196 replies to this topic

[Davegt27]

Quote

The Core Design Principles behind Energy Draw

The Energy Draw system has been designed with three fundamental directives:


• Introduce greater risks and penalties for powerful and frequent Alpha Strikes, with minimal impact on existing heat-conscious gameplay styles.
• Improve upon the existing Heat Scale system by providing players with more direct insight into their heat levels, damage potential, and any potential heat penalties.
• Expose this system in the Pilot HUD to provide players with direct oversight of these systems.

so what do you think is PGI
accomplishing its goals?

[Mystere]

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky, on 22 August 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

I will always boat weapons because I am old... And only use a two button mouse. (And if I can limit that to only having to left click, then I am in my happy place).

I am sorry but my fingers dont fly across the keyboard like a piano player... I dont want to shoot weapons with my keyboard... I am not joking here. I want to limit the complexity of where my fingers must go, so my carpel tunnel doesnt flair up.

Have you considered buying a Logitech G13 or similar devices? It helps a lot.

Edited by Mystere, 22 August 2016 - 08:14 AM.

[GotShotALot]

You might want to keep in mind that the 'least adjustable' game variable is the player.

Having a game mechanic that favors/rewards 'diverse, multi-ranged' builds is similar to saying 'we plan to benefit people with 4+ button gaming mice, enhanced keyboards, etc.'

Various other mechanics could easily disadvantage different segments of the player base. If you want to change the base mechanics, keep in mind that it should be accessible to the wider majority of players.

Not everyone is the kind of player who can easily track 3-4 different firing ranges/shot speeds/targeting mechanisms and have instantly accessible controls/keys/buttons to do so.

I suspect a key reason for boating and/or 2-weapon builds is simplicity for the player. It certainly is for me. (Beyond the efficiency/effectiveness of the game mechanics I mean)

Convergence/PPFLD/component aiming has always been the killer difference between TT systems that were designed around these not being generally possible, and MWO where they are a primary feature.

As you say, base game mechanics aren't really something we can expect to change anymore so it's all thought experiment.

If I was going to change something 'drastically' it would either be the sized/limited hardpoint idea, or possibly something as simple as saying weapons cannot be simultaneously fired. If everything was on chain-fire with a min .25-.5 second pause between weapons, it would certainly change convergence, PPFLD, boating anything beyond the 'cycle time' number of weapons etc.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

The assumption you are making is that all mechs would have to make multiple clicks, as I was under the impression this was about instant convergence (which means mechs with clustered hardpoints get much better)? If that is the case, then I wouldn't have to make multiple clicks if I just pick the right mech (like a Hellbringer, or a Hunchback for example).

No, the assumption you are making is that clustered hardpoint weapons would not be subject to the same spread as any other group of weapons. Even if clustered hardpoints gave a tighter grouping, that grouping would not necessarily all hit a single component at any appreciable range.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

Initially sure, it lost a lot of the founder crowd due to this, but I don't think the TT purist whales are as important, especially since the game has failed to copy the right things from other games (*cough*minimap*cough*). The reason TT purists shouldn't be considered as important is because they simply would prefer the game in such a way that would not attract new users, and for a PvP game, playerbase size and growth are essential.

Again, we disagree.
Why do you assume that the very things that created such a hardcore following in the past cannot attract new players?
I would counter that it is much harder to attract and retain new players if MW:O were nothing more than your average PvP, FP shooter, but with 'mech skins. The competition from (frankly, better) PvP, FPS games is too great.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

No, the assumption you are making is that clustered hardpoint weapons would not be subject to the same spread as any other group of weapons.

That assumption is based on convergence not CoF or some other spread mechanic, which are two separate concepts. Both together would be pretty terrible.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

Even if clustered hardpoints gave a tighter grouping, that grouping would not necessarily all hit a single component at any appreciable range.

That still doesn't increase skill though, I'm still going to fire them all at the same time, I just have a shallower selection of mechs that I will use to do that.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

Why do you assume that the very things that created such a hardcore following in the past cannot attract new players?

Because what the "hardcore" players want and what most people consider fun are two separate things and not always mutual.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

I would counter that it is much harder to attract and retain new players if MW:O were nothing more than your average PvP, FP shooter, but with 'mech skins. The competition from (frankly, better) PvP, FPS games is too great.

I would agree, there is nothing wrong with being a niche game, but there is such a thing as being too niche.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 August 2016 - 08:44 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

That assumption is based on convergence not CoF or some other spread mechanic, which are two separate concepts. Both together would be pretty terrible.

The only thing that has been discussed is "some form of spread mechanic". Whether that be CoF, set convergence, no convergence, reticle bloom, crosshair sway, (or some combination) etc., is irrelevant. Hence your assumption.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

That still doesn't increase skill though, I'm still going to fire them all at the same time, I just have a shallower selection of mechs that I will use to do that.

No. The thing that increases the necessary skill to land multiple shots on one component is the need to fire weapons separately for pinpoint accuracy.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

Because what the "hardcore" players want and what most people consider fun are two separate things and not always mutual.

And who, exactly is the arbiter of what most people think is fun, or what most people want? There are millions of gamers, and I would argue that very few of them only play one game.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

I would agree, there is nothing wrong with being a niche game, but there is such a thing as being too niche.

You assume that making MW:O distinct means making it "niche", and that somehow, a mechanic that has drawbacks that would make group fire/Alpha striking a choice, instead of the only effective way to play the game would make MW:O "Too niche", without any explanation as to why.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

No. The thing that increases the necessary skill to land multiple shots on one component is the need to fire weapons separately for pinpoint accuracy.

I worded things funny, so let me put it this way, the skill level need to play this game at the top would be unchanged for the most part because the best mechs already use clustered hard points, meaning that as far as convergence is concerned (CoF would suffer a similar problem, albeit less than convergence) very little would change, you would just have to learn the convergence points which would make switching between mechs a bit more difficult if you don't remember the points, but the combat would be unchanged which is why convergence is always a terrible option for a spread mechanic, because it doesn't really change the game, only hurts already poor performing mechs.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

And who, exactly is the arbiter of what most people think is fun, or what most people want? There are millions of gamers, and I would argue that very few of them only play one game.

I don't have to be an arbiter to realize that sims draw less players than typical games especially ones only with PvP.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 09:04 AM, said:

a mechanic that has drawbacks that would make group fire/Alpha striking a choice, instead of the only effective way to play the game would make MW:O "Too niche", without any explanation as to why.

You aren't trying to make it a choice, nerfing alphas to the point where they are only useful as "last ditch efforts" is effectively removing them from the game. Not to mention the effect it has on weapon balance (nerfing small arms and long range more than anything) and viable strategies. Chainfire and Group Fire/Alpha will never coexist simultaneously because they are at odds with each other.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

I worded things funny, so let me put it this way, the skill level need to play this game at the top would be unchanged for the most part because the best mechs already use clustered hard points, meaning that as far as convergence is concerned (CoF would suffer a similar problem, albeit less than convergence) very little would change, you would just have to learn the convergence points which would make switching between mechs a bit more difficult if you don't remember the points, but the combat would be unchanged which is why convergence is always a terrible option for a spread mechanic, because it doesn't really change the game, only hurts already poor performing mechs.

Well, then have reticle bloom that gets bigger as more weapons are simultaneously fired.
Clustered hardpoints would not have an inherent advantage then (which is a good thing for 'mech viability)

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

I don't have to be an arbiter to realize that sims draw less players than typical games especially ones only with PvP.

How many players do you really think MW:O is going to attract and keep by being a little fish in the biggest ocean of them all?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

You aren't trying to make it a choice, nerfing alphas to the point where they are only useful as "last ditch efforts" is effectively removing them from the game. Not to mention the effect it has on weapon balance (nerfing small arms and long range more than anything) and viable strategies. Chainfire and Group Fire/Alpha will never coexist simultaneously because they are at odds with each other.

I did not say "last ditch effort". I said "choice", as in: raw damage vs. pinpoint precision. As long as raw damage and pinpoint precision is an option (as Alpha/group fire currently is), then it will be the only viable choice, thereby effectively removing chain fire from the game.
Small arms are not meant for combining into mega-weapons able to punch holes in fresh 'mechs, as is the case currently.
The value of long-range weapons is their range...
If both styles of play have distinct advantages and drawbacks, they can co-exist. However, if we had to choose one over the other, I would choose the one that requires more skill.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

Well, then have reticle bloom that gets bigger as more weapons are simultaneously fired.
Clustered hardpoints would not have an inherent advantage then (which is a good thing for 'mech viability)

No, while it certainly wouldn't be to the degree that convergence measures would introduce, clustered hardpoints have an inherent advantage even with weapons that spread, if you want proof of that, look at the mechs that make the best SRM boats, they all have clustered hardpoints.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

Small arms are not meant for combining into mega-weapons able to punch holes in fresh 'mechs, as is the case currently.
The value of long-range weapons is their range...

What small arms boat is just destroying all the mechs to the degree that it needs to be nerfed exactly? Also, if range is the only selling point of long range weapons, why is the AC2 still so bad?

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

How many players do you really think MW:O is going to attract and keep by being a little fish in the biggest ocean of them all?

I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to as the "biggest ocean of them all", but either way I will say this. This game is branded as the thinking man's game, now what is supposed to make that way is up to interpretation, but I like the slower pacing and larger emphasis on positioning this game has. I don't think gameplay is what drives people away from this game so I don't really feel like it needs to change (other than ghost heat). The core of it is solid, it is both the business model and management of this game that has hindered it (including the power creeping and somewhat the slow pace of balance updates). I don't think this game needs to be a sim to fix everything or attract new players because that isn't the problem.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

However, if we had to choose one over the other, I would choose the one that requires more skill.

You mean the one that makes the tactical decision making more shallow?

[Gas Guzzler]

My intentionally vague advice to a forum colleague of mine in this thread is:

Don't try to argue with a brick wall, it will always come up with some obscure reason why your point isn't valid even if it is perfectly valid.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

No, while it certainly wouldn't be to the degree that convergence measures would introduce, clustered hardpoints have an inherent advantage even with weapons that spread, if you want proof of that, look at the mechs that make the best SRM boats, they all have clustered hardpoints.

Let's say for the sake of argument that clustered hardpoints would give an advantage to Alpha/group fire. (Although, if done correctly, it would not have to be the case) Would it be as much of an advantage as it already is?
What exactly would be lost?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

What small arms boat is just destroying all the mechs to the degree that it needs to be nerfed exactly? Also, if range is the only selling point of long range weapons, why is the AC2 still so bad?

You see not being able to combine multiple weapons into one as a nerf. I do not. As a matter of fact, by stripping the ability to effectively combine weapons, PGI could actually buff small weapons as to be useful on their own. (Although by "useful" I do not mean being able to destroy a component with one click)
The AC/2 unfortunately, does not enjoy the same range benefits as in MW:O as it does in TT because ranges in MW:O have been borked, and PGI has not seen fit to use any of the many other balancing factors at its disposal on the weapon.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to as the "biggest ocean of them all",

I mean first person shooters

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

...but either way I will say this. This game is branded as the thinking man's game, now what is supposed to make that way is up to interpretation, but I like the slower pacing and larger emphasis on positioning this game has. I don't think gameplay is what drives people away from this game so I don't really feel like it needs to change (other than ghost heat). The core of it is solid, it is both the business model and management of this game that has hindered it (including the power creeping and somewhat the slow pace of balance updates). I don't think this game needs to be a sim to fix everything or attract new players because that isn't the problem.

I cannot agree more on the bolded part.
I fail to see how making chain fire a viable strategy at all takes away from the value of positioning. Are you trying to say that positioning and communication are only important because the enemy can Alpha strike? If so, I cannot agree.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

You mean the one that makes the tactical decision making more shallow?

Except that it doesn't make tactical decisions any more shallow. You are arguing a Red Herring. The team with superior tactics and better decision making will still win either way.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

Let's say for the sake of argument that clustered hardpoints would give an advantage to Alpha/group fire. (Although, if done correctly, it would not have to be the case) Would it be as much of an advantage as it already is?

The point in this case isn't the disparity between chain fire and group fire, it is how it exacerbates problems with mech balance because of bad hardpoint locations being made worse by the inability to place shots closer together.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

You see not being able to combine multiple weapons into one as a nerf. I do not. As a matter of fact, by stripping the ability to effectively combine weapons, PGI could actually buff small weapons as to be useful on their own. (Although by "useful" I do not mean being able to destroy a component with one click)

The level of a buff the small laser would need to account for the inability to be boated would be HUGE, as it is currently terrible even if you had around 8 of them. So my question is why is a bunch of small weapons combining to be used as one is such a problem? Keeping in mind this only prevents alphaing similar weapons. You would still mount similar weapons regardless of the system because it makes things simple and easier, you are just shifting the focus to big guns that do massive damage at once which have already been a major part of almost all metas throughout MWO and currently are one of the more dominate weapons.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

The AC/2 unfortunately, does not enjoy the same range benefits as in MW:O as it does in TT because ranges in MW:O have been borked, and PGI has not seen fit to use any of the many other balancing factors at its disposal on the weapon.

Even if it had its TT range it would be a pointless weapon without the ability to group fire. Group fire makes it somewhat redeemable.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

I fail to see how making chain fire a viable strategy at all takes away from the value of positioning. Are you trying to say that positioning and communication are only important because the enemy can Alpha strike? If so, I cannot agree.

Precision is more required at long range than it is at short range, because the penalty of lost precision is not as pronounced at short range as it is at long range. The reason an alpha strike is important to long range because the ability to make precise shots, not just accurate shots, is what allows long range to defend a strong position. If you take away the ability to make precise shots, pushes will become more common than they are currently (prior to the tournament, it was dakka or brawl pushes for days in MRBC).

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

Except that it doesn't make tactical decisions any more shallow.

It does, in the range vs push situation, range is hampered by not be able to put down a mech as fast, and dropping a mech early in the push is essential for that dymanic. This means the common tactic will be to push each other because no map allows a team to draw out the match long enough to whittle a pushing team in that manor and then allow whoever has the best aim to win essentially. This is what happens when you shift the focus too far towards dps and not alphas.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

The point in this case isn't the disparity between chain fire and group fire, it is how it exacerbates problems with mech balance because of bad hardpoint locations being made worse by the inability to place shots closer together.

With chain fire, shots would land as perfectly precise as now, but with reticle bloom on group fire, the pilot will be able to choose how close they want the shots to land together, regardless of hardpoint clusters.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

The level of a buff the small laser would need to account for the inability to be boated would be HUGE, as it is currently terrible even if you had around 8 of them. So my question is why is a bunch of small weapons combining to be used as one is such a problem? Keeping in mind this only prevents alphaing similar weapons. You would still mount similar weapons regardless of the system because it makes things simple and easier, you are just shifting the focus to big guns that do massive damage at once which have already been a major part of almost all metas throughout MWO and currently are one of the more dominate weapons.

For 1/2 ton, the small laser does not have to punch through fresh armor to be effective. Sure, someone can still boat weapons, some 'mechs are designed to be boats. We have different definitions of "effective".

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Even if it had its TT range it would be a pointless weapon without the ability to group fire. Group fire makes it somewhat redeemable.

Only if you believe that a 2 damage weapon has to be able to punch a hole in armor to be "effective".

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Precision is more required at long range than it is at short range, because the penalty of lost precision is not as pronounced at short range as it is at long range. The reason an alpha strike is important to long range because the ability to make precise shots, not just accurate shots, is what allows long range to defend a strong position. If you take away the ability to make precise shots, pushes will become more common than they are currently (prior to the tournament, it was dakka or brawl pushes for days in MRBC).

You mean to be "effective" at long range, one must be able to kill or partially destroy an enemy 'mech with one or two clicks before it can close the gap? That certainly does not sound like it takes a master tactician, just long range.
The amount of damage the long range 'mech could deal out before being in the brawler's range would be the same, it just wouldn't be all in one spot.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

It does, in the range vs push situation, range is hampered by not be able to put down a mech as fast, and dropping a mech early in the push is essential for that dymanic. This means the common tactic will be to push each other because no map allows a team to draw out the match long enough to whittle a pushing team in that manor and then allow whoever has the best aim to win essentially. This is what happens when you shift the focus too far towards dps and not alphas.

We already have a slew of maps that favor long range. As I said, the sniper would still be able to deal the same amount of damage, it would just be spread out. The long range 'mech CAN reposition if the brawlers get too close, btw.
It sounds as if you want snipers to be able to reliably take down any opposing 'mech before it is able to get into range. with that scenario, who would ever subject themselves to playing a brawler?

[topgun505]

As long as you have a mechlab that is pretty loose with its allowable changes, you will get boating. Heck, even with strict restrictions you will get boating. You want to get rid of boating to a large extent? You need to run stock. Even then there are some stock mechs that are boating platforms.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

For 1/2 ton, the small laser does not have to punch through fresh armor to be effective. Sure, someone can still boat weapons, some 'mechs are designed to be boats. We have different definitions of "effective".

Then it has to be able to output significant raw damage, and it can't even do that currently. So again, you would have to seriously buff it for it to be relevant, same goes for any small arm.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

You mean to be "effective" at long range, one a team must be able to kill or partially destroy an enemy 'mech with one or two clicks before it can close the gap?

Fixed that for you, rarely does a mech drop to two alphas from a single mech when players who know what they are doing are playing.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

We already have a slew of maps that favor long range.

Not as many as you seem to think, even maps like Tourmaline that were traditionally favorable to ERLL are all about the dakka push prior to the tournament and the revamping of Frozen (which used to be brawler central, sadly they changed that).

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

As I said, the sniper would still be able to deal the same amount of damage, it would just be spread out. The long range 'mech CAN reposition if the brawlers get too close, btw.

The spread out damage is the point, if you are spreading out your damage you need more raw damage to compensate. If they are spreading out their damage then you aren't removing enough DPS from their side for once the brawl occurs. Sure you can reposition, but if it is harder to finish off a mech because you can't make that nice finishing blow thanks to chain fire, that becomes less effective.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 August 2016 - 12:29 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

GotShotALot, on 22 August 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

You might want to keep in mind that the 'least adjustable' game variable is the player.
Having a game mechanic that favors/rewards 'diverse, multi-ranged' builds is similar to saying 'we plan to benefit people with 4+ button gaming mice, enhanced keyboards, etc.'
Various other mechanics could easily disadvantage different segments of the player base. If you want to change the base mechanics, keep in mind that it should be accessible to the wider majority of players.

I'm not suggesting that my idea would be better for everyone. However, I think it's just false to say "Well, boating and alphastrikes are both inevitable. It's just the nature of any FPS game where you can equip different weapons". A lot of people on the MWO forum have a tendency to look at the status quo and say it's inevitable.
2012: Well, dual gauss is always going to be OP. It's inevitable.
2013: The Raven 3L with Streaks is always going to be OP. It's inevitable.
2014: PPC is always going to be OP due to pinpoint damage.
2015: Laservomit is always going to be OP due to instant hitscan damage.

That's the issue I'm trying to deal with here. Looking at a game with an infinite number of variables and saying that these things can't be changed, because the MWO meta is like a law of nature.

Gas Guzzler, on 22 August 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

My intentionally vague advice to a forum colleague of mine in this thread is:
Don't try to argue with a brick wall, it will always come up with some obscure reason why your point isn't valid even if it is perfectly valid.

You're wrong.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

You don't need to increase cooldowns if you are increasing heat (and yes, you would need to do this on ballistics too) nor would you have to alter DPS. All you are doing is decreasing the number of weapons that can realistically be used at the same time making it much harder to specialize due to seriously diminishing returns while single weapons would be doubly effective compared to what they are now. The big problem would be ballistics because heat doesn't control them as well as it would need to with this (Dakka Mauler would be essentially be doing double the damage and double the heat).

I think cooldowns need to be adjusted in order to deal with ballistics. As long as all weapons have the same effect (i.e. they just do "damage", they're not armour penetrating, incendiary, explosive, etc) you need to assign some attributes that create artificial synergy. Heat is one way, but I don't think it's enough. I think the model needs at least 2 dimensions to create synergy between so many different weapons.

El Bandito, on 22 August 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

Compared to stock weapon of course. One simply should not be able to fit a pair of Gauss Rifles in a machine gun slot in CPLT-K2, for example. AC2 is fine, but Gauss? Nope.

And replacing 4 MGs on the Warhammer with 4 AC5s... <sigh>

Widowmaker1981, on 22 August 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

I think in order for builds like you describe in the OP (LRM+AC+LASER+SRM) to actually be an optimal way to build a mech, it would have to be forced by mechanics to such an extent that there would no longer be any meaningful customisation, which would kill most of what i like about the game.

That's an interesting point, but keep in mind that hardpoints still come into play. For example, the Shadow Hawk doesn't have enough energy hardpoints to combine PPCs, large lasers, medium lasers and small lasers. But the Black Knight does. And indeed, the Black Knight comes stock with all those weapons. So while the Shadow Hawk needs to use all 4 weapon groups to be effective at all ranges, the Black Knight can just equip 4 different kinds of energy weapons.

And I think you'd still have to make a call about which range to prioritize. For example, the CPLT-K2 has 14 tons of long/medium range weapons, and 4 tons of short range weapons. But another mech might have a single large laser for long range, and an AC20 + SRMs for short range.

Widowmaker1981, on 22 August 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

I think you understand it wont happen, but i think you fail to understand that the game you want is NOT what many others want.

No, that's irrelevant to this discussion. I am simply arguing that the status quo is not set in stone. The idea that alphastrikes and boating are inevitable is false. Not everyone would want the alternative, and not everyone likes the status quo either, but that doesn't matter. This is just a thought experiment about the degree to which the developers can change the way people play the game and build mechs.

Widowmaker1981, on 22 August 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

Boating is always going to be the most optimal thing to do, in the absence of mechanisms to prevent it - due to ranges, firing profiles etc. Ghost heat prevents boating because the penalties are stiff, and as such it encourages what people call 'avoidance builds' but i can sensible, synergistic, mixed builds (2xPPC + 2xAC5, etc). But people don't like it, because it is arbitrary. Well, guess what? You cannot prevent boating without arbitrary mechanics.

That's the statement I disagree with, and that's the point of this thread. To argue against your point of view.

PhoenixFire55, on 22 August 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Its been discussed hundreds of times already. The problem is not boating and/or alpha-striking. The problem is...

People have different objections depending on their preference. Some people say TTK is the problem, other people say TTK is fine. Some people want a more complex game, other people don't. So I'm not going to discuss what the REAL problem with MWO is. I'm just here to argue against the idea that boating and alphastrikes are inevitable.

Yosharian, on 22 August 2016 - 04:48 AM, said:

Alistair, stop, just stop.

It's PGI.

It's all good, this is just a thought experiment

Ibrandul Mike, on 22 August 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

Depending on the definition of boating some mechs would not be able to function anymore. The Black Knight for example has only energy hardpoints. Therefore if you define boating as taking weapons of one type (energy for example) it is by definition unable to do anything but boating. There is no chance for diversity. Of course you can just say that boating is taking one specific weapon and only use that. But that would not change so much. ER Medium Laser and Large Pulse Laser would still be a viable combination. As would be PPCs and ER Large Lasers for example. Taking only the big groups (Lasers; Autocannons; Missiles, even if split in long range and short range) wouldn't help either.

I wouldn't count the Black Knight as a boat. It has PPCs (medium / long range, pinpoint damage), large lasers (medium / long range, hitscan), medium lasers (short range) and small lasers (very short range). Implementing the idea in the OP would give a situation where you would never consider firing the PPCs below a certain range (e.g. 270 meters) because it would be so incredibly heat inefficient compared to just firing medium lasers and small lasers. And alphastriking would almost certainly lead to disaster, except as a last resort.

PPCs are difficult though. A lot of mechs in Battletech combine PPCs and lasers, and there's simply no good reason to do that in MWO, most of the time. Because PPCs are super hot, so it makes no sense to pair them up with lasers, which are also super hot.

In my opinion (and I've said this for a while), the best way to balance PPCs for MWO would be to make them a hybrid ballistic weapon. Which is to say: long cooldown, relatively low heat. Just like combining lasers with a gauss rifle (long cooldown, low heat), the PPC would be a good addition to lasers, but would have too low DPS to be the only long range weapon, except on quirked mechs.

There are plenty of mechs in Battletech that combine PPCs with lasers, and those builds are largely useless in MWO, because the PPC is just too damn hot. So people either run PPC + ballistics or lasers + ballistics. People take the iconic Warhammer, rip the PPCs out and replace the MGs with AC5s. This is why.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Then it has to be able to output significant raw damage, and it can't even do that currently. So again, you would have to seriously buff it for it to be relevant, same goes for any small arm.

Except that you really don't have to make every weapon in the game output significant raw damage. The Small laser is balanced by it's low weight and crit space.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Fixed that for you, rarely does a mech drop to two alphas from a single mech when players who know what they are doing are playing.

I love the implication that I do not understand organized team play.
...but yes, many a 'mech has been destroyed or incapacitated from long range alphas. It happens to mediums and lights all the time. (and it is not great game play)

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Not as many as you seem to think, even maps like Tourmaline that were traditionally favorable to ERLL are all about the dakka push prior to the tournament and the revamping of Frozen (which used to be brawler central, sadly they changed that).

Could you point out a map that doesn't play well for longer ranged 'mechs?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

The spread out damage is the point, if you are spreading out your damage you need more raw damage to compensate. If they are spreading out their damage then you aren't removing enough DPS from their side for once the brawl occurs. Sure you can reposition, but if it is harder to finish off a mech because you can't make that nice finishing blow thanks to chain fire, that becomes less effective.

Again, your definition of "effective" is very narrow. It is currently way too easy to kill 'mechs from range. Battlemechs are not precision long range Alpha machines. The trade off to range is accuracy, but that can be overcome by pilot skill (aim), but allowing the impossible: instant perfectly precise convergence of multiple weapons is simply not part of the BattleTech universe, and more importantly it defies physics, and breaks game play when combined with the (BT specific) component system.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

Except that you really don't have to make every weapon in the game output significant raw damage. The Small laser is balanced by it's low weight and crit space.

It isn't even balanced currently, and you think by disallowing it to be group fired is magically going to make this more balanced? By disallowing it from group firing effectively, it needs to be boosted more because it is already lackluster for an energy weapon.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

I love the implication that I do not understand organized team play.
...but yes, many a 'mech has been destroyed or incapacitated from long range alphas. It happens to mediums and lights all the time. (and it is not great game play)

The implication was that someone who knows how to spread damage should not be dying to two alphas from a single person. Lights are one exception, but teams should not be going for them first in a push, so that means that it is two alphas that aren't targeting the enemy assaults.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

Could you point out a map that doesn't play well for longer ranged 'mechs?

Viridian Bog, Tourmaline, old Frozen, Forest Colony. Crimson, Canyon, and Caustic are a bit special in that they tend to be a bit more flexible allowing for multiple strats sometimes.

Hotthedd, on 22 August 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

The trade off to range is accuracy

No, it is damage, that is all there is too it. Close range mechs should simply do more damage, that has been the trade-off since FASA realized their mistake in Vengeance by giving all the lasers the same DPT with the smaller ones just being slightly more heat efficient.

Alistair Winter, on 22 August 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

Heat is one way, but I don't think it's enough. I think the model needs at least 2 dimensions to create synergy between so many different weapons.

Weapon synergy is less about cooldowns and more about firing behaviors, the reason you don't see lasers and ballistics not called Gauss often is because AC velocity don't lend themselves well to be shot with hit scan weapons. Just like direct fire weapons tend not to combine well with missiles because you can't fire them at the same time and stack up damage.

[Alistair Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

Weapon synergy is less about cooldowns and more about firing behaviors, the reason you don't see lasers and ballistics not called Gauss often is because AC velocity don't lend themselves well to be shot with hit scan weapons. Just like direct fire weapons tend not to combine well with missiles because you can't fire them at the same time and stack up damage.

Sure, but the ridiculously low projectile speeds in MWO are just a silly way that PGI tried to kill synergy and make ballistics less powerful. The AC20 projectile actually used to move pretty fast, to the point where people were firing AC20s at relatively long range (also before they decreased the max range). Today, the AC20 moves like a laden african swallow, or like someone just lobbed a water balloon through the air.

Meanwhile, modern APFSDS tank busting projectiles move at 2000 m/s. Same as gauss. Three times as fast as the AC20.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alistair Winter, on 22 August 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:

Sure, but the ridiculously low projectile speeds in MWO are just a silly way that PGI tried to kill synergy and make ballistics less powerful. The AC20 projectile actually used to move pretty fast, to the point where people were firing AC20s at relatively long range (also before they decreased the max range). Today, the AC20 moves like a laden african swallow, or like someone just lobbed a water balloon through the air.

Meanwhile, modern APFSDS tank busting projectiles move at 2000 m/s. Same as gauss. Three times as fast as the AC20.

Exactly, so you should be pushing for better projectile velocities like we had in the MW4 days (where AC20s were 2000m/s and Gauss was 3200m/s).