" and not just because "TT fluff is sacrosanct and any discrepancies are blasphemy."

So far the closest idea I've seen for accomplishing that is to normalize all weapon cooldowns to 5 seconds which would be complete garbage.