20 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Here's an idea, what if TC provides spread reduction?

In my experience, TC is just for tonnage excesses you can allot, 1 and 2 seems okay, but if 3 and above is available then there's inefficiency in your builds.

What if we gave TC something that people will actively go after? Such as lower spread?

TC1: 15%
TC2: 20%
TC3: 25%
TC4: 30%
TC5: 35%
TC6: 40%
TC7: 45%
TC8: 50%

Yes, that means that the LB20X + TC8, is 1.0 spread x 0.5, and would result to 0.5 spread. Simmilarly, SRM6 from 4, would attain 2 spread, and this only compounds with artemis.

But that is near pin-point damage!

Correct, and that is also 8 tons allotted. For a brawling or poking build, that would have been extra heatsinks, for ballistics and missiles that would have been precious ammo. Although actual values are negotiable, I'm just suggesting that TC could have a spread-reduction for heavier TCs be an actual choice.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

I think 15-50% is a little over the top.

Maybe start at 10% and go up 3% a level.

1 10%
2 13%
3 16%
4 19%
5 22%
6 25%
7 28%
8 31%

[justcallme A S H]

Problem is SRM2/SRM4 spread isn't too bad, overall.

The big killer is the SRM6 and SRM6A launchers. For the tonnage investment you are not getting, IMO, the value you should at all.

So a global reduction really isn't a great idea.

[The6thMessenger]

justcallme A S H, on 23 July 2018 - 04:25 PM, said:

Problem is SRM2/SRM4 spread isn't too bad, overall.

The big killer is the SRM6 and SRM6A launchers. For the tonnage investment you are not getting, IMO, the value you should at all.

So a global reduction really isn't a great idea.

Also LRMs

But yeah, I suppose SRM6s and Artemis needs their potency back. Honestly I'd rather just normalize SRM4 and SRM6 spreads. Also make CSRMs burst-fire while having artemis-level spread.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 July 2018 - 04:50 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

I could have sworn there was a brief interval in the past where TCs reduced LB-X spread.

I would love to actually get some benefit to LB-X with my TCs.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 23 July 2018 - 04:50 PM.

[El Bandito]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 23 July 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

I think 15-50% is a little over the top.

Maybe start at 10% and go up 3% a level.

1 10%
2 13%
3 16%
4 19%
5 22%
6 25%
7 28%
8 31%

That will make bigger TCs to have even less incentive to equip.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

El Bandito, on 23 July 2018 - 08:01 PM, said:

That will make bigger TCs to have even less incentive to equip.

I don't see how adding a useful stat makes them worse than they are now.

There shouldn't even be 8 TCs, compress it down to 5 levels or something.

[Bluttrunken]

You could make absolutely deadly Clan builds with this. You can boat SRM's easily due to the low ton/slot cost also there are some assaults which can boat LBX's which would tear stuff apart with a spread reduction like this.

[El Bandito]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 23 July 2018 - 11:26 PM, said:

I don't see how adding a useful stat makes them worse than they are now.

That's cause TC1 is having lion's share of that bonus.

[Y E O N N E]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 23 July 2018 - 11:26 PM, said:

I don't see how adding a useful stat makes them worse than they are now.

There shouldn't even be 8 TCs, compress it down to 5 levels or something.

The other main stats we take TCs for, like range and velocity, increase in accelerating chunks as you go up the tonnage scale. More than 3 tons for a TC is a huge investment.

[KoalaBrownie]

TCs benefiting missiles would go against lore/background - missiles have their own guidance systems like Streak, Artemis, Narc and TAG for a reason

[Zigmund Freud]

KoalaBrownie, on 24 July 2018 - 11:39 PM, said:

TCs benefiting missiles would go against lore/background - missiles have their own guidance systems like Streak, Artemis, Narc and TAG for a reason

A lot of problems in MWO are caused by people trying to balance FPS around TT rules, ignoring tha fact that FPS and TT are a bit different things.

[KoalaBrownie]

Zigmund Freud, on 25 July 2018 - 03:24 AM, said:

A lot of problems in MWO are caused by people trying to balance FPS around TT rules, ignoring tha fact that FPS and TT are a bit different things.

MWO isn't an FPS, anymore than IL-2 Sturmovik is an FPS, MWO is a MechSim.

MWO would likely not enjoy the success that it has if not for its licensed IP, and the more that the game deviates from that IP the greater the chance that it will alienate players who are here not for the mechanics, but for Battletech.

[Daurock]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 10:07 AM, said:

MWO isn't an FPS, anymore than IL-2 Sturmovik is an FPS, MWO is a MechSim.

MWO would likely not enjoy the success that it has if not for its licensed IP, and the more that the game deviates from that IP the greater the chance that it will alienate players who are here not for the mechanics, but for Battletech.

There is a lot of Battletech Lore that doesn't suit itself to a PvP game. At All.

The Fact is, There are a lot of things in the lore, (Some examples include blatant Clan tech superiority, upgrades that are flat upgrades, the nearly flat superiority of Assaults, Omni-mechs, etc.), that do not translate well into a PvP game. Instead, many of those things would be better represented in a Campaign Oriented Game, just like the original TT was. Games like the new Battletech Game, or even the upcoming MW5 should represent those kinds of things more faithfully than a game like MWO, which needs balance to be successful.

If you're looking for an "Ultimate TT Representation," I'd recommend Just playing the TT game It'll save a lot of headaches.

[KoalaBrownie]

Daurock, on 25 July 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

There is a lot of Battletech Lore that doesn't suit itself to a PvP game. At All.

The Fact is, There are a lot of things in the lore, (Some examples include blatant Clan tech superiority, upgrades that are flat upgrades, the nearly flat superiority of Assaults, Omni-mechs, etc.), that do not translate well into a PvP game. Instead, many of those things would be better represented in a Campaign Oriented Game, just like the original TT was. Games like the new Battletech Game, or even the upcoming MW5 should represent those kinds of things more faithfully than a game like MWO, which needs balance to be successful.

You do realize that the entire ftp grind economy of MWO is built on the very things you're saying doesn't suit this game.

[Zigmund Freud]

KoalaBrownie, on 25 July 2018 - 11:59 AM, said:

You do realize that the entire ftp grind economy of MWO is built on the very things you're saying doesn't suit this game.

Not really, though. Being FTP is the only thing that's keeping MWO alive after all these years. Sure, financial part is mainly on mighty shoulders of whales, without them PGI wouldn't have money to pay the rent. But without (relatively) big number of free players population would be so tiny, that it would collapse into 150 ppl average online, games would become stale and money would also stop flowing dripping.

KoalaBrownie said:

MWO isn't an FPS, anymore than IL-2 Sturmovik is an FPS, MWO is a MechSim.

I would say it's somewhere in between. it is slow pased, but still more of a FPS than a sim. Simple heat management, innertion, projectile velocity, sure. But either way the point is - it is real time PvP shooter, not turn based table top.

KoalaBrownie said:

MWO would likely not enjoy the success that it has if not for its licensed IP, and the more that the game deviates from that IP the greater the chance that it will alienate players who are here not for the mechanics, but for Battletech.

That's not how it works, you don't have to follow the preexisting rules letter by letter to be successful, you need to make a decent playable game in Battletech setting. People wouldn't stop playing MWO because Clan ER small laser is generating 3 heat, instead of 2, they are leaving, on the other hand, because balance is crap.
Also look at mech design, by your logic since MWO is based on Battletech IP, they would be more successful by keeping original desigh?

[KoalaBrownie]

Zigmund Freud, on 26 July 2018 - 02:55 AM, said:

That's not how it works, you don't have to follow the preexisting rules letter by letter to be successful, you need to make a decent playable game in Battletech setting. People wouldn't stop playing MWO because Clan ER small laser is generating 3 heat, instead of 2, they are leaving, on the other hand, because balance is crap.

Also look at mech design, by your logic since MWO is based on Battletech IP, they would be more successful by keeping original desigh?

Not sure what you mean, original weapon loadout? Or original artwork? It's pretty clear that MWO artwork is based on the original, even the unseen mechs whose re-seen artwork was ignored. It's close enough to be recognizable, but updated to be cool.

That's the point, MWO emulates the feel of the game. Individual weapon stats are a little less important if a weapon does 3.4 heat not 3 as long as it feels like the weapon. Having the TC affect missile weapons? Would change the feel.

TC would actually be better represented as aim assist but since that would benefit all weapons, not just those applicable they couldn't do that.

Edited by KoalaBrownie, 26 July 2018 - 09:28 AM.

[Zigmund Freud]

KoalaBrownie, on 26 July 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

Having the TC affect missile weapons? Would change the feel.
TC would actually be better represented as aim assist but since that would benefit all weapons, not just those applicable they couldn't do that.

No, it would be more accurately represented as aim assist, not better. That's what I'm talking about. It PvP first person shooter/sim fights are real time skill-based, not dice roll-based, having TC aim for you would be silly. That's my opinion, of course. Obviously my lore standards are way lower than yours.

[KoalaBrownie]

Zigmund Freud, on 26 July 2018 - 10:45 AM, said:

No, it would be more accurately represented as aim assist, not better. That's what I'm talking about. It PvP first person shooter/sim fights are real time skill-based, not dice roll-based, having TC aim for you would be silly. That's my opinion, of course. Obviously my lore standards are way lower than yours.

Aim assist is present in many FPS games, particularly on consoles. Aim assist would need to be limited in how long it 'helped', so it wouldn't track a fast mech perfectly but might help track it for a second or two and then stop. It wouldn't necessarily help you hit the target but would help you keep hitting the target.

[HammerMaster]

Mw3 tc represented it best.
Choose what you're aiming for.
Circle appears where you SHOULD aim for desired effect.
Profit.