155 replies to this topic

[Quxudica]

Nik Reaper, on 08 December 2016 - 07:02 PM, said:

Thinking on it a bit longer, there is an easy but terribly unpopular option, drastically reduce torso twist speed... no more easy damage spreading but suddenly a need for fast moving and targeting arms... not sure if this would make the game better but hey, at least now you want arm weapons...

I don't think that alone would help, you'd still have the problem of heavy mechs losing fully ST armor in a couple volleys, just now exacerbated by the nerf to damage spreading. The only real solution is to find a way to reduce the amount of damage being slung at any one time (aka, reducing Alpha sizes) and reducing the pinpoint precision by which said alpha's strike. Nerfing torso twisting in a game where 50+ points of damage can be almost instantly applied to a single location just doesn't help, especially since the meta is already mid-long range poking as I feel this nerf would neuter brawlers.

They need to discourage the practice of using an entire mechs loadout as if it were a single giant gun, and incentivize more selective and thoughtful weapon usage. That's why I'm a strong advocate of having weapons be less accurate the more you fire at once. You retain the option of using Alpha strike but restore it to what it should be; a high risk initiator, last resort gambit, or coup de grace. There also needs to be more options for equipment to bring that aren't weapons (or ammo) at all, so that actual support/recon/CnC/etc builds are actually a thing instead of every mech being built for an arena death match.

[Pers0nne]

RestosIII, on 08 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Incorrect. Giving hardpoint specific buffs would make them equal, because technically the weapons perform better in those arm hardpoints, but they still lack the positioning and tight spread of torso mounted weaponry. It would be a choice between the two options.

That sentence alone is wrong on so many level.
First, you still don't get it, and keep wanting to put bonuses on stuff that don't need them. You have to stop. Like, right now.
Stop asking for more bonuses, it's just an endless powercreep.
Second, the only way "hard point specific buff will be good enough to make min-maxers willing to put their weapon out of their torso would be by giving them grosly overpowered buff. A buff good enough to let them move a weapon from a torso to an arm, and that just send us back to my first point.
And last, WHY ON HELL do you wan't aberant build to exist ! These build are just the result of minmaxer exploiting the rules that the game is giving to them. They are completly pragmatic and wouldn't exist if it wasn't THE BEST WAY to do it. Give minmaxers new rules and they will work with that no problem.

RestosIII, on 08 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Oh no, you definitely harm build diversity with that. By actively making it so that you can't fit as many guns on the mech as you could previously, you have actually made it so there are less builds.

Damn, you don't even try to pretend you've read my post anymore. And yet still quote them.
Okay I'll repeat it slowly so you may get it this time.

Your mech.
Will still.
Have the SAME.
Amount.
OF GUNS !

THE SAME. DO YOU COPY ?

RestosIII, on 08 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

You seem to not get one of the main reasons for people putting weapons in the torsos in the first place: Different weapon heights and arm shielding. If you make it so that people will have to strip armor and heatsinks/ammo/engine size to fit their guns in the ST's, people aren't going to do it any more,

AND THAT'S THE POINT ! Hello !?
Did you miss the point here ?

The problem is that its WAY better to put your gun in the torso, the goal here is to make it so that won't be the case anymore.

RestosIII, on 08 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

and just go for a mech that isn't crap because it's forced to put its guns in the low slung arms.

No because if every mech have that modification, people won't just go to other mechs since ALL of them will work like that. And if some mech have a problem because their arms are to low, then give them some bonus to fix that.

RestosIII, on 08 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Sure, something like the Jagermech and Catapult K2 might get a resurgence, but that's entirely because unless you actually buff the weapons, no-one will use those arms still.

They will, because they won't have the choice.

RestosIII, on 08 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

There is definitely a cut-off date for making absolutely massive changes to how game mechanics work. Making the mechlab completely different, with the weapon system being absolutely revamped is a much bigger change than replacing the placeholder skill system.

And now you just showed to everyone that the problem isn't that you have no idea how game balance work, you just have no idea how video games work.
Games can make "absolutely massive changes to how game mechanics work", and SHOULD do them if it could fix a problem. A lot of big games do it all the time, just look at mobas or WOW.
And still, the changes I propose are REALLY far from "absolutely massive changes". In fact they are the smallest change possible to fix a problem that only grow bigger as time goes.


Using the argument "but it wasn't like that before" is the stupid **** ever when it come to video games.
Players can and will adapt, just like they have adapted to the current game mechanics by creating thos abominable "toroso stufing" builds. The role of the game designer is to give them the right set of rules so the game will evolve on the right way and not degenerate as a stupid cheese fest !

[Mole]

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

That sentence alone is wrong on so many level.
First, you still don't get it, and keep wanting to put bonuses on stuff that don't need them. You have to stop. Like, right now.
Stop asking for more bonuses, it's just an endless powercreep.
Second, the only way "hard point specific buff will be good enough to make min-maxers willing to put their weapon out of their torso would be by giving them grosly overpowered buff. A buff good enough to let them move a weapon from a torso to an arm, and that just send us back to my first point.
And last, WHY ON HELL do you wan't aberant build to exist ! These build are just the result of minmaxer exploiting the rules that the game is giving to them. They are completly pragmatic and wouldn't exist if it wasn't THE BEST WAY to do it. Give minmaxers new rules and they will work with that no problem.




Damn, you don't even try to pretend you've read my post anymore. And yet still quote them.
Okay I'll repeat it slowly so you may get it this time.

Your mech.
Will still.
Have the SAME.
Amount.
OF GUNS !

THE SAME. DO YOU COPY ?


AND THAT'S THE POINT ! Hello !?
Did you miss the point here ?

The problem is that its WAY better to put your gun in the torso, the goal here is to make it so that won't be the case anymore.


No because if every mech have that modification, people won't just go to other mechs since ALL of them will work like that. And if some mech have a problem because their arms are to low, then give them some bonus to fix that.


They will, because they won't have the choice.


And now you just showed to everyone that the problem isn't that you have no idea how game balance work, you just have no idea how video games work.
Games can make "absolutely massive changes to how game mechanics work", and SHOULD do them if it could fix a problem. A lot of big games do it all the time, just look at mobas or WOW.
And still, the changes I propose are REALLY far from "absolutely massive changes". In fact they are the smallest change possible to fix a problem that only grow bigger as time goes.


Using the argument "but it wasn't like that before" is the stupid **** ever when it come to video games.
Players can and will adapt, just like they have adapted to the current game mechanics by creating thos abominable "toroso stufing" builds. The role of the game designer is to give them the right set of rules so the game will evolve on the right way and not degenerate as a stupid cheese fest !

Jesus H Christ, why are you so effing hung up on making people put weapons in their arms anyway? You're acting like it's a game-breaker that we have Warhammers without arm PPCs. Personally, I keep arm weapons on my Warhammer for shooting down UAVs. My Warhammer doesn't even make use of PPCs at all. It uses 6 Medium Lasers and 3 SRM6. You gonna punish me for that? Because I wanted lasers and missiles instead of the "WAY ITS SUPPOSE TO BE BECAUSE REASONS AND STUFF" with PPCs in the arms? I hate to break this to you, but it seems you have not noticed; Mechwarrior titles have always been about 'mech customization. I'm sorry that it's such a damn bug up your butt that low slung weapons are actually impractical on a live battlefield and that the people who designed the battletech 'mechs did not take that into account when designing their 'mechs to simply look cool, but that's the way it is. Forcing me to take an inefficient build just because it tickles your OCD seeing me walk around without a large cannon in my arm and belittling anyone who dares to disagree with you with little snide and condescending comments like "oh ho, you are a clever girl!" is not going to make this a better game.

Edited by Mole, 08 December 2016 - 07:49 PM.

[Pers0nne]

Yeah. Sure buddy.
That's totally because it "tickles my OCD". That was TOTALLY what we were talking about.
You totally get the point and look REALLLLLY smart right now.

Ho and by the way, my "oh ho, you are a clever girl!" was in response to his "Oh boy. This one is a doozy." and the fact that he just acted like a total d*ck since his very first response to me.

But hey, feel free to give us your opinion on our interactions, we REALLY want to hear them.

[Carl Vickers]

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 07:49 PM, said:

Yeah. Sure buddy.
That's totally because it "tickles my OCD". That was TOTALLY what we were talking about.
You totally get the point and look REALLLLLY smart right now.

Ho and by the way, my "oh ho, you are a clever girl!" was in response to his "Oh boy. This one is a doozy." and the fact that he just acted like a total d*ck since his very first response to me.

But hey, feel free to give us your opinion on our interactions, we REALLY want to hear them.

Hmm, 11 post and aggressive nature, troll much?

Perhaps and alt account?

In the end nothing you say will make a lick of difference cause your points rely on PGI doing something about it, let me simplify it for you, not going to happen.

[FireStoat]

I'm not going to lie - I fall into the camp of wanting mechs to adhere closely to what their structure appearance intended for their weapons. I think it goes back to the days of table top war gaming with both Battletech and Warhammer (fantasy & 40k) where a player was expected to have their miniatures represent what they had / were armed with.

In original 40k I had a space marine dev squad and Autocannon were on the list of heavy weapon choices. Knowing full well what derision I would receive for saying "the marine looks like he's holding a missile launcher, but it's actually an autocannon", I took the time out to buy some metal model tubing and make 3 barrel rotary cannon for the marines to hold so it at least looked acceptable.

Same deal with Battletech. I preferred my Marauder to have a top mounted missile launcher instead of an autocannon. So I did some modeling with a knife and fine drill and made a pin hole mount to swap a tiny home made box missile launcher with the cannon, depending on my mood before a match.

I know other players here have done the same thing, and how does it relate at all to this game you might be wondering? I dunno. In a lot of ways it doesn't, but perhaps it's a matter of what's been mentioned before - Trying to stay true to the base that the game was created on and what the illustrations and initial builds historically represented.

I would prefer it if sized Hardpoints was a thing, I guess. But I'll fully admit my wanting it stems from nostalgia and yes, a bit of ascetics for mech design over the realities of what's favorable to actually win with.

[Wecx]

on the TT you could fire on multiple targets (with +1 to hit) with your arms as well as fire on targets off to either side.

If there was a way to move your arms without your torso than arm mounted weapons would be awesome.

Edited by Wecx, 08 December 2016 - 07:58 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

Well this is a game based on battletech, it is not actually BT or TT in the end and what we have is what we have, you will be waiting for MW5 to get your stock mechs only.

[Wecx]

Carl Vickers, on 08 December 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

Well this is a game based on battletech, it is not actually BT or TT in the end and what we have is what we have, you will be waiting for MW5 to get your stock mechs only.

This

[RestosIII]

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

That sentence alone is wrong on so many level.
First, you still don't get it, and keep wanting to put bonuses on stuff that don't need them. You have to stop. Like, right now.
Stop asking for more bonuses, it's just an endless powercreep.
Second, the only way "hard point specific buff will be good enough to make min-maxers willing to put their weapon out of their torso would be by giving them grosly overpowered buff. A buff good enough to let them move a weapon from a torso to an arm, and that just send us back to my first point.

Imagine it: A Warhammer with its PPC quirks only in its arms, or with most of said quirks in its arms. Now you have a choice between having 50% bonus velocity, but with low slung wide arms, or PPC nippes that can go over most obstacles with good grouping, but slower. There would be people choosing one or the other, instead of always going for the PPC nipples, or, with your plan, being forced to go to a mech that just runs high mounted PPCs if they want to have a mech without it being punished.

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

Damn, you don't even try to pretend you've read my post anymore. And yet still quote them.
Okay I'll repeat it slowly so you may get it this time.

Your mech.
Will still.
Have the SAME.
Amount.
OF GUNS !

THE SAME. DO YOU COPY ?

Unless you try to run not-crap versions of the mech, aka high mounts because you never actually buffed those weapons to be good in low mounts. Then you'll have less tonnage for equipment.

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

AND THAT'S THE POINT ! Hello !?
Did you miss the point here ?

The problem is that its WAY better to put your gun in the torso, the goal here is to make it so that won't be the case anymore.

Oh no, I get your point. I get your point of wanting to punish people because they dared to move a weapon to a side torso, where you don't want it to be.

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

No because if every mech have that modification, people won't just go to other mechs since ALL of them will work like that. And if some mech have a problem because their arms are to low, then give them some bonus to fix that.


They will, because they won't have the choice.

People will go to mechs that have high hardpoints with those weapons already in place, and not deal with a mech that is forced to keep its weapons in low slots without having to drop armor/heat sinks/engine size. So the only "problem" you'd be fixing is making certain mechs a lot less viable. But the rare ones you do see would have PPC barrels on their arms unless they're masochists, so good for you?

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

And now you just showed to everyone that the problem isn't that you have no idea how game balance work, you just have no idea how video games work.
Games can make "absolutely massive changes to how game mechanics work", and SHOULD do them if it could fix a problem. A lot of big games do it all the time, just look at mobas or WOW.
And still, the changes I propose are REALLY far from "absolutely massive changes". In fact they are the smallest change possible to fix a problem that only grow bigger as time goes.


Using the argument "but it wasn't like that before" is the stupid **** ever when it come to video games.
Players can and will adapt, just like they have adapted to the current game mechanics by creating thos abominable "toroso stufing" builds. The role of the game designer is to give them the right set of rules so the game will evolve on the right way and not degenerate as a stupid cheese fest !

Punishing players for moving weapons around in the mechlab is an absolutely massive change. I don't see how you can't see that. Making a change like that would be the equivalent of, for your own examples of MOBAs, punishing a carry for buying a support item by lowering its effects if he buys it. A nonsensical change that would change how a lot of people play, while making a good deal of people angry, only to make a tiny amount of people happy. And yes, they would "adapt" to this change. They'd adapt by just not using these mechs any more for, you guessed it, mechs with high mounts traditionally. Prepare to see a lot less Warhammers, and a lot more Catapult K2s and Jagermechs.

TL;DR: Stop trying to force people into suboptimal weapon placements just because you find it ugly. No-one will go along with it, because we play this game for fun, not to make you happy.

-Sincerely, someone that bloody runs almost only lore builds

[Y E O N N E]

Wecx, on 08 December 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

on the TT you could fire on multiple targets (with +1 to hit) with your arms as well as fire on targets off to either side.

If there was a way to move your arms without your torso than arm mounted weapons would be awesome.

I wish arm-look (note, not arm lock) could toggle.

Hey, PGI, that should be easy to implement, right?

[FireStoat]

I think if there was a stock mode of the game that allowed only for the increase or decrease in armor, heat sinks, and ammo, I'd be all over it.

[Pers0nne]

Carl Vickers, on 08 December 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Hmm, 11 post and aggressive nature, troll much?

Perhaps and alt account?

In the end nothing you say will make a lick of difference cause your points rely on PGI doing something about it, let me simplify it for you, not going to happen.

Yeah, because being instantly agressed by RestosIII and then jumped on by a random whiteknight that think his bright shield is needed make me aggressive and a troll ?


Ho and everyone here know it's always down to PGI in the end, but we are still on a forum you know ? Where we are supposed to discuss ideas, and that's exactly what we are doing.

The OP bring up a really valid point, and I'm trying to find the best way to fix it. If people were willing to really DISCUSS the problem and see if my is solid or not instead of making no sens or being aggressive butthurt who are just trying to score internet points we could see it the said idea could actually be good or not, and if it happen to be good we could bring it to the attention of PGI.

Yaknow, as a feedback.
From the forum.

[Mole]

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

Yeah, because being instantly agressed by RestosIII and then jumped on by a random whiteknight that think his bright shield is needed make me aggressive and a troll ?


Ho and everyone here know it's always down to PGI in the end, but we are still on a forum you know ? Where we are supposed to discuss ideas, and that's exactly what we are doing.

The OP bring up a really valid point, and I'm trying to find the best way to fix it. If people were willing to really DISCUSS the problem and see if my is solid or not instead of making no sens or being aggressive butthurt who are just trying to score internet points we could see it the said idea could actually be good or not, and if it happen to be good we could bring it to the attention of PGI.

Yaknow, as a feedback.
From the forum.

Actually Restos, while he may have been rude in his initial post, has been debunking your idea this entire thread and you've just been repeating yourself like a broken record and telling him that he is ignorant. I guess because you just want to be right or something.

[Y E O N N E]

Not only has Restos been debunking it, he's actually been more polite about it, too.

[Carl Vickers]

Lol, me a white knight, you assume too much young padawan. RestolIII is big enough to defend himself, im just here adding that your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.

Its not going to get fixed, the game should have had role warfare to begin with but minimally viable product.

PGI dont read this forum, much, so trying to white knight a this is a forum and feedback doesnt wash either, you are just trolling, nothing more, nothing less.

[Y E O N N E]

Carl Vickers, on 08 December 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:

trying to white knight a this is a forum and feedback doesnt wash either

Lol, what even is...

[RestosIII]

Pers0nne, on 08 December 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

Yeah, because being instantly agressed by RestosIII and then jumped on by a random whiteknight that think his bright shield is needed make me aggressive and a troll ?


Ho and everyone here know it's always down to PGI in the end, but we are still on a forum you know ? Where we are supposed to discuss ideas, and that's exactly what we are doing.

The OP bring up a really valid point, and I'm trying to find the best way to fix it. If people were willing to really DISCUSS the problem and see if my is solid or not instead of making no sens or being aggressive butthurt who are just trying to score internet points we could see it the said idea could actually be good or not, and if it happen to be good we could bring it to the attention of PGI.

Yaknow, as a feedback.
From the forum.

I apologize for calling you a troll in my first post. But I will say that I genuinely believed your idea was a joke. That's how bad of an idea I see it as. Now that I can assume you aren't a troll, I'll just tell you in the calmest, most dignified manner I can.

I hate it. That sort of change would ruin the spirit of mech customization for me. I don't want it. That's my feedback.

[Mole]

Carl Vickers, on 08 December 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:

so trying to white knight a this is a forum and feedback doesnt wash either

Are you on a mobile device and the autocorrect God just smote you or did you just have an aneurysm and I need to send an ambulance?

[Carl Vickers]

Mole, on 08 December 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

Are you on a mobile device and the autocorrect God just smote you or did you just have an aneurysm and I need to send an ambulance?

Yeah, mobile device and on a train with a few bumps, proof read fail too, oh well.