145 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

LordNothing, on 14 November 2023 - 01:16 PM, said:

and thats a bad thing why? a brawler might want to defend itself against ballistics. a sniper hunter might want to protect itself from lasers and ppcs. its sort of like missiles, if you do not like them, then you can install ams, scm, skill derp, etc. if something frustrates you, you have options.

Because the game is bad, and cannot stay the way it is, but god help you if you suggest changing it in any meaningful way because that can't possibly happen either.

Edited by pbiggz, 15 November 2023 - 08:59 PM.

[Requiemking]

cougurt, on 15 November 2023 - 08:57 PM, said:

it's not a lack of rewards that makes it not worthwhile, it's the fact that scouting isn't really its own distinct role. the only thing preventing you from scouting AND being combat-capable is choosing to bring an ineffective loadout.

But here is the thing. If you want to do anything in game beyond play rounds with Trial Mechs, you need C-Bills. This means that, for the average player, earning C-Bills is the primary goal in game. This means that anything that doesn't earn C-Bills, or doesn't earn them in sufficient quantities, is disregarded in favor of strategies and behaviours that will earn C-Bills. For example, Scouting as a whole is written off as a waste of time because you'd rather be doing damage to earn C-Bills rather than enabling other players to earn C-Bills. It's the same thing with the objectives on the rare occasions where modes like Incursion and Conquest show up. The earnings from completing objectives is so low that most players ignore them in favor of straight combat. It's also why players are more likely to aim for non-lethal shots, since under the current rewards system 500 damage across two mechs without killing them will earn you more than two kills would.

[cougurt]

Requiemking, on 15 November 2023 - 10:15 PM, said:

But here is the thing. If you want to do anything in game beyond play rounds with Trial Mechs, you need C-Bills. This means that, for the average player, earning C-Bills is the primary goal in game. This means that anything that doesn't earn C-Bills, or doesn't earn them in sufficient quantities, is disregarded in favor of strategies and behaviours that will earn C-Bills. For example, Scouting as a whole is written off as a waste of time because you'd rather be doing damage to earn C-Bills rather than enabling other players to earn C-Bills. It's the same thing with the objectives on the rare occasions where modes like Incursion and Conquest show up. The earnings from completing objectives is so low that most players ignore them in favor of straight combat. It's also why players are more likely to aim for non-lethal shots, since under the current rewards system 500 damage across two mechs without killing them will earn you more than two kills would.

generally speaking, damage and kills have the biggest impact on match outcome, and so they are rewarded the most. it's not perfect as it can reward ineffective damage farming as you mentioned, but it still largely favors actions that contribute towards winning. there's no reason why you can't scout or cap while also dealing damage and killing mechs; you can and should be doing all of those things as necessary, but with a heavy emphasis on the latter two because that's what typically influences a match in the most direct and immediate way.

[Curccu]

Requiemking, on 15 November 2023 - 10:15 PM, said:

But here is the thing. If you want to do anything in game beyond play rounds with Trial Mechs, you need C-Bills. This means that, for the average player, earning C-Bills is the primary goal in game. This means that anything that doesn't earn C-Bills, or doesn't earn them in sufficient quantities, is disregarded in favor of strategies and behaviours that will earn C-Bills. For example, Scouting as a whole is written off as a waste of time because you'd rather be doing damage to earn C-Bills rather than enabling other players to earn C-Bills. It's the same thing with the objectives on the rare occasions where modes like Incursion and Conquest show up. The earnings from completing objectives is so low that most players ignore them in favor of straight combat. It's also why players are more likely to aim for non-lethal shots, since under the current rewards system 500 damage across two mechs without killing them will earn you more than two kills would.

Like cougurt said, you can do scouting and killing both... being just a scout and being inactive in fight is players call and usually very bad one for scoring and for team because now it is 11vs12 game.

Kinda same with conquest team that has more people running objectives usually loses because fight that is also happening is not even, 3 players doing just capping makes fight 9vs12 and changes are high that those 9 players lose that fight after that those final 3 are easy to kill and cap objectives while doing so. I have witnessed this hundreds of times.

Do you earn more if you do 500 damage without those two mechs dying in the end? or doing 250 damage and those two mechs dying? I don't think you do, killing gives kill/kmdd/solo/saviour kill+assist bonuses that are significant.

[cougurt]

it's also worth noting that you get a significant match score bonus for winning, so it is usually in your best interest to do whatever is most likely to result in a victory.

[Requiemking]

Curccu, on 15 November 2023 - 11:28 PM, said:

Do you earn more if you do 500 damage without those two mechs dying in the end? or doing 250 damage and those two mechs dying? I don't think you do, killing gives kill/kmdd/solo/saviour kill+assist bonuses that are significant.

Yes, you do, because the C-Bills you get for parts destruction and damage adds up to more than the Kill bonus, which you only get one of per mech anyways.

[foamyesque]

Frost_Byte, on 12 November 2023 - 02:38 AM, said:

The purpose of the clan double heatsinks nerf proposal was to curb clan high alpha. Clan mechs being able to have extreme alpha strikes, sit back and cooldown, then poke and melt someone again. As of right now, clan midrange vomit is the strongest archetype in the game and we need to pull it back a bit. We're looking at other options as well, maybe a heat nerf on specific weapons rather than slapping clan double heatsinks.

OK, but Clans have had huge alphas for a very long time. Why is this change needed now? I would venture the suggestion that the culprits are HAGs, which have pushed those numbers much higher, which seems to suggest solutions other than changing a bedrock piece of balance. I'm not opposed per se, but it strikes me as a more-than-minimum-required change which could have unintended consequences.

Make HAGs a properly spready weapon, maybe increase their heat like people're talking about, and a big chunk of the alpha problem goes away.

[Jugger Grimrod]

Clan vs IS Balance in a GIF?

You can never balance that which was never intended to be balanced, by intent and design! Alas, I've enjoyed countless moments over the years watching the attempts. Best wishes! XOXO Juggz

Edited by Jugger Grimrod, 17 November 2023 - 08:16 PM.

[martian]

foamyesque, on 17 November 2023 - 06:00 PM, said:

Make HAGs a properly spready weapon, maybe increase their heat like people're talking about, and a big chunk of the alpha problem goes away.

HAG as "a properly spready weapon" (as it is in the original BattleTech) would be unsuitable for sniping, you know.

[Weeny Machine]

martian, on 18 November 2023 - 02:07 AM, said:

HAG as "a properly spready weapon" (as it is in the original BattleTech) would be unsuitable for sniping, you know.

...and this is the problem. HAGs have never been a sniping weapon in Battle Tech - and as skewed as the tabletop balance might be, in this case it was for a good reason

[martian]

Weeny Machine, on 18 November 2023 - 02:39 AM, said:

...and this is the problem. HAGs have never been a sniping weapon in Battle Tech - and as skewed as the tabletop balance might be, in this case it was for a good reason

Just read this:

Frost_Byte, on 25 October 2023 - 02:39 PM, said:

Low to zero spread was a factor that was wanted by most of the cauldron as a pillar of the weapon, then balancing other components around it ...

Thus, Cauldron got their zero-spread Gauss weapon with the effective range of 810 m.

[foamyesque]

martian, on 18 November 2023 - 02:07 AM, said:

HAG as "a properly spready weapon" (as it is in the original BattleTech) would be unsuitable for sniping, you know.

Yes, that is in fact a key reason I think HAGs ought to have spread.

Edited by foamyesque, 18 November 2023 - 03:33 AM.

[martian]

foamyesque, on 18 November 2023 - 03:33 AM, said:

Yes, that is in fact a key reason I think HAGs ought to have spread.

Cauldron prefers to have a long-ranged weapon with zero spread.

[foamyesque]

martian, on 18 November 2023 - 03:35 AM, said:

Cauldron prefers to have a long-ranged weapon with zero spread.

That exists, it's called standard gauss.

[martian]

foamyesque, on 18 November 2023 - 03:40 AM, said:

That exists, it's called standard gauss.

You can tell Cauldron all these things.

But I can spare you some time and effort and give you the Cauldron's answer before you even ask:

Frost_Byte, on 12 November 2023 - 02:38 AM, said:

[As for BattleTech] ... we'll always have to deviate pretty far in the name of an enjoyable and balanced game.

As you can see, Cauldron "has deviated pretty far" to turn the BattleTech HAG (essentially, weapon most useful in the short-to-medium range and dealing spread damage; Clan ballistic equivalent of MRMs, although not identical, of course) to the MWO HAG (long range sniping weapon delivering - with some effort - concentrated damage).

[MechB Kotare]

This game definitely needs to buff LRMs back. From all metas that were dominating this game throughout these 10 years, LRM spam was definitely most fun out of all of them...

/s

This post is imho very biased and subjective. Map design is really an issue. It always has been, because there are still abusable map locations, that are still unreachable without running through open ground.

Sniping (800m +) in general is only as effective as you complain about, because it punishes bad positioning and movement. Now im not sure, if you are the streamer Moadebe, but if you are, i can see where you are comming from, but while i do, i dont think having 112 close range alphas as the most optimal way to play, is any more fun, than having gauss and ERLL spam.

People in here like to complain about cauldron, but i do believe (my unbiased opinion), that game has never been more balanced than it is now. While some playstyles (like slow high alpha close range assault brawlers) are objectively worse than a fast moving mediums, light skirmishers, it is much better than having only one playstyle available, while variety has been thrown into oblivion.

Premade group of 4 face hugging arctic wolves stacked with srms, or a group of face hugging piranhas and fleas, is as much deadly and ''unfair'' as is going against premade of assaults and heavies, stacked with blue lasers and gausses camping one location.

Also, many times, people fail to percieve, what really is melting them down. I watched couple of minutes of your gameplay. You were in SR Koloss, with 2x LBX20, and 6x SRM (112 at 370m optimal i think). You were also in Rubellite Oasis d6 low ground, getting melted from d6 high ground, by a lance of high alpha clan builds featuring HvyLLs, cErML and Gauss/Hags at 500m, automatically dumping them in ''meta snipers category, while you were in fact being melted by, bad postioning, bad movement (running away through open ground with one of the slowest mechs in the game), and by true meta of this game, which is high alpha MEDIUM RANGE (please this is very important).

So... i don't like the idea of balancing the game for people who don't know how to play what and when.

I say no to cDoubleHeat sink nerf. Why? Because that would be completely missing the real reason behind these builds. And that is skill tree. It is the skill tree implementation that allowed some of this high alpha 'power creep'. Why should be double heatsinks be nerfed? It would only make heat skill modules even more essential. Goodbye variety i guess. Don't nerf heatsinks, remove skill tree. Problem solved. No more blue lasers shooting from 1800m, no more 70 to 100 alpha builds at 0 to 600m, and no more lights capable of soloing a assault mech. Although i don't think any of that would necessarily make the game more attractive to new players.

Now. HAGs...

HAGs were poorly implemented imho, because the way they work, essentially makes them much better than cAC of anykind (UACs including). It is not clear what they are supposed to be, while being effective in all range brackets and situations. PGI/Cauldron will be nerfing them, to the point when they are absolutely useless. Instead rework UAC jamming mechanic, and make cAC 10 and cAC 20 one projectile. There is absolutely no reason for me to take those otherwise, because HAGs are simply better the closer you get. If you want to nerf them to the ground, increase their burst duration even further, to make them suck more the closer you are, demanding longer face time. Just look at XPulses. They are so bad, because they are ''dps through look at me!'' If you want HAGs to be effective only in certain situations, nerfing their burst time would definitely do the trick. It would however completely kill the weapon, making it good only in lower tiers.

Sorry, but im against buffing LRMs through nerfing ECM and Radar Deprivation and/or buffing target decay, as long as its possible to make LRM100+ boating assault builds. I can guarantee you, that premades of LRM boating assaults (best with a narc raven), will not make this game any more dynamic and fun, than any other meta this game featured before. While LRMs are essential to BT, from my personal experience, and in my personal opinion, they are more cancer to fight against, than long range snipers. Not to mention, that LRM dont counter anything you complain about. You are merely adding more pug stomping possibility.

I am also against the idea of a buff to ''super fast'' light mechs of any kind. Just as it is your subjective opinion, that ''sniper''s are ruining experience for you, having a ''super fast'' light mech that can go from -40 to 160 kph in 0,5 seconds, is what kills the game for me. Add masc and movement skill modules into equation, and wuala, you have much more inferior state of the game, with better overall weapon balance.

Conclusion: While i see that you want to play this game certain way, and want to have the state of balance optimised around it, i disagree with almost everything you've said in this thread. Asside of new weapons (xpulses being dog s..., and HAGs being the best medium and close range clan projectile) balance of this game has never been better. Skill tree is what broke the game balance in general, remove skill tree, and alphas will go down, snipers will come closer, light mech power creep will go slower.

Admittedly, i don't play this game much anymore, but not because of the games balance, but because this game is outdated, without anything new coming our way (pvp wise). But if i had to make a list, of things i don't like about current state of the game, i'd put (super fast) light mech power creepis at the top of it.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 18 November 2023 - 05:20 AM.

[MechB Kotare]

martian, on 18 November 2023 - 02:07 AM, said:

HAG as "a properly spready weapon" (as it is in the original BattleTech) would be unsuitable for sniping, you know.

Weeny Machine, on 18 November 2023 - 02:39 AM, said:

...and this is the problem. HAGs have never been a sniping weapon in Battle Tech - and as skewed as the tabletop balance might be, in this case it was for a good reason

I dont know where is this information coming from. Source?

Meanwhile here are some lore TT values

https://www.sarna.ne..._Gauss_Rifle_40

HAG40
Heat 8 Damage 1/slug Minimum Range 1-2 Short Range 1-8 Medium Range 9-16 Long Range 17-24 Tons 16 Critical Slots
10

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gauss_rifle

Gauss rifle
Heat 1 Damage 15 Minimum Range 2 Short Range 1-7 Medium Range 8-15 Long Range 16-22

I can't find any information about their spread, which suggests they are worse at long range (sniping) than a regular sniping Gauss. Can you please link me some official source which proves, that they are indeed not a ''sniping'' weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 18 November 2023 - 04:58 AM.

[PsionicMantis]

So from what ive read, on tabletop a hag40 fires 8 clusters of 5, each of the pellets in the clusters do 1 damage. When one of the cluster hits, the cluster hit table gets an adjustment of +2 to short range hits and a -2 to long range hits.

So take it as you will, i dont think hags were meant as a sniper weapon, but thats according to tabletop, which MWO isnt.

[Der Geisterbaer]

MechB Kotare, on 18 November 2023 - 04:40 AM, said:

I dont know where is this information coming from. Source?

Well, I'd guess the sources would be pretty much the same as the one you presented along with further knowledge of what that means with regards to the rest of the tt rules.

MechB Kotare, on 18 November 2023 - 04:40 AM, said:

I can't find any information about their spread, which suggests they are worse at long range (sniping) than a regular sniping Gauss.

Have another look at your own source about HAG 40 and note this little gem from it's rules:

Unlike some other weapons using cluster munitions, there is no modifier on the initial attack roll. However, when a hit is scored, a Hyper-Assault Gauss Rifle receives a +2 modifier on the Cluster Hits table at short range, and a –2 modifier at long range. Modified rolls above 12 or below 2 are treated as a 12 or 2 respectively. Damage location is then determined in 5-point groups plus any remainder below 5 being the final roll.

This tells several things:

1. HAG are treated as "cluster munitions" weapons => Whenever the weapon hits it doesn't do its full damage but rather you have to make a secondary roll on a particular table which determines the outcome of how many points of damage actually hit. The table looks like this with HAG40 being the last column:


Side note: LRM and SRM use the exact same table.

2. Some other "cluster munistions" weapons get an to hit modifiier on their original attack roll. HAG40 (and other HAGs) however receive a bonus or malus depending on the range bracket that they try to hit with a -2 at long range => HAG40s only ever deal 32 of their 40 points of damage at long range in TT. Since two dice on average produce a result of 7 with adjacent values of 6 and 8 of similar probability that range modifier will on average drop the results to 4,5,6 respectively thus averaging the typical HAG40 damage to 22 points of damage ([18 + 24+ 24]/3). Note: This average is a statistical one you can still score the full possible 32 points on numerous successive attempts. It's die rolls after all.

3. The HAGs deal their damage just like any other non-special / non-melee weapon in TT in groups of 5 that each get their own die roll for hit location ...with remainders below 5 being dealt in the last roll.

=> All three points represent forms of spread in TT - that unlike in MW.O - even affects normal Gauss shots since they are subject to the same "in groups of 5" rule point 3. Points 1 and 2 are however the things that specifically introduce further spread for HAQ where overall damage potential is directly lost due to the cluster hit roll and its modification at long range.

Since MW:O decided to normally not include the general damage spread as per point 3 this is what actually makes weapon with long range into actual "sniper" weapons. For Gauss that's true in particular since unlike long range lasers there's no "burn time" while the target is moving. The slug simply hits if the shot hits ... and due to the projectile velocity it's near instantaneous.

HAGs on the other hand - in terms of TT / lore - should normally come with the "spread" of the points 1 and 2 ... which in turn should prevent them from being "snipery" weapons even in an MW:O appropriate implementation.

MechB Kotare, on 18 November 2023 - 04:40 AM, said:

Can you please link me some official source which proves, that they are indeed not a ''sniping'' weapon?

You pretty much cited the relevant source yourself. Citing more of the TT rules (and their respective rulebooks) isn't necessary in my opinion.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 18 November 2023 - 05:37 AM.

[MechB Kotare]

Thank you for the info. I genuinely had no idea. Also i can't seem to find a way to access that cluster hit table chart.