196 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

....
Also, Hit the Deck, I find it funny that you displayed a Timber Wolf firing all of its long range weapons at once (aka a long range alpha).

Yeah, she looks cool with those missile pods, doesn't she? I want a system where the players want to bring at least two different groups of weapons for two different purposes on heavier 'Mechs like the TBR. Now, if the pilot wants to fire all of those weapons at once, that's up to him/her.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 23 August 2016 - 07:24 AM.

[Davers]

TT and MWO are such different creatures that I don't think you can make a comparison regarding weapon usefulness between the two. TT designs aren't very good here, and many MWO builds would be terrible in TT.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 23 August 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

Yeah, she looks cool with those missile pods, doesn't she? I want a system where the players want to bring at least two different groups of weapons for two different purposes on heavier 'Mechs like the TBR.

They probably would if missiles weren't so unwieldy with any direct fire weapon which is the real problem. In TT you didn't ever have this problem because behavior wasn't really any different, you rolled to-hit, then you rolled for location if you hit (with the added cluster hit roll before this for specific weapons) and that's it.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

Actually there is much more reason for the game to follow the lore than there is for the game to ignore it.

Really? That is your response?

Okay which books should it follow? You have to pick one, or at least pick an author, as they don't all agree with each other in the mechanics of mech combat (because, you know, its artistic fluff to improve a story). So pick one and I will ask you why you arbitrarily chose that one.

Its literally exactly the same as playing a Star Wars game as a Stormtrooper and saying that your aim should be terrible because Stormtroopers couldn't hit a broad side of a barn in the movies.

[Hotthedd]

Davers, on 23 August 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

TT and MWO are such different creatures that I don't think you can make a comparison regarding weapon usefulness between the two. TT designs aren't very good here, and many MWO builds would be terrible in TT.

This has been repeated so often as to be accepted as a truism in MW:O.
Like most truisms, however, it isn't necessarily true.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

I think you missed my point, I was talking about the TT medium not how to translate the RNG into MWO. RNG aiming is needed to make TT work because it simplifies aiming, that was the point in my question. If you were making TT rules and you couldn't use probability aiming, how would you do it in such a way that it makes sense?

The only way to do it would be to have total armor/structure, and no components.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

Really? That is your response?

Okay which books should it follow? You have to pick one, or at least pick an author, as they don't all agree with each other in the mechanics of mech combat (because, you know, its artistic fluff to improve a story). So pick one and I will ask you why you arbitrarily chose that one.

Its literally exactly the same as playing a Star Wars game as a Stormtrooper and saying that your aim should be terrible because Stormtroopers couldn't hit a broad side of a barn in the movies.

Okay. The T.R.O.s.

IIRC, Obi-Wan tells Luke that the Jawa carrier must have been destroyed by Stormtroopers (not Sandpeople) because the shots were too precise. It is the blaster itself that is inaccurate, not the Stormtrooper.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 23 August 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

Okay. The T.R.O.s.

IIRC, Obi-Wan tells Luke that the Jawa carrier must have been destroyed by Stormtroopers (not Sandpeople) because the shots were too precise. It is the blaster itself that is inaccurate, not the Stormtrooper.

Do the T.R.O.s describe group fire accuracy anywhere? Are they consistent?

How does that even make sense?

So the shots were so precise, but the blaster is inaccurate??? If they are so precise why can they never hit ANYBODY in the rest of the series? God man, you will twist anything to not admit you are wrong.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 23 August 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

The only way to do it would be to have total armor/structure, and no components.

Which is my point, the TT medium does not really offer precise shots because it would complicate how you would play it, that is not the same situation as this game.

[Davers]

Hotthedd, on 23 August 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

This has been repeated so often as to be accepted as a truism in MW:O.
Like most truisms, however, it isn't necessarily true.

It is so often repeated because it IS TRUE. It is the very definition of a truism.


tru·ism
ˈtro͞oˌizəm
noun
a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.

MWO is a totally different game than TT. They share some artwork, that's about it. If you played TT with MWO assumptions, you would be in for a huge surprise and vise versa.

[Steve Pryde]

Get rid of ghost heat and energy draw and make a proper heat scale with penaltys like in the table top. Hud flickering (for worse aiming), slowed down mechs (assaults could get so much penaltys that they even couldn't move) and the possibility for ammo explosions and at the end, finally you shutdown your mech for seconds.

It's that easy, really!

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

Which is my point, the TT medium does not really offer precise shots because it would complicate how you would play it, that is not the same situation as this game.

Except for the fact that it most definitely is the situation in this game. MW:O has the BT component system, and with the exception of spread damage weapons, it has extremely precise shots no matter how many weapons are fired at once.

Davers, on 23 August 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

It is so often repeated because it IS TRUE. It is the very definition of a truism.


tru·ism
ˈtro͞oˌizəm
noun
a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.

MWO is a totally different game than TT. They share some artwork, that's about it. If you played TT with MWO assumptions, you would be in for a huge surprise and vise versa.

I misspoke, my mistake. I meant that in the term "old wives' tale" or "conventional wisdom". Since nobody has ever honestly attempted the translation, we cannot say it is impossible. I am confident that it is not impossible to come very close. Why not at least give it a shot?

At one time saying the Sun revolved around the Earth was a truism...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 23 August 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

Except for the fact that it most definitely is the situation in this game. MW:O has the BT component system

Having the component system doesn't mean that it needs to be random aim because the idea of aiming to hit specific components is a built-in mechanic of FPS games, not TT.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 August 2016 - 10:55 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Having the component system doesn't mean that it needs to be random aim because the idea of aiming to hit specific components is a built-in mechanic of FPS games, not TT.

Where did I ever say "random"?
And you could aim for a specific component in TT, one weapon at a time, and with to-hit penalties.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 23 August 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

Where did I ever say "random"?

Fine, probabilistic aim.

Hotthedd, on 23 August 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

And you could aim for a specific component in TT, one weapon at a time, and with to-hit penalties.

FTFY, again it is an abstraction.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 August 2016 - 11:24 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 August 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

FTFY, again it is an abstraction.

Not in that case, as it is the actual mechanic that is used, and is specific to only one shot.

[Deathlike]

While I really don't want to follow this lore discussion.. I want to get back to some people's reference to "sized hardpoints" discussion.

I feel like I keep repeating myself when it comes to that discussion and its arguments.

There will ALWAYS be some mechs that will literally be better at this than others. Bad mechs will still stay bad though... and the already good mechs literally don't suffer from this issue.

Take the Hunchback IIC for instance. Stock-wise, it runs 2 CUAC20s. By nature of that system, you can run 2 CGauss on it. Wow. Find the IS alternative that can do that (not that it exists currently).

I already saw the Catapult-K2's tiny ballistic hardpoint reference (used for MGs). What's the point when you have better options/alternatives available? I mean, in the current game, 2 MGs are virtually meaningless. Besides inflating the ballistics hardpoints here, there are literally better energy builds that would do just as well as a K2, if not better. If anything, sized hardpoints would certainly hurt build diversity... let alone build potential for already mediocre mechs. Clan Mechs (generally Omnimechs) have the ability to do what the meta needs/evolves and sized hardpoints generally wouldn't hurt them (see Dire Wolf, not that it is as popular these days).

I'm not saying I couldn't handle sized hardpoints (mechlabbing is everything), but inevitably you're only going to amplify problems with problematic/bad/mediocre mechs than the good ones. It doesn't help ultimately and doesn't solve what it aims to solve.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 23 August 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

If anything, sized hardpoints would certainly hurt build diversity

That's the point, the goal of sized hardpoints should be to force flavor on mechs so that if you wanted to take PPCs on an assault, you couldn't just mount them on a Stalker instead of an Awesome. While it always sucks to lose customization, part of this game's problem is that mechs are really homogeneous, they aren't different enough in some cases or in some cases, do builds better than mechs that were supposedly designed around that same build.

That is, build diversity on a per variant basis, not meta diversity.

Anyone who thinks sized hardpoints fixes boating or gives us some great sense of balance or something is delusional, it is for flavor, end of story.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 August 2016 - 11:45 AM.

[SirNotlag]

In direct response to HOTTHEDD I'm a whale that has spent quite a lot on this game and i never even heard of the battletech universe before. I played and paid because I considered the game to be fun on its own merits not because It had Madcats in it. I actually enjoyed the game so much i went looking at the lore and original battletech table top to see how it works. The thing is TT is a multi unit turn based strategy game where as this is a single unit real time FPS game, the rules and fundamentals are completely different and do not work in the context of the other.

Take clans for an example: in TT they had far superior equipment from the IS but their stuff was so much more expensive that IS outnumbered them 2 to 1 and the clans also followed completely different rules of engagement giving them further disadvantages on the field. When Clans first showed up in MWO they sure had the upper hand their machines where superior in every way. Because of that every one played clan mechs so youd see 3 clan mechs for every one in the pug ques and in FP the clans outnumbered the IS 2 to 1 because no one wanted to be on the weaker side loyalty and lore be damned.

The point is both games work differently because they have to, they just don't work like the other and you cant shoe horn in systems that you feel would emulate "the real Mech experience" at the cost of turning away new players cause then you'd just kill the game, and young people like me and my friends would not be getting into battletech.

[Hotthedd]

SirNotlag, on 23 August 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

In direct response to HOTTHEDD I'm a whale that has spent quite a lot on this game and i never even heard of the battletech universe before. I played and paid because I considered the game to be fun on its own merits not because It had Madcats in it. I actually enjoyed the game so much i went looking at the lore and original battletech table top to see how it works.

That is wonderful. i am happy for you.

SirNotlag, on 23 August 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

The thing is TT is a multi unit turn based strategy game where as this is a single unit real time FPS game, the rules and fundamentals are completely different and do not work in the context of the other.

Nobody is saying to turn this into a multi-unit turn based game. HBS is doing that. However, both games simulate 'mech based combat. TT also had a "mechlab" and MechWarrior has followed those rules (mostly) as well.

SirNotlag, on 23 August 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Take clans for an example: in TT they had far superior equipment from the IS but their stuff was so much more expensive that IS outnumbered them 2 to 1 and the clans also followed completely different rules of engagement giving them further disadvantages on the field. When Clans first showed up in MWO they sure had the upper hand their machines where superior in every way. Because of that every one played clan mechs so youd see 3 clan mechs for every one in the pug ques and in FP the clans outnumbered the IS 2 to 1 because no one wanted to be on the weaker side loyalty and lore be damned.

MW:O could have made assymetric battles. At the time, we still believed that QP was a placeholder, and FP could have assymetric battles. (Of course we now know that QP was to be the main mode all along, and FP was put on the shelf to focus on 'Transverse') Zellbrigen would have been harder to enforce, and I could see PGI granting some leeway in that regard. Unfortunately, they never even tried.

SirNotlag, on 23 August 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

The point is both games work differently because they have to, they just don't work like the other and you cant shoe horn in systems that you feel would emulate "the real Mech experience" at the cost of turning away new players cause then you'd just kill the game, and young people like me and my friends would not be getting into battletech.

I disagree. I believe most of the systems from TT would work if done properly, and MW:O could successfully simulate TT's simulation.
I have to ask, though: What exactly about not having instant precise pinpoint Alpha/group fire would have caused you to never play the game?

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 21 August 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

Some people argue that boating is inevitable, simply because it allows you to use all your offense optimally at the same time. Simply put, you won't get stuck at a given range with half your weapons either useless or inefficient at that range.

I'll go a step further, I don't think it's a problem - I think it's logial.

I think turning every mech into a swiss army knife is no different than trying to turn every mech into a boat.

Alistair Winter, on 21 August 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

What if all energy weapons were several times hotter than they are right now? You could put multiple PPCs on a Black Knight, but you'd never be able to use them efficiently. You could put 9 different lasers on it, but you'd never be able to fire them all over time, or even do a single alpha strike. And if all energy weapons were extremely hot, the best solution would perhaps not be to only bring 1 PPC and 30 heatsinks and just alphastrike all the time like a RVN-3L. But perhaps the best solution would be to bring a PPC, some medium lasers and some small lasers, because bringing too few weapons means you have unused tonnage and boating means you'd never be able to use all your weapons at any given range.

This doesn't make much sense.

If all energy weapons are so hot, you would just ensure the death of energy mechs.

Having a bunch of different, really hot, energy weapons is clearly inferior to mixing low heat, higher DPS, ballistics with hotter, tonnage efficient, energy weapons.

In fact, we've had those builds show up many times - people complain about them anyway because they complain about anything that hurts them.

Alistair Winter, on 21 August 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

So you bring 2-4 different types of weapons for different ranges. Long range? Use your PPC. Mid range? Medium lasers. Short range? Maybe a combination of medium lasers and small lasers.

The difference between Small Lasers and Medium Lasers lasers is a measly 135m.

You can basically fart on each other, you don't need TWO DIFFERENT weapon systems to fight at those two different ranges.


You are trying to force a thing that makes no sense.

Alistair Winter, on 21 August 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

What if all ballistics had a cooldown of 5-15 seconds? Their DPS would be really low, so they would be at a disadvantage in many situations.

Then they would be awful, because they have a LOW alpha potential for their tonnage - people use them specifically for their DPS.

Alistair Winter, on 21 August 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

But if energy weapons were super hot relative to ballistics, then you might want to combine some 1 ton medium lasers with those AC5's to increase your DPS.

Are we playing the same game?

This is what (U)AC5+PPC, Gauss+PPC, Gauss+Laser builds do - except its

ENERGY: High Heat, High Alpha, Low DPS, Low Tonnage cost, Low Crit slot
BALLISTIC: Low Heat, Low Alpha, High DPS, High tonnage cost, Low Crit slot

Alistair Winter, on 21 August 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

Radically increasing cooldown (A turn in TT was 10 seconds, right?)
Bringing armour values back to normal instead of double
Radically increasing heat values for most weapons except ballistics

Results = Hide more, shoot less, die easier.

Alistair Winter, on 21 August 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

A gauss rifle should not have anywhere near as short cooldown as an AC20, by this logic.

A Gauss rifle right now, has about 44% longer effective cooldown than an AC20 (5.75s vs. 4s. It is nowhere near as short as an AC20.

AC 20 DPS = 4
GR DPS = 2.61
PTS GR DPS = 2.24 (slowly dwindling down to HALF the DPS)


The future PTS version has an even longer cooldown, nearly 68% longer.


I'm not trying to be rough on you but for someone who has been playing as long as you, and posts as often, you really should know something basic like the CD differences between an AC20 vs Gauss Rifle before you make posts about theories on game balance.

Edited by Ultimax, 23 August 2016 - 12:47 PM.