265 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

PPS: Weapon damage numbers have been tweaked away from their tabletop values because of a process called "video game development." It involves looking at the performance of a weapon across the game, and then adjusting it based on reality instead of board game from the 1980s. This process is imperfect, and judgement calls have to be used, but it is infinitely preferable to the armchair-developer method of thumping an outdated rulebook for a different kind of Battletech game entirely.

Edited by Void Angel, 15 June 2024 - 07:58 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

It's also important to remember TTK is only part of the "pacing" equation. Movement, TTK, and map design all play into each other to create a sense of pace for a game. Right now TTK and movement can vary wildly depending on the mechs involved in a match which IS problematic and has only gotten exacerbated over the past several years. However it's a symptom of a much larger problem that honestly isn't going to get fixed until a new multiplayer mechwarrior comes around.

[MechMaster059]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 15 June 2024 - 07:30 PM, said:

This is you misunderstanding and misrepresenting my point...

Not misrepresenting anything. You said:

Quicksilver Aberration, on 15 June 2024 - 12:32 PM, said:

.....and outside D A T A, none of them are considered that good...

This is clearly a dismissive and condescending statement. It's also a silly statement considering 3 of the 4 are top 200 99%ers and the 4th is a top 500 98%er which is still VERY GOOD. To that you say:

Quicksilver Aberration, on 15 June 2024 - 01:22 PM, said:

99% doesn't really mean much...

??? This is some olympic level goal post moving here. This is a lame attempt to diminish any metrics being presented by acting dismissive towards them with absurd statements like:

Quicksilver Aberration, on 15 June 2024 - 01:22 PM, said:

There can still be a wide gap of skill between 99% and top 99.9999%

So now we're up to 99.9999%? Basically anyone who isn't in the top 100 on Jarl's isn't "that good" according to you, a ridiculously exclusive standard of judgement.

=====

The6thMessenger, on 15 June 2024 - 07:49 PM, said:

...Yeah, they have skill, but going solo on the soup-queue also has luck as factor to it's outcome
...

These game forum discussions are hilarious in how they always end up getting dragged into some alternate reality. So D A T A, LtPoohPants, Sean Lang, TTB, and Baradul targeting and destroying side torsos or exposed components in their match videos are merely examples of a "highlight reel" or "luck" and not representative of their skill or the current meta. OK guys.

=====

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

Oh my goodness. It is literally your assertion that he shot you... with up to SIX large-class lasers... with a total burn time of at least 1.81 seconds... while clearing his ARM MOUNTS... while you were waiting for him to fully crest... at 120m range!!!

I literally am still laughing. Problem exists between keyboard and chair - but don't think I haven't noticed that we've somehow stopped talking about a single laser alpha and gone to staggered fire without so much as an "actually, now that I try to remember the facts..."

Ya, I wanted to shoot him. My HAGs have a charge time of 0.75s and my own ERLLs have a burn time of 1.35s (I don't have laser duration skilled) so in order to shoot him I had no choice but to give him some face-time and there's no cover to hide behind on that slope. He didn't "fully crest". He got over just enough to hit me with his lasers. I don't remember his exact weapon load-out other than the fact that he hit me with multiple blue lasers

The point is he fired a single cooldown of his lasers and put the armor of the side torso of my assault mech into the red as a result. You guys can sit there and laugh and say I should have done XY and Z instead but the reality of the situation is I had no where to hide and had to choose between either returning fire and taking a hit in the process or do nothing but try to twist his damage. I chose to try and get a piece of him and had my ST severely weakened from a single salvo as a result.

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

As far as your fallacious appeal to authority video evidence, despite your constant straw man attempts...

So we're reaching the point now where you start getting nasty and accuse me of making "straw man attempts". I'm not using straw man arguments. You're being very dismissive towards evidence of the current meta that supports the thesis that alpha is too high in the game with lame arguments like:

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

...I'm still telling you that no matter how many highlight reels you watch, they're still going to be highlight reels. ...

"Highlight reels". That's the new buzzword in this thread I guess.

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

Streamers aren't doing scientific studies

I guess we can't ever draw any conclusions about the current state of the game without doing a "scientific study" first.

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

That's why you never present any hard numbers when making any of your arguments... because somehow you just know what you're talking about right?

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

... stamping your foot and screaming, "No! I don't wanna stop playing make-believe!" doesn't change anything.
...

No make-believe going on here. The numbers for HAGs were initially pulled straight from TT. A simple eye-balling of the numbers comparing a HAG40 to a Heavy Gauss Rifle clearly shows that without spread, a HAG40 will be FAR FAR SUPERIOR to a Heavy Gauss Rifle. I knew HAGs would be OP from the very first patch they were released. (They still are somewhat OP) I don't need to be a top 100 Jarl's to see all the goofy nerfs they've made to HAGs since trying to bring them in line.

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

You're totally convinced of your own rightness, despite players who vastly outclass you trying to explain how the game works.

This is because the arguments presented by you guys amount to absurd, dismissive, and glib statements like "99% doesn't mean much", streamer recordings are just "highlight reels" that don't count, and "Put the 1980s rulebook down" even though that rulebook is the source material for the game, etc. This is utterly typical behavior of high rated players on game forums and it's lame.

And I'll tell you something else, I think I know who is responsible for getting spread removed from HAGs. In fact, he's been mentioned in this thread as the only player you guys consider good, and the great irony is that the end result of his advice was severely screwing up the weapon and making them OP. The ultimate proof that high skill does not equate to being qualified to make design decisions.

Void Angel, on 15 June 2024 - 07:55 PM, said:

...Additionally, his comment wasn't a random dig against those streamers - it came in the context of your baseless claims about how streamers' highlight reels are actually their standard match performance all the time.

Please stop trying to cover up what Quicksilver said. He clearly made a generally dismissive and condescending statement directed at them.

Ya, I believe their match videos are representative of how they play most of the time. I've seen TTB, Sean Lang, and LtPoohPants in game and I honestly can't remember any of them ever having a stinker of a match.

[ambosen]

I'm sure the fact that the devs basically do nothing but mod the game to appease whoever complains most frequently and vocally has nothing to with it.

[martian]

MechMaster059, on 15 June 2024 - 03:20 AM, said:

How do I "prove" alpha is too high? Easy, compare weapon stats to table-top values to show just how far out of whack MWO is considering slot cost and weights were kept aligned with TT:

ERLL Damage:
TT: 8
MWO: IS 9 / Clan 11
Why does the C-ERLL do 11 damage? There's no reason for it to hit that hard... for 1 ton less than IS.

Heavy Large Laser Damage:
TT: 16
MWO: 18
Why? Is 16 alpha not enough? LOL.

Binary Laser Cannon:
TT: 12
MWO: 18
Guess what folks, the BLC doesn't do 2x the damage of a LL in TT, it's only +50%. I used to think the -1 ton provided by the BLC wasn't a big deal. I was wrong. The -1 Ton, freeing up a laser slot for a 2nd smaller laser, and avoiding the ghost heat from firing 4 standard LLs compared to firing a pair of BLCs all combine to be a big deal for the BLC. It doesn't need to do 2x the damage of a LL to be good. I would lower it down to 16.

There is no concept of laser duration in TT. PGI could make laser duration 50% of total laser cycle time in MWO without breaking TT lore if they wanted to. I don't recommend that but what I do recommend is raising the current laser duration from ~20% of cycle time up to ~25% of cycle time. This would mean:

C-Heavy Large Laser Duration 1.45s --> 1.75s
C-Medium Laser Duration 1.05s --> 1.25s
IS-Medium Laser Duration 0.9s --> 1.125s
(Their cooldowns would be lowered by the same amount to keep total cycle time the same)

The IS laser duration reduction skills should be nerfed from -3.75% / point down to being the same as the Clan skills at -2.5% / point. They probably made the IS laser duration skills better to make their impact more noticeable on the shorter duration IS lasers but this misses the fact that their shorter duration makes any reduction more impactful in terms of PPFLD so there's no need for IS lasers to get better duration reduction skills.

As MWO currently stands, lasers can inflict a tremendous amount of PPFLD in less than 1.2s after quirks and laser duration reduction skills. This doesn't take much skill to do with lasers since they don't need to lead their target and instantly begin inflicting damage. These advantages should be counter-balanced by having to maintain aim over a significantly longer duration than ballistics.

Also, blue lasers have longer base range in MWO than TT and there's no concept of damage drop-off in TT(LOL!) which effectively gives a further boost of +50-66% in effective range for lasers in MWO. Blue lasers are OP as hell in MWO compared to TT.

=====

Removing spread from HAGs was a HORRENDOUS decision. The worst deviation from TT and worst balance change in MWO. I know what the Cluster Hits Table is in TT and it's plain as day that HAGs were intended to be sandblast weapons like MRMs. There is no other way to keep their high alpha, high DPS, relatively low heat, and low weight in check. As a result of removing spread, they were OP as hell for a time and all sorts of goofy changes like giving them splash (LOL!?), jacking up their heat (on Gauss!?), and increasing their cooldown had to be done. All of these wacky nerfs could be reverted simply by putting spread back on HAGs.

These things steal the job of standard Gauss.

=====

The penalties for losing a side torso are too severe. The potential loss of firepower and guaranteed loss of move speed is enough, but noooooo:

IS XL: YOU DIE
IS LE/Clan XL: You suffer a massive heat spike that can potentially kill you. If you don't die from it, your mech now has massively reduced heat capacity and heat dissipation. No, your mech is not "halved", your mech is more like "one thirded".

Recommended changes for losing a ST:
IS XL: -2 internal heat sinks, -20% heat capacity, -30% move speed
IS LE/Clan XL: -1 internal heat sinks, -10% heat capacity, -15% move speed

=====

All of these factors contribute to a violent, swiftly snowballing meta of heavy/assaults packed with high alpha / low duration weapons that cripple enemy mechs by popping side torsos and it's sad.

MechMaster059, on 15 June 2024 - 09:34 AM, said:

So doubling armor vs TT fixed all TTK issues? Wrong. Doubling armor was necessary to make MWO playable at all.

You've never asked yourself WHY armor values were doubled vs TT have you? Answer: Because in TT you're not free to aim at individual components of a mech except under certain circumstances and there are significant restrictions for doing so. Here are the rules for taking aimed shots in TT:

- You can only aim at individual components of enemy mechs that are stationary.
- "Cluster" type weapons may NEVER take aimed shots. (no Missiles, LBX, nor HAGs)
- You can aim at individual components of moving mechs (except the Head) using weapons attached to a targeting computer but the targeting computer doesn't give its usual -1 to hit bonus and "Pulse" type weapons / "Multi-Shot" weapons cannot be used. (No Pulse Lasers, UACs cannot double-tap an aimed shot at a moving target.)(In TT you can only attach 5T of weapons / 1T of TC for Clan and 4T of weapons / 1T of TC for Inner Sphere.)
- If you aim for the Head of a stationary target you lose the -4 to hit modifier and get an additional +3 to hit penalty. (A massive swing in hit chance that makes hitting the head extremely difficult except at close range.)
- After rolling to hit with an aimed shot, you then roll to see if your aimed shot actually hit the intended component by rolling a 6, 7, or 8. (A 44% chance on 2D6) If you miss this roll the aimed shot didn't hit the intended component and you roll to see which component you actually hit per the normal procedure.

So there you have it, no aimed shots by Missiles, LBX nor HAGs under ANY circumstances and no aimed shots vs moving targets by Pulse Lasers / UAC double-taps and you're guaranteed not to land about half of the aimed shots you take on the intended component.

Aiming at specific components is the norm in MWO. In fact, it's considered a measure of a player's skill how good they are at maintaining their fire upon the same component. The usual targets are side torsos since they're generally as easy to hit as the CT but easier to destroy and severely cripple the enemy mech once destroyed making destroying a ST a de-facto kill most of the time. (or in the case of IS XL engines, a real kill)

This is why armor values had to be doubled for MWO, because focusing PPFLD against individual components is so easy in MWO. This is totally alien to TT where players have much less control over where their shots land and entire weapon classes can't make aimed shots at all.


No, a couple more tenths of a second in laser duration wouldn't "gut them". That's a hyperbolic statement.

Is this a serious question? Because lasers would be OP as hell and make PPCs obsolete if they dealt their damage instantly.

MechMaster059, on 15 June 2024 - 01:12 PM, said:

Blah blah blah... notice how table top suddenly doesn't matter when people don't want it to folks? All of the weapons are pulled from and based upon table top. There is no deviation in weight, and almost no deviation in slot cost. Most damage values were kept nearly equal to TT. Every number for HAGs was pulled directly from TT except the spread was removed. Don't come in here and act like referencing TT is crazy or invalid.
I think I can considering MWO is based on TT and no justification has been given as to why blue laser damage values were boosted beyond TT or why HAGs had the one mechanic keeping them in check (spread) completely removed.

MechMaster059, on 15 June 2024 - 05:51 PM, said:

You didn't provide any "reasons". You just proclaimed table top is a "rulebook that doesn't apply" to MWO and left it at that missing the point entirely which is that PPFLD is MUCH more dangerous in MWO precisely because the restrictions for taking aimed shots in TT don't apply to MWO. The logical conclusion to this fact is that either weapons need to have their damage reduced or mechs need to be made tougher. Rather than screwing around with all the weapon values PGI chose to just make mechs tougher by doubling armor which is a simpler solution.

No explanation has been given as to why blue lasers had their damage increased over TT, though in the case of ERLLs I have a hunch. Their TT damage of 8 seems a bit low given the weight of the weapon compared to medium lasers, so how can it still be a good weapon in TT? Because the fact that there's no such thing as damage drop-off in TT means weapon range is a much more valuable stat in TT than it is in MWO. ERLL's can have subpar damage in TT yet still be good because the extra range they have over medium lasers is so valuable.

This isn't the case in MWO where damage drop-off makes weapon range a much "fuzzier" stat. Mechs can still do decent damage outside of optimal range, hence ERLLs should do an amount of damage more in line with their weight in MWO. This is why I only drew attention to the 11 damage of the C-ERLL which I think is too much and not the 9 damage of the IS-ERLL which is probably about right.

Well if they keep the slot cost and tonnage in MWO the same as TT then they would likely need to hew closer to TT damage values as well to maintain balance. No, I'm not going to "put the rulebook of the other game down". It's what MWO is based on and therefore is THE reference material for what weapon values should be.

Currently, MechWarrior Online is advertised as "a tactical, 'Mech-based online shooter set in the vast BattleTech Universe." and it has always been advertised as such (with a slightly different wording).

In no moment was MechWarrior Online advertised as a 1:1 simulation of the tabletop BattleTech.

More than 10 years ago, MechWarrior Online was inspired by the tabletop BattleTech, but MWO has underwent a very significant evolution since then.

[MechMaster059]

martian, on 16 June 2024 - 02:10 AM, said:

...
In no moment was MechWarrior Online advertised as a 1:1 simulation of the tabletop BattleTech.
...

I realize that, but Void Angel is going to the opposite extreme. He keeps implying that TT is totally irrelevant with dismissive statements like "Put the 1980s rulebook down".

Edited by MechMaster059, 16 June 2024 - 02:23 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

ambosen, on 16 June 2024 - 01:16 AM, said:

I'm sure the fact that the devs basically do nothing but mod the game to appease whoever complains most frequently and vocally has nothing to with it.

Funny, I never thought that was the case. Prior to Cauldron, PGI was doing **** with balancing -- remember the alpha buff of the CERPPCs? That was a massive trainwreck.

And then when we got Gulag Cauldron -- yeah they listen to feedback, but ultimately it's a bunch of comp players deciding what is good for the game, and IIRC there's apparently some editorializing involved. While I have certain reservations with that to begin with -- like they would probably just change the game as how they would play it that ultimately force everyone else to play as how they play, evident with their damage-bloat hardpoint-inflated mechs.

But in light of those, it's nothing as what you said.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 June 2024 - 02:56 AM.

[ambosen]

The6thMessenger, on 16 June 2024 - 02:55 AM, said:

Funny, I never thought that was the case. Prior to Cauldron, PGI was doing **** with balancing -- remember the alpha buff of the CERPPCs? That was a massive trainwreck.

And then when we got Gulag Cauldron -- yeah they listen to feedback, but ultimately it's a bunch of comp players deciding what is good for the game, and IIRC there's apparently some editorializing involved. While I have certain reservations with that to begin with -- like they would probably just change the game as how they would play it that ultimately force everyone else to play as how they play, evident with their damage-bloat hardpoint-inflated mechs.

But in light of those, it's nothing as what you said.

And who was campaigng to buff PPC's? A damned good chunk of the people here in this very forum, for years that's who. Who was campaigning to buff laser weapons? A damned good chunk of people in this very forum. Who wanted to decrease scatter on HAGS, or indeed, have HAGS in the game to begin with? Yep, a good chunk of users in this forum. I can't log into this forum without seeing people bitching about how supposedly anything that isn't a high alpha strike friendly weapons system needs to be nerfed, regardless of the actuality of it's nature. It's been that way since *BEFORE* the game actually released for ****'s sake.

How many times does the pattern have to repeat before you let yourself see it?

[Bud Crue]

ambosen, on 16 June 2024 - 05:08 AM, said:

And who was campaigng to buff PPC's? A damned good chunk of the people here in this very forum, for years that's who. Who was campaigning to buff laser weapons? A damned good chunk of people in this very forum. Who wanted to decrease scatter on HAGS, or indeed, have HAGS in the game to begin with? Yep, a good chunk of users in this forum. I can't log into this forum without seeing people bitching about how supposedly anything that isn't a high alpha strike friendly weapons system needs to be nerfed, regardless of the actuality of it's nature. It's been that way since *BEFORE* the game actually released for ****'s sake.

How many times does the pattern have to repeat before you let yourself see it?

No disrespect intended, but could you provide some citations or references to some threads to back these assertions up? Out of curiosity I just did a few searches regarding HAGs, and all the results I came up with were discussions of HAG's needing to have increased spread, or some other nerf to account for their high range and damage potential. Yes, in each instance there was push back from commentators along the lines of "their fine as is" or what have you, but the vast majority of comments in each thread were critical of buffs and most suggested various nerfs to velocity, heat, spread, etc.

https://mwomercs.com...ove-hag-spread/
https://mwomercs.com...eption-of-hags/
https://mwomercs.com...gs/page__st__60
https://mwomercs.com...nge-to-improve/
https://mwomercs.com...t-gauss-2-then/

[martian]

ambosen, on 16 June 2024 - 05:08 AM, said:

And who was campaigng to buff PPC's? A damned good chunk of the people here in this very forum, for years that's who. Who was campaigning to buff laser weapons? A damned good chunk of people in this very forum. Who wanted to decrease scatter on HAGS, or indeed, have HAGS in the game to begin with? Yep, a good chunk of users in this forum. I can't log into this forum without seeing people bitching about how supposedly anything that isn't a high alpha strike friendly weapons system needs to be nerfed, regardless of the actuality of it's nature. It's been that way since *BEFORE* the game actually released for ****'s sake.

How many times does the pattern have to repeat before you let yourself see it?

As for HAGs, for example, I have stated clearly that HAGs should be a long-ranged spread-damage weapon. You can read my post here.

Edited by martian, 16 June 2024 - 07:03 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

MechMaster059, on 15 June 2024 - 09:34 AM, said:

So doubling armor vs TT fixed all TTK issues? Wrong. Doubling armor was necessary to make MWO playable at all.

You've never asked yourself WHY armor values were doubled vs TT have you? Answer: Because in TT you're not free to aim at individual components of a mech except under certain circumstances and there are significant restrictions for doing so. Here are the rules for taking aimed shots in TT:

snip

Doubling the armor values was actually an error

• Early closed beta MWO started off with base TT values and weapons' cooldowns were more aligned with Solaris's weapon delays, thus longer cooldowns
  
• Do consider the first IS mechs PGI used, as well as their weapons. Friends/Families complained mechs were dying too quickly.
  
• PGI instructed dev codes to double the internal structure Done!!! When that was patched betas posted the armor values were doubled too. Russ/Paul didn't know what to say but allowed it to stay as is.
  
  • Instructions should have been to make Internal Structure equal Armor Points, since 2 IS = 1 AP.
• Then closed beta players complained it was taking too long to kill mechs. Cooldowns were lowered.

Copied this from a much earlier post And the first set of numbers are the weapon delays in turns. since Solaris boardgame had 2.5 second rounds, while the base TT had 10sec rounds.


Of all the games dealing with the Battletech universe, until MWO there were only 3 other MW only multiplayer games, MPBT EGA/Solaris/3025. Below is the reference chart for Solaris version (easier to use instead of pulling out backup CD )

http://www.colokid.c...S%20FM100-1.htm

Notice the delay on PPC (10 secs) and AC20 (7.5 secs). Gauss Rifle would like be around that delay.

Others have posted about brawling and long range fire. If, and that is if, MWO used close to the same delays for GR and ERPPC/PPC, AC20, etc, it may alter how people do configure their mechs, especially if their long range weapons put them at severe risk if/when things do get close. Right now the only real risk is the heat.

Even though there are other contributing factors (out of line heat scale, convergence), armor/internal structure points doubled up increase mech life, why the need to almost half the weapon delays used from the MPBT games? Even the MW4 series weapon delays for PPC/ERPPC/GR were longer than MWO.

Appendix VI: Weapons Quick Reference - MultiPlayer BattleTech Weapon Quick Reference

 
Ballistic Weapons Delay/Heat
Autocannon/2.........2.5.....1
Autocannon/5.........5.0	   1
Autocannon/10.......5.0	   3
Autocannon/20.......7.5	   7
Machine Gun..........2.5	   0
Energy Weapons
Flamer...................5.0	   3
Laser(Large)...........7.5	   8
Laser(Medium........5.0	   3
Laser(Small)..........5.0	   1
PPC.....................10.0	10
Missile Weapons *
LRM-5...................7.5	   2
LRM-10.................7.5	   4
LRM-15.................7.5	   5
LRM-20.................7.5	   6
SRM-2...............5.0	   2
SRM-4...............5.0	   3
SRM-6...............5.0	   4

---------------------------------------------------------------

MW4 resources.

http://www.sarna.net..._%28Resource%29

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 16 June 2024 - 07:39 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MechMaster059, on 16 June 2024 - 01:01 AM, said:

This is clearly a dismissive and condescending statement. It's also a silly statement considering 3 of the 4 are top 200 99%ers and the 4th is a top 500 98%er which is still VERY GOOD. To that you say:

??? This is some olympic level goal post moving here. This is a lame attempt to diminish any metrics being presented by acting dismissive towards them with absurd statements like

Maybe you can think it's condescending and dismissive, but you are acting like these are elite players but I'm treating it like I would if I were recruiting them into comp. Having a 99% requirement or 2.0 KDR (which is what SJR used to have back in the day) is just to prevent bad players from applying. Stats can inform you on some things, but they aren't the end-all-be-all. People can and do stat pad unfortunately but also QP isn't even the best display of skill, often times it encourages bad habits that would get you killed in comp and that's not unique to this game either, other competitive/PvP shooters are the exact same way. You can consider it goal post moving, but what it really comes down to is definition of good and quality that we are arguing about. To me just being good at PUG stomping isn't enough because there is more to the game that farming PUGs.

It's no different than what people consider good mechs in QP vs comp. In QP mech choice matters MUCH less unless you are playing against a team of equivalent skill (which is....very rare).

MechMaster059, on 16 June 2024 - 02:16 AM, said:

I realize that, but Void Angel is going to the opposite extreme. He keeps implying that TT is totally irrelevant with dismissive statements like "Put the 1980s rulebook down".

It is totally irrelevant. TT construction rules and equipment design are inconsistent at best and just incoherent at worst and I say this as a Battletech fan (having participated in both kickstarters). A new mechwarrior game would be smart by pulling an MW4 and avoiding them as much as possible because they create so much friction when trying to translate to a competitive FPS style game.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 09:03 AM.

[torsie]

I am not very good at this game, so I do not want to get into this whole argument.

I only want to say we recently had event with increased armour for all mechs, and it was so much more fun, even when we had no heat, which usually means more damage, I think, it still felt much better when mechs werent losing components from stray projectile.

Getting little random slices by laser, being bombarded by missiles when you were spotted or moving between cover to get for example into brawling range, were not super risky and did not mean you are out of fight before you even get to play.

At least for me it was so much more fun.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

torsie, on 16 June 2024 - 09:48 AM, said:

I am not very good at this game, so I do not want to get into this whole argument.

I only want to say we recently had event with increased armour for all mechs, and it was so much more fun, even when we had no heat, which usually means more damage, I think, it still felt much better when mechs werent losing components from stray projectile.

Getting little random slices by laser, being bombarded by missiles when you were spotted or moving between cover to get for example into brawling range, were not super risky and did not mean you are out of fight before you even get to play.

At least for me it was so much more fun.

Funny you mention that event, cuz the best loadouts for that event were pretty much Clan beam laser spam (aka max DPS spam).

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 10:16 AM.

[torsie]

I know, it is little sad that no other weapon benefits from that reduced heat, I try some big AC or LRMs but you can not put enough of them to really have lot of fun.

Or some SRM or something, but it was usually only lot lasers everywhere, and I do not think clan beams were even that good, usually team with more beams always lost to mechs with lots of just regular lasers.

Oh, maybe no ammo can work, that way you can put lot more and bigger weapons and not care about ammo boxes. You also could combine lots of different missile and ballistic weapons.

Edited by torsie, 16 June 2024 - 10:24 AM.

[CFC Conky]

Hello all,

I've been reading arguments about TT vs the PvP nature of MWO for seven years now and I'm still left wondering why some people, absolutely no insult intended, have such a hard time understanding that as a PvP game, MWO just can't incorporate some TT elements.

Take movement for example, in TT (or at least in the HBS version), if you don't get LoS to something from the hex you're in, that's it whereas in MWO, slight movement within what in TT would be a given hex will give it to you.

And don't get me started on weapons damage/heat/etc values, or where our mechs get hit, we don't roll dice in MWO so get over it.

In my opinion, MWO cannot be balanced effectively if you stick too closely to TT rules.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

[Void Angel]

MechMaster059, on 16 June 2024 - 02:16 AM, said:

I realize that, but Void Angel is going to the opposite extreme. He keeps implying that TT is totally irrelevant with dismissive statements like "Put the 1980s rulebook down".

You play this game a lot: "this statement means what I want it to mean in order to shore up my argument. None of the people actually making the statements can tell me that I'm wrong, since my motivated interpretation is obvious! When the people who made those statements, or even bystanders tell me I'm wrong, they're lying - stop trying to cover it up!" My comments about the Tabletop rulebook have made it abundantly clear that you are using the rulebook wrong - hence the part of the above quote you forgot to include: "... and stop bothering the other kids who are playing the game from today."

This is a textbook case of bad faith argument. Your basic strategy is to pick a data point you think makes you right, insist that your subjective interpretation is "obviously" the only reasonable one, and then attack the people who argue with you - often using that same method. This is why you resort to fallacious appeals to authority so often: the rulebook for an entirely different game, Youtube videos by famous streamers, etc. When challenged successfully, you shift to attacking your opponents' behavior instead of defending your ideas. You don't get out of the obligation to prove your claims by trying to shift the conversation to whether your opponents are being naughty.

In the real world where facts live, the evidence is not on your side. Just taking a look at the sources you're citing for your arguments:

Tabletop Rulebook, circa 1984: This is an entirely different type of Battletech game, and its mechanics don't match up here. Yet you specifically cited that rulebook as "proof" for game balance. That's like saying you should use the rules from Battle Chess to balance Starcraft. Despite the superficial similarities, they are two very different games - put the rulebook from the other game down, and stop hitting.

Famous Streamer Videos: Those videos aren't representative of even those streamers' match results, much less the state of the game as a whole. This has been explained to you in several ways, but you refuse to accept that fact, dismissing the objections of several high-level comp players in favor of your own subjective experiences, which brings us to:

Your Subjective Experience: Long story short, all of the people you're arguing with have more subjective authority than you do. We've been playing longer, seen more of the game, and play at a higher level; we've played in competitive teams at high (and low!) levels as well. We've seen things you people wouldn't believe... And you defend your insistence on misusing highlight reels from Youtube by insisting that your game experience matches what you want to prove with the videos, and thus you must be right! The logic on the bus goes round and round, round and round, round and round...

You accuse people of moving goalposts, which is amazingly audacious - because you don't even recognize any goalposts. If you did, you'd accept influence from other people and move on with your day, and you're just not willing to do that. You just keep throwing up excuses, misrepresenting your opponents claims because if you can make people talk about their statements, you don't have to defend your own.

Your thesis was that:

MechMaster059, on 15 June 2024 - 03:20 AM, said:

Yes, alpha is far too high and [...] How do I "prove" alpha is too high? Easy, compare weapon stats to table-top values to show just how far out of whack MWO is considering slot cost and weights were kept aligned with TT:

This argument has been roundly trounced - you have not successfully answered a single objection raised in opposition - so why are we all still here?

Edited by Void Angel, 16 June 2024 - 12:39 PM.

[Strelok7]

Papaspud, on 13 June 2024 - 05:55 AM, said:

The giant alphas have turned this game into hidewarrior, not sure how or if they can fix this, but it is now to the point- the game really isn't as fun. It is killing the game, at least from what I see.

Try different tactics.

The excess appearance of alpha builds does fluctuate depending of what is happening, what mechs are released and many other factors.

I dunno, I see/run plenty of Med and Light mechs too. The funny thing is - sometimes even a Flea can take down a Rhino. Those things are indestructible all the way to the point until - one wrong move on their part .....and poooof....vaporized....

[foamyesque]

I don't think it's really in dispute that alphas have been climbing for a while, and then got supercharged with the release of HAGs and binaries alongside a whole stack of hardpoint-heavy assaults over the last year-ish, to the point where cDHS ate a nerf to try and control things on that side at least a little.

Whether that's good or bad for the game, I'm not sure. TBQH a high-alpha, low-TTK environment should in theory disadvantage skilled players -- the more times you need to win an encounter to take one out, the more likely their advantages in aim, positioning, etc mean you can't get it done. Whereas if all you need is a quarter-second of inattention to put 400 points of rockets into someone, you only need to get lucky once, you know?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

foamyesque, on 16 June 2024 - 02:39 PM, said:

TBQH a high-alpha, low-TTK environment should in theory disadvantage skilled players

Huh? That goes against the more conventional wisdom among competitive players across the sea of shooters. Most consider low TTK to be the most skillful games because mistakes are punished more.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 June 2024 - 02:50 PM.