95 replies to this topic

[VonBruinwald]

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 07:19 AM, said:

What's your thinking behind that idea?

You're pushing for heavy nerfs to indirect lrm support and shifting focus to teamwork:
If we remove the targeting square from the hud (except in cases where the target is Narced/Tagged then) then leaching locks becomes a none-issue, for all weapons types, except for in cases where teamwork prevails.

As for removing torso convergence.
You're also suggesting weaker locks for when an LRM boat who gets its own locks unless they take tag. Whilst I'm not against the conditional, in theory, it's only balanced if you apply a similar conditional to Laser/Ballistic weapons, limiting convergence to arm weapons only is a counter-balance that makes sense.

Edited by VonBruinwald, 15 February 2021 - 07:42 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VeritasSuperOmnia, on 14 February 2021 - 06:24 PM, said:

1) The core mechanics of armor and weapons (Battletech and older MW games) were based around having far less cover than is provided in game. This is the reason stupid things like lights and mediums owning heavier mechs in trades exists. Lots of cover = more opportunities to fire and duck behind something before a heavier mech can even rotate to see where it's been shot from. This also exacerbates poptarting (currently of the ATM and 3xERPPC variety). The excess of cover on most maps also is the core reason why NASCAR exists. Less cover would mean longer sight lines and and an element of real danger when trying to flank right non-stop i.e. NASCAR. This is also the reason why heavies like the Timberwolf are in such a bad place right now as Sean Lang referenced in his thread and video, as they have neither the agility to avoid incoming fire nor the armor to take the repeated hits from being a big slow moving target.

2) The lack of tactical objectives on the maps. Battletech and MW games in general are adaptations of real world battles. In battles you have specific weapons platforms for fulfilling specific objectives. In older iterations of the game, more tonnage your mech had, the more dangerous is was, but it could no longer fulfill some of the tactical requirements. Want to bring a Direwolf to this escort mission? Too bad, that hovertrain you're supposed to be pacing just gapped you and got blown up by enemy units because your mech wasn't fast enough to engage the enemy. This is no longer true as the lack of playing for objectives has made every MWO game into team deathmatch and as a result the only thing that matters is a mech's lethality. Why would you bring a Raven to the game for it's scouting and NARC capabilities, when you can drop in a Flea that is so fast and agile it can effectively survive more damage thrown its direction that an Annihilator? Why bring a Charger to the game when the need to cover large distances to rapidly redeploy assets in response to new scouting information is not something that happens in MWO? Just bring an assault that is fast enough not to get NASCAR'd on with the best hitboxes and pod space (cough MCMK2).

The problems with chassis and weapon balance will be much easier to sort out if these two things are addressed first. The only major tweek I see that would be needed is to increase the CD of LRMs to the point where they are long range fire support systems again rather than DPS systems. I think you'll find that everything else will fall into place nicely. I implore PGI to set aside development time for new/reworked maps and implementing game modes that incorporate tactical objectives. You will breathe new life into the game if you do this.

I agreed game modes pretty much mostly become team deathmatch. Better objective based modes would help a lot. Even modes like conquest and incursion end up being team deathmatch a lot of the time. Like to see game modes that get people to think beyond shot the enemy team and we win.

[VeritasSuperOmnia]

LordNothing, on 15 February 2021 - 06:13 AM, said:

i think thats more a problem with the electronic warfare design. look how lerms work in living legends. you need c3 mechs to get the data that this game just gives you for free. if im up scouting and you are in the back, and there is not a c3 mech there between us, i can not give you a lock.

you have another problem where everyone is running passive so you absolutely need to have active radar to use those missiles as anything other than direct fire drumfire rockets. and since you are the only one on your side on the enemy's radar, guess who is getting the enemy lerms? so you go passive and you are useless, well not so fast.

difference 3 would be that if you want to use lerms as they are used in mwo, you need to really be putting in a team effort, 3 or 4 other players have to be doing something just so you can fire, but that doesnt kill lerms, because tag and narc are significantly more than a minor buff to lock time. they are like missile beacons that bring in all untargeted missiles flying close to them. even if you were on the front line, and you had to punch out, you could be using your battle armor tag to keep the rain on. it shows big picture thinking.

now you got scouts, scouting, and getting tons of points because your lerms are hitting their targets, and you get tons of points for hitting them, even the c3 mechs are making cbills. and the team doesnt hate you for bringing lerms because they are all getting paid and they have map control which helps win. so it all works, role warfare exists, engagements are forced into closer proximity, and there is always something to do.

with the right kind of mechanical depth, that pgi neglected, they could have used more natural map design, which is easier to make. just pipe your fractal map generator of choice into your map editor. sprinkle on foliage, buildings, etc. effectively maps are the way they are because the lerm mechanic dictated how they should be. this also kind of applies to arty/air strikes too for why we have few tunnel networks and no deep water areas. or how the choice of single life play seriously killed the development of modes (which fp had the potential to bring back if the denizens of same could tolerate some change).

Thank you for expounding on my original point. For the sake of ADHD I kept my post short, but you have beautifully articulated the details that would make the game much better.

Edited by VeritasSuperOmnia, 15 February 2021 - 07:56 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VonBruinwald, on 15 February 2021 - 07:41 AM, said:

You're pushing for heavy nerfs to indirect lrm support and shifting focus to teamwork:
If we remove the targeting square from the hud (except in cases where the target is Narced/Tagged then) then leaching locks becomes a none-issue, for all weapons types, except for in cases where teamwork prevails.

As for removing torso convergence.
You're also suggesting weaker locks for when an LRM boat who gets its own locks unless they take tag. Whilst I'm not against the conditional, in theory, it's only balanced if you apply a similar conditional to Laser/Ballistic weapons, limiting convergence to arm weapons only is a counter-balance that makes sense.

My idea would be this tagged targets get a strong lock and narc targets get a strong lock. But say a single mech is targeting a mech on it's own that would be a weak lock for LRMs. If more mechs lock the same target 2 mechs on same target it's a medium lock. But you would need 4 mechs locked on the same target to get that strong lock. This way someone can't just sit back with a mech locked on a single target and do full damage. It would make LRM mechs want to try and get there own locks more and if it's a team working together they need tag or narc or all those mechs locked on the same target.

VeritasSuperOmnia, on 15 February 2021 - 07:55 AM, said:

Thank you for expounding on my original point. For the sake of ADHD I kept my post short, but you have beautifully articulated my vision for what would make the game much better.

LMAO those walls of text make my eyes and brain burst in to flames. I read words as a whole so walls of text its hard to focus for me it like trying to read anything all at once

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 08:00 AM.

[LowSubmarino]

VeritasSuperOmnia, on 14 February 2021 - 06:24 PM, said:

1) The core mechanics of armor and weapons (Battletech and older MW games) were based around having far less cover than is provided in game. This is the reason stupid things like lights and mediums owning heavier mechs in trades exists. Lots of cover = more opportunities to fire and duck behind something before a heavier mech can even rotate to see where it's been shot from. This also exacerbates poptarting (currently of the ATM and 3xERPPC variety). The excess of cover on most maps also is the core reason why NASCAR exists. Less cover would mean longer sight lines and and an element of real danger when trying to flank right non-stop i.e. NASCAR. This is also the reason why heavies like the Timberwolf are in such a bad place right now as Sean Lang referenced in his thread and video, as they have neither the agility to avoid incoming fire nor the armor to take the repeated hits from being a big slow moving target.

2) The lack of tactical objectives on the maps. Battletech and MW games in general are adaptations of real world battles. In battles you have specific weapons platforms for fulfilling specific objectives. In older iterations of the game, more tonnage your mech had, the more dangerous is was, but it could no longer fulfill some of the tactical requirements. Want to bring a Direwolf to this escort mission? Too bad, that hovertrain you're supposed to be pacing just gapped you and got blown up by enemy units because your mech wasn't fast enough to engage the enemy. This is no longer true as the lack of playing for objectives has made every MWO game into team deathmatch and as a result the only thing that matters is a mech's lethality. Why would you bring a Raven to the game for it's scouting and NARC capabilities, when you can drop in a Flea that is so fast and agile it can effectively survive more damage thrown its direction that an Annihilator? Why bring a Charger to the game when the need to cover large distances to rapidly redeploy assets in response to new scouting information is not something that happens in MWO? Just bring an assault that is fast enough not to get NASCAR'd on with the best hitboxes and pod space (cough MCMK2).

The problems with chassis and weapon balance will be much easier to sort out if these two things are addressed first. The only major tweek I see that would be needed is to increase the CD of LRMs to the point where they are long range fire support systems again rather than DPS systems. I think you'll find that everything else will fall into place nicely. I implore PGI to set aside development time for new/reworked maps and implementing game modes that incorporate tactical objectives. You will breathe new life into the game if you do this.

Dont have time for a longer reply but the first problem I see is that mwo players hated strong long range weapons. Literally hated them. Gauss, ppc....you name it. It was all nerfed into the darkest parts of hell. Then (long range) lasers were nerfed as well. The vast majority of mwo pplayers wanted a close range, arcade style brawl. Thats what they wanted.

[VeritasSuperOmnia]

Saved By The Bell, on 15 February 2021 - 07:30 AM, said:

Enemies killed me = Game is bad.

I was #37 in the world season 1 of Solaris across all 7 divisions. I still have the video if you want to see it. I just play the game for fun now and mostly drop in cannon builds for the lolz, but I would be happy to knock the rust off and see if I'm as bad as you think I am.

[The pessimistic optimist]

LowSubmarino, on 15 February 2021 - 07:59 AM, said:

Dont have time for a longer reply but the first problem I see is that mwo players hated strong long range weapons. Literally hated them. Gauss, ppc....you name it. It was all nerfed into the darkest parts of hell. Then (long range) lasers were nerfed as well. The vast majority of mwo pplayers wanted a close range, arcade style brawl. Thats what they wanted.

I would say this is wrong. What they mostly want is a fun game that rewards smart play. And the way it's setup now it rewards the lowest common denominator. That because of the way game modes are setup. The reason PPC gauss got the nerf bat was it just out classed everything at that time and there was no reason to take anything else. It a totally different game now in many ways and I bet they could unnerf them and they wouldn't be broken now. PPC Gauss got nerfed way early in the games life cycle

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 08:08 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 07:55 AM, said:

If more mechs lock the same target 2 mechs on same target it's a medium lock. But you would need 4 mechs locked on the same target to get that strong lock. This way someone can't just sit back with a mech locked on a single target and do full damage.

Well now you're just catering to 4-mans and creating an active barrier against pugs. You forget, the vast majority of players are pugs.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VonBruinwald, on 15 February 2021 - 08:05 AM, said:

Well now you're just catering to 4-mans and creating an active barrier against pugs. You forget, the vast majority of players are pugs.

They should work with their teams to get better locks and try to get line of sight shots. It wouldn't break missiles but make it harder to just sit back like a lump firing in to the void. On top of making it so that even with strong locks the damage would never be as tightly grouped as line of sight shots. So there is still more reason to get your own locks when you can. Making it less of a potato weapon were you can just veg out in one spot with your finger on the fire button

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 08:25 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 08:10 AM, said:

They should work with their teams get better better locks and try to get line of sight shots. It wouldn't break missiles but make it harder to just sit back like a lump firing in to the void.

As I said, it caters to 4-mans and creates an unfair nerf against solo mechs getting their own locks. It also incentives pugs to hang back leaching locks, if they go off and get their own they're actually worse off than if they hide behind a hill and let the boys at the front lock for them.

As I said:
If we remove the targeting square from the hud (except in cases where the target is Narced/Tagged then) then leaching locks becomes a none-issue, for all weapons types. Applying a blanket nerf across the board for all players is far better than nerfing one particular play-style you disagree with.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VonBruinwald, on 15 February 2021 - 08:25 AM, said:

As I said, it caters to 4-mans and creates an unfair nerf against solo mechs getting their own locks. It also incentives pugs to hang back leaching locks, if they go off and get their own they're actually worse off than if they hide behind a hill and let the boys at the front lock for them.

As I said:
If we remove the targeting square from the hud (except in cases where the target is Narced/Tagged then) then leaching locks becomes a none-issue, for all weapons types. Applying a blanket nerf across the board for all players is far better than nerfing one particular play-style you disagree with.

Like I said buff line of sight shots and still make it harder to sit back raining death with out good locks. We can work out the details of how weak medium and strong locks work. Let make it so people just can't hide behind a hill raining death at full power with no thought behind it. Most of the complaints I have seen about LRMs is they are too easy to use and are devastating when fired in mass. This would fix that

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 08:43 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 08:28 AM, said:

Like I said buff line of sight shots and still make it harder to sit back raining death with out good locks. We can work out the details of how weak medium and strong locks work. Let make it so people just can't hide behind a hill raining death at full power with no thought behind it. Most of the complaints I have seen about LRMs is they are too easy to use and are devastating when fired in mass. This would fix that

I'll say it again: remove the targeting square from the hud, except in cases where the target is Narced/Tagged.

It stops people hanging back leaching locks but does so in a way that is fair and applies to all players equally.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VonBruinwald, on 15 February 2021 - 09:25 AM, said:

I'll say it again: remove the targeting square from the hud, except in cases where the target is Narced/Tagged.

It stops people hanging back leaching locks but does so in a way that is fair and applies to all players equally.

That would make them too hard to use. I am trying to fix them with out nerfing them to the point you can't take them at all unless you are in a group. My idea lets you IDF without getting full damage on target without team effort. But you can will still be able to make it painful running out in open when LRMs are around and still keeps them as a map control weapon. Were you can make no go zones. Problem is not leching it's just to easy to get huge mass of damage on a target with little risk

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 09:50 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 09:47 AM, said:

That would make them too hard to use. I am trying to fix them with out nerfing them to the point you can't take them at all unless you are in a group. My idea lets you IDF without getting full damage on target without team effort. But you can will still be able to make it painful running out in open when LRMs are around and still keeps them as a map control weapon. Were you can make no go zones. Problem is not leching it's just to easy to get huge mass of damage on a target with little risk

So you increase IDF spread, it's a far simpler solution.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VonBruinwald, on 15 February 2021 - 10:01 AM, said:

So you increase IDF spread, it's a far simpler solution.

Yea but let them get that spread back to how it is now with team work. So if you are working as a team you get rewarded for smart team play. What is wrong with rewarding team work? And reward getting line of sign shots so people want to. try and get those. Shouldn't the game reward smart team play with missiles? https://en.wikipedia...aser_designator how it works now. So a single mech on it's own can't just sit back by it's self and be fully effective? It will force them to work with the team or get there own targets. This will keep them viable at high levels of play without being broken. It will make it harder to get the full effect with them without some effort

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 10:46 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 10:23 AM, said:

Yea but let them get that spread back to how it is now with team work. So if you are working as a team you get rewarded for smart team play. What is wrong with rewarding team work?

That's what Tag and Narc are for.

4-mans stacking LOS for "strong locks" is nonsense. If a 4-man wants to use teamwork with their LRMs then they bring Narc and Tag same as anybody else.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VonBruinwald, on 15 February 2021 - 10:59 AM, said:

That's what Tag and Narc are for.

4-mans stacking LOS for "strong locks" is nonsense. If a 4-man wants to use teamwork with their LRMs then they bring Narc and Tag same as anybody else.

That gives you the option to do it without narc or tag that requires you to have four mechs with LOS on the target so they have to be exposed. But say we do it your way how much worse would you make the missile spread without tag or narc? Thought my way would keep solo missiles pilot if there team has no narc or tag from being punished but keeps them from getting massive damage if someone on the team has lock on a single target

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 11:14 AM.

[YueFei]

ScrapIron Prime, on 14 February 2021 - 07:55 PM, said:

And while smoke and foliage can obscure sight, hard cover is required to protect yourself, because short of causing the target reticle to shake, there’s no way to throw off aim. (And that would just be too annoying.).

While I agree with the rest of what you said, this in particular I disagree with.

MW3 and MW4 in particular had actual impact mechanics that threw your aim off. In MWO, the "reticle shake" is actually purely cosmetic screen shake, and doesn't change your aimpoint, so that if your aim was true, even with the screen shake you'll still hit your target if you pull the trigger.

In MW3 and MW4, weapon impacts against your mech would literally throw your aim off. This was not annoying, and in fact led to deeper gameplay because of the mind-games and shot-timing between players. One of the most satisfying things to do was to anticipate the opponent's next shot and hit him a split second before, making him dump his entire alpha strike into the dirt.

[VonBruinwald]

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 11:09 AM, said:

That gives you the option to do it without narc or tag that requires you to have four mechs with LOS on the target so they have to be exposed.

You do realise it's basically giving free equipment to group players. That's a major balance issue.

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 11:09 AM, said:

But say we do it your way how much worse would you make the missile spread without tag or narc?

You're the one saying you want LRMs to be worse. How much weaker do you want them to be?

SirSmokes, on 15 February 2021 - 11:09 AM, said:

So a solo missiles pilot if there team has no narc or tag would be punished

That's the situation we currently have and some pilots elect to bring their own.

[The pessimistic optimist]

VonBruinwald, on 15 February 2021 - 11:20 AM, said:

You do realise it's basically giving free equipment to group players. That's a major balance issue.



You're the one saying you want LRMs to be worse. How much weaker do you want them to be?



That's the situation we currently have and some pilots elect to bring their own.

I don't want them to be worse I just want to find a smart way to fix the complaints people have about them and they have complaints I have heard plenty trust me. People that take there own need LOS to use those. So how much worse should the spread be?

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 February 2021 - 11:37 AM.