819 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Jerry Beard, on 11 August 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:

teams to use multiple styles of play and mech builds and not just certain builds (I.E Meta) I think would go a long way in repopulating the game.

Well I would like to point out that there is several styles of play and mech builds that are perfectly viable provided the team plays to the strengths of the style and the map is not prohibitive. The meta now includes:

PPCs
U/AC5s
UAC10s
Gauss
Lasers (LPL, ML, ERLL, cLPL, cERML, cSPL, primarily)
SRMs (sometimes paired with a big autocannon)
Flamers (yes, flamers are used in brawl teams frequently)

So AC10s, AC2s, MGs, LRMs fall short, but that is still one of the widest metas this game has seen to date, and the goal should be to expand that, not constrict it to only those strategies that don't require an alpha greater than 30 to be effective enough to compete.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 11 August 2016 - 09:00 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

That honestly sounds like something PGI would turn down based on HSR and server loads.

Well, perhaps, but as I understood the problem before was the converging mechanic formerly implemented was server heavy because it was constantly adjusting over time on target (and off target). A reticle bloom would be pre-set. It is simply a bigger bulle-eye.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

I have to tell you that that is merely a thin attempt at discrediting the main argument in debate. We can agree to drop that part entirely, and have a separate discussion on those merits.

It's not thin, you are saying there exists a problem within the current meta, how can you make such a claim when you don't even know what the actual meta is or is about?

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

For the record, I have been careful to distinguish between alpha striking and group firing. The confusion has come from some who interchange those terms in order to counter my arguments.
The effect of group firing 4 AC/5s is not that different than chain firing 1 AC/20 (which I think you meant to say), and my point is that it SHOULD be.

Then I have to ask, why should it be?

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

I am talking about overall. It is actually one of the reasons that bad, but light, weapons stay bad. It is impossible to buff the MG to usefulness when that makes 6 of them too OP. (or Small lasers, etc.)

6 of them have never been OP, even during the heyday of the Ember, small lasers haven't been relevant since the days of closed beta when a mech with only two weapons was the strongest in the game, even against the Lunchback with 9 SL and a giant XL engine.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

They could be buffed to be made more useful if boating them had the drawback of either being 1. spread when fired in groups, or 2. accurate but taking longer to deliver the whole salvo.

Option 2 would be horrendous for any small laser so that is definitely an option, and option 1 seems silly when many of the small weapons are just bad in the first place. The amount they would have to be buffed to be useful in a chain fire forced environment would be crazy, like having 10 small lasers being able to fire all their durations in 1 second (ie a duration of .1 sec).

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

I get it, we meant different things. However it does need to be noted that near triple damage combined with perfect convergent precision, and topped off by a component system in which only one part of a 'mech needs be destroyed is an inherently problematic (flawed, IMO) system.

Not going to lie, I would much prefer recycle times across the board be slowed down to the level of MW4, (which still gave AC20s double the RoF from TT, but then again it had half the effect, so that's fair imo), but that is a different topic. The RoF modules along with fast fire doesn't help things either.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:

Right, I was just pointing out that ironically, a big alpha gameplay can be slower paced and more thought intensive than chain fire gameplay. Also, lack of precise convergence spreads the damage for you, but even with pinpoint convergence, damage spreading already happens, so I would argue it is unnecessary.

Pace and TTK are different things, though. Having the option for either sounds like a win to me.
Damage spread does not happen with PPFLD weapons, though. At least not shots from the same weapon type fired at the same time.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:05 AM, said:

Pace and TTK are different things, though. Having the option for either sounds like a win to me.
Damage spread does not happen with PPFLD weapons, though. At least not shots from the same weapon type fired at the same time.

It depends. If the target is moving, often times unless the two PPFLD weapons are mounted right on top of each other, because of how the convergence works (you will be converging at a point behind the target if you have to lead the target) often you get impacts on different locations. I see this all the time in the AC5 Black Widow, or at long range sniping with Gauss when they are mounted on opposite arms, or in other situations. The best thing you can do is stay mobile as it will smurf with the convergence of projectile weapons.

To a certain point you can also anticipate the shot and twist away. But again, this is why lasers have to be able to do more damage than PPFLD to be competitive. The example I use is the 54-61 alpha laser Timber vs the ER PPC Gauss Timber, there was a while where they competed with each other before the grand PPC nerf. But I have noticed it is much easier to spread Clan laser vomit than it is those pesky IS pulse lasers.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

It's not thin, you are saying there exists a problem within the current meta, how can you make such a claim when you don't even know what the actual meta is or is about?

It is thin because you make the assumption that I am not familiar with the meta.
The flavor of which weapon may change, but the underlying "meta" of group fire>chain fire has been constant throughout the game.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

Then I have to ask, why should it be?

As I said, it removes a balancing tool. Not to mention it really goes against the lore of the BT universe, and IMO that should be avoided whenever possible.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

6 of them have never been OP, even during the heyday of the Ember, small lasers haven't been relevant since the days of closed beta when a mech with only two weapons was the strongest in the game, even against the Lunchback with 9 SL and a giant XL engine.

But if PGI were to buff the small laser into being viable, then 6 of them able to hit one component at one time would be OP.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

Option 2 would be horrendous for any small laser so that is definitely an option, and option 1 seems silly when many of the small weapons are just bad in the first place. The amount they would have to be buffed to be useful in a chain fire forced environment would be crazy, like having 10 small lasers being able to fire all their durations in 1 second (ie a duration of .1 sec).

Or, they could receive a buff in damage, heat generation, recycle time, etc. There are a number of balancing tools at PGI's disposal already.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

Not going to lie, I would much prefer recycle times across the board be slowed down to the level of MW4, (which still gave AC20s double the RoF from TT, but then again it had half the effect, so that's fair imo), but that is a different topic. The RoF modules along with fast fire doesn't help things either.

Agreed.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

It depends. If the target is moving, often times unless the two PPFLD weapons are mounted right on top of each other, because of how the convergence works (you will be converging at a point behind the target if you have to lead the target) often you get impacts on different locations. I see this all the time in the AC5 Black Widow, or at long range sniping with Gauss when they are mounted on opposite arms, or in other situations. The best thing you can do is stay mobile as it will smurf with the convergence of projectile weapons.

IF you have to lead the target, and even then it is likely that you are going to be aiming at a profile, and since the weapons are generally level, it is less likely that the spread will be torso/legs or arms/legs. Most likely, both shots will hit the leg, or arm, or torso, or a arm/torso combination. Of course certain mechs have more unfortunate geometry than others.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

To a certain point you can also anticipate the shot and twist away. But again, this is why lasers have to be able to do more damage than PPFLD to be competitive. The example I use is the 54-61 alpha laser Timber vs the ER PPC Gauss Timber, there was a while where they competed with each other before the grand PPC nerf. But I have noticed it is much easier to spread Clan laser vomit than it is those pesky IS pulse lasers.

If you see the shot coming, yes it is possible. But if you are engaged with enemy#1, then enemy#2 most likely gets the full effect.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

It is thin because you make the assumption that I am not familiar with the meta.
The flavor of which weapon may change, but the underlying "meta" of group fire>chain fire has been constant throughout the game.

Yes, but not every group fire is equal, this is the point that me, Gas, and Yeonne have been trying to get across is that their emphasis falls on either DoT side or burst damage side. Chain fire would just change how you achieve both but it would not change that dynamic which exists

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

As I said, it removes a balancing tool. Not to mention it really goes against the lore of the BT universe, and IMO that should be avoided whenever possible.

It really doesn't remove anything as a balancing tool because the distinction between burst damage oriented weapons and DoT weapons is still there, it is just that it is not necessarily lore friendly, that is it.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

But if PGI were to buff the small laser into being viable, then 6 of them able to hit one component at one time would be OP.

Being viable and OP are two different things though, it being viable does not mean it is necessarily OP unless we are considering all the other things that are viable to be OP. Viability in this game for small weapons is being used in groups after all.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

Or, they could receive a buff in damage, heat generation, recycle time, etc. There are a number of balancing tools at PGI's disposal already.

The most prohibitive of the weapon is duration, if you left the duration intact you would have to make it so that 4 small lasers were somehow competitive because mounting more than that would be pointless if you wanted perfect accuracy. It seems a bit ridiculous to have a half ton weapon start doing insane damage/heat to make it worthwhile in that environment, not to mention even more confusing to new players who don't understand the nuances of the mechlab or the game and how a 14 ton weapon is competitive with a half ton weapon.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 August 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

IF you have to lead the target, and even then it is likely that you are going to be aiming at a profile, and since the weapons are generally level, it is less likely that the spread will be torso/legs or arms/legs. Most likely, both shots will hit the leg, or arm, or torso, or a arm/torso combination. Of course certain mechs have more unfortunate geometry than others.

If you see the shot coming, yes it is possible. But if you are engaged with enemy#1, then enemy#2 most likely gets the full effect.

I'm just saying, it happens quite alot, and when I do happen across someone who is not moving, my mouth waters a little bit

Yeah but then if you are engaged with an enemy and another enemy can see you and shoot you and your team isn't paying attention to suppress him, you are fighting an uphill battle and are taking that risk... That's why the positioning of your team is so important, and enemies at obscure angles are always something to watch out for.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Yes, but not every group fire is equal, this is the point that me, Gas, and Yeonne have been trying to get across is that their emphasis falls on either DoT side or burst damage side. Chain fire would just change how you achieve both but it would not change that dynamic which exists

At this point I am getting the feeling that you are really talking about the difference between small weapons and large weapons, or at least between 'good' weapons and 'bad' weapons. If so, hopefully I address that below.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

It really doesn't remove anything as a balancing tool because the distinction between burst damage oriented weapons and DoT weapons is still there, it is just that it is not necessarily lore friendly, that is it.

Of course the distinction is still there, as it should be. But I disagree that it cannot or should not be used as yet another balancing tool.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Being viable and OP are two different things though, it being viable does not mean it is necessarily OP unless we are considering all the other things that are viable to be OP. Viability in this game for small weapons is being used in groups after all.

Yes, they are different things, but they cannot be divorced from each other, especially the lighter a weapon is, as they are easier to boat. To put it this way: I would like to see smaller weapons be made viable, stand alone, weapons, but since boating will always be a thing, like you said, give group fire a drawback, so those weapons once made singularly viable, are not imbalanced in groups.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

The most prohibitive of the weapon is duration, if you left the duration intact you would have to make it so that 4 small lasers were somehow competitive because mounting more than that would be pointless if you wanted perfect accuracy. It seems a bit ridiculous to have a half ton weapon start doing insane damage/heat to make it worthwhile in that environment, not to mention even more confusing to new players who don't understand the nuances of the mechlab or the game and how a 14 ton weapon is competitive with a half ton weapon.

Okay. But it could be done.
Off the top of my head, make weapon tonnage a factor in determining the size of the bloom.
Or, make the bloom dependent on the max range of the weapon, so that short range weapons have less spread up close, but long range weapons have less spread at range. These are not well though out, just spitballing.

Imagine a bull's eye type target.
The tiny dot at the center like we have now is for chain fired weapons.
The next ring out would be for 2 weapons at max range
The next for 3...
...and so on.
Then factor in distance to target.
Short range for the weapon - subtract 2 rings
Medium range - subtract 1 ring
Long range - no change.

...and that is just off the top of my head! Imagine what the brain trust at PGI could do!


...oh, wait.

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

I'm just saying, it happens quite alot, and when I do happen across someone who is not moving, my mouth waters a little bit

Mine too. Especially if they are shut down. Yes, I am the 12x multiplier vote for Terra Therma guy! Don't hate the plater, hate the game

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Yeah but then if you are engaged with an enemy and another enemy can see you and shoot you and your team isn't paying attention to suppress him, you are fighting an uphill battle and are taking that risk... That's why the positioning of your team is so important, and enemies at obscure angles are always something to watch out for.

Absolutely. But if we are going to be really honest, at that point someone screwed up, whether it is the pilot, his lance mates, the scout(s), or the drop commander. And at THAT point, does group fire/chain fire viability really make a difference?

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Absolutely. But if we are going to be really honest, at that point someone screwed up, whether it is the pilot, his lance mates, the scout(s), or the drop commander. And at THAT point, does group fire/chain fire viability really make a difference?

Chain fire would probably be more forgiving. The problem with chain fire, is that it makes heaps of mechs not interesting. There's a reason it hasn't been part of MechWarrior... it just wouldn't make for a fun game. That BattleTech game though.. that's where that stuff will be at.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Yes, they are different things, but they cannot be divorced from each other, especially the lighter a weapon is, as they are easier to boat.

I do want to point out that while they are easier to boat, there is diminishing returns with them, because most lighter weapons tend to be energy based and eventually you start stacking more heat than you can viably handle. This is partially why you don't see many small laser weapon brawlers be a thing because they can't keep the DPS up in an actual brawl like SRMs making them a very niche build despite their individual. There are trade-offs inherent already for small arms boats.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Imagine a bull's eye type target.
The tiny dot at the center like we have now is for chain fired weapons.
The next ring out would be for 2 weapons at max range
The next for 3...
...and so on.
Then factor in distance to target.
Short range for the weapon - subtract 2 rings
Medium range - subtract 1 ring
Long range - no change.

...and that is just off the top of my head! Imagine what the brain trust at PGI could do!

I know this was just spitballing, but the problem with things like this is that AC2s still get the shaft for being a long range small arm. If weapons were more powerful by themselves, then I would be a little bit more understanding of penalizing group fire on a more graded scale (so 2 AC2s dont equal 2 Gauss in spread) but it would require basically a redesign of a lot of things and it just isn't going to happen.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

I do want to point out that while they are easier to boat, there is diminishing returns with them, because most lighter weapons tend to be energy based and eventually you start stacking more heat than you can viably handle. This is partially why you don't see many small laser weapon brawlers be a thing because they can't keep the DPS up in an actual brawl like SRMs making them a very niche build despite their individual. There are trade-offs inherent already for small arms boats.


I know this was just spitballing, but the problem with things like this is that AC2s still get the shaft for being a long range small arm. If weapons were more powerful by themselves, then I would be a little bit more understanding of penalizing group fire on a more graded scale (so 2 AC2s dont equal 2 Gauss in spread) but it would require basically a redesign of a lot of things and it just isn't going to happen.

Let me clarify:
"Short range" for an AC/2 is much further out than "short range" for an AC/20, so at most distances, the AC/2 gets a tighter grouping.
Why not also add a modifier on weapon damage to spread? Smaller damage weapons get tighter spread/ larger damage weapons get higher spread.
Or, base it on weapon weight. Lighter weapons have tighter grouping/ heavier weapons get wider grouping. (would also approximate recoil, which MW:O doesn't have)
Or mix and match as needed for balance.

Edit: This could be used for "minimum range" as well. A weapon fired within minimum range uses the outermost ring. Accuracy is sacrificed, but it would allow for the elimination of the Gauss charge-up mechanic and the 0 damage ISLRMs.

Edited by Hotthedd, 11 August 2016 - 10:20 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

Let me clarify:
"Short range" for an AC/2 is much further out than "short range" for an AC/20, so at most distances, the AC/2 gets a tighter grouping.

Compare it against an AC5, ERPPC, or Gauss though and again it still gets the shaft.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

Why not also add a modifier on weapon damage to spread? Smaller damage weapons get tighter spread/ larger damage weapons get higher spread.
Or, base it on weapon weight. Lighter weapons have tighter grouping/ heavier weapons get wider grouping.

Weight is a bad metric to base it off of, it would have to be based somewhat on damage, but it would also have to take into consideration things like lasers, AC bursts, weapons which already have spread, etc, etc.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

Compare it against an AC5, ERPPC, or Gauss though and again it still gets the shaft.

Against the AC/5, it's "short" range is 180m further, it's "medium" is 390m further, and it's has 540m more overall range, according to TT values. (MW:O can of course adjust ranges.)
Heat would remain the biggest balancing factor against the ERPPC, and honestly there is no reason other than weight for an AC/2 to compete with the Gauss Rifle.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

Weight is a bad metric to base it off of, it would have to be based somewhat on damage, but it would also have to take into consideration things like lasers, AC bursts, weapons which already have spread, etc, etc.

Personally, I would be in the camp that believes the more balance variables the better, but okay.
Sure, why not? Taking everything into account and balancing accordingly can't be a bad idea.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Against the AC/5, it's "short" range is 180m further, it's "medium" is 390m further, and it's has 540m more overall range, according to TT values. (MW:O can of course adjust ranges.)
Heat would remain the biggest balancing factor against the ERPPC, and honestly there is no reason other than weight for an AC/2 to compete with the Gauss Rifle.

You are much more likely to see an ERPPC be chainfired than you are an AC2 or UAC2 despite the heat especially if you are saying you can only fire one at a time to be accurate, and accuracy matters a lot more with long range than it does short range.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Taking everything into account and balancing accordingly is absolutely necessary for this to even be a good suggestion.

I fixed something for you. To make up for the lack of PPFLD behavior that Gauss and PPCs enjoy, a weapon has to be able to make up for it with damage in some way, whether it means it gets to be more accurate, cooler overall, shoot faster, have better burst potential, etc; it has to make up for that deficit in someway otherwise it will fall short, so factors like AC bursts, laser durations, LBX spread HAVE to be taken into account when creating some system meant to balance group firing otherwise one group WILL be penalized more than the other and may result in either overly niche weapons or weapons that are absolutely worthless in some situations and absolutely ridiculous in others (Rocket Launchers in a certain MW4 mod were this way).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 August 2016 - 12:30 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I still think my last question has more bearing on this

[Mister Blastman]

I can't wait for energy draw. I'm excited!

(and I'm being serious)

Edited by Mister Blastman, 11 August 2016 - 03:44 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

You're just excited to watch the chaos and anarchy that follows. Admit it. They don't have energy draw on that island of yours.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

You're just excited to watch the chaos and anarchy that follows. Admit it. They don't have energy draw on that island of yours.

I dunno; I think the island has gotten bigger than the mainland at this point