532 replies to this topic

[War Steiner]

I agree with Rifter - this is not BattleTech as we know it...from the table top, to the novels, to the early games. However, I agree withthe rest of you all that PGI (EGA, Kesmai, M$) have deviated from canon to make the game more fun.

Here is the thing, in cannon, 5 well placed hits with a medium laser from a Shadow Hawk on a Marauder and the battle is over. Pretty boring in real life. A Warhammer would take more than a minute to fire than many times and be cooking in the process. In canon, that was on purpose, in realtime, that would just be boring.

If I was cored in 5 shots, I probably would not come back. If mechs were "priceless" like they are in cannon, I probably would never get shot at - just park it outside the bar and pick up chicks.

What PGI actually CAN do is implement a fixed number of chassis. Those that are more popular, become more expensive while those that are not used much (ubermech?) are relatively cheap. This would encourage people to try to make the cheaper mechs work.

[SpiralRazor]

Helmer, on 05 November 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

When developing MWO PGI started with the exact TableTop stats . As someone who has been testing since the early Friends and Family stages, I felt that the game (with a 1 - 1 TT translation) was simply not fun. Small lasers on a fast moving 'mech was an instant win button, LRMs were grossly ineffective, and Autocannons were next to useless. Although I can respect the opinion that perhaps PGI has strayed too far from the TT values, I feel that almost every single change has been for the better. Things are still in a state of balancing and fluctuation. Adherence to the original TT rules is great, however, there comes a time when the TT fail in a First Person setting such as this. The TT rules were very complex for a TT game, however, they represent , in some cases, abstract values and concepts that are not needed in a environment such as this. The rules do not scale well and must be adapted. Again, I can respect your opinion, I hope you can understand that perhaps not everyone will agree with you. Cheers.

This game is also very complex, but since I know there is no internal testing, and no ones bothered to read some VERY well mathed out posts on the subject...

That 1.4 was simply the wrong way to go. 1.6 should have been where the 2.0 value went to...then adjusted upwards by .1 until the math worked.... I believe 1.7 was where using IS DHS made sense for the majority of builds.

Also, now you have to change the name because Double Heat Sinks sounds dumb at anything under double what a standard heat sink dissipates.

/thread owned.

[Lerzpftz]

Helmer, on 05 November 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

When developing MWO PGI started with the exact TableTop stats . As someone who has been testing since the early Friends and Family stages, I felt that the game (with a 1 - 1 TT translation) was simply not fun.
Small lasers on a fast moving 'mech was an instant win button, LRMs were grossly ineffective, and Autocannons were next to useless.

I don't think you can solve the problem of small/med laser boating, with a DHS system, that mostly lights and mediums are profiting from, since they have the crits to use them with with lesser efficiency and have to use them due to their lower tonnage.

[SpiralRazor]

War Steiner, on 06 November 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

I agree with Rifter - this is not BattleTech as we know it...from the table top, to the novels, to the early games. However, I agree withthe rest of you all that PGI (EGA, Kesmai, M$) have deviated from canon to make the game more fun.

Here is the thing, in cannon, 5 well placed hits with a medium laser from a Shadow Hawk on a Marauder and the battle is over. Pretty boring in real life. A Warhammer would take more than a minute to fire than many times and be cooking in the process. In canon, that was on purpose, in realtime, that would just be boring.

If I was cored in 5 shots, I probably would not come back. If mechs were "priceless" like they are in cannon, I probably would never get shot at - just park it outside the bar and pick up chicks.

What PGI actually CAN do is implement a fixed number of chassis. Those that are more popular, become more expensive while those that are not used much (ubermech?) are relatively cheap. This would encourage people to try to make the cheaper mechs work.

Also, they arent "priceless" in Canon...expensive yes, but no more so then our Abrams tanks of today. I know this because Ive read the novels....Every house had its own mech factories where thousands of the things were churned out....Talking tech lvl 1 stuff here, and before the Dark Ages. Theres even places like New Avalon Mech School, were very well funded mechwarriors and mech scholars go to learn Mech-Fu and Mecha yoga.

[Tyrzun]

PanchoTortilla, on 05 November 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Not even close. There are supposed to be 3 types of weapons each offering advantages and disadvantages over each other but all viable with individual weapons for each range: short, medium, long.

Right now one whole category of weapons consists almost solely of small lasers. The medium ranged LL and PPc are barely usable in the biggest mechs. The long and extreme range lasers and ERPPCs are completely unplayable.

BattleTech = 3 legged stool
MWO = 2 legged stool that falls over and breaks your arse if you try to sit in it

So OP is right. MWO has strayed too far from the fundamentals.

Actually, the weapons are not useless. The weapons are not NEEDED. There is a huge difference. If you were fighting on a flat area with no hills or buildings they would still be viable. Never mind tweaks to heat or dps. Extreme range is not needed in MWO at the moment as a result of the maps.

Simple put CANNON does not fit in a live "Action" game.

So, what is the solution force lights and brawlers onto a map where there is ZERO cover so you can use your LONG range weapons? Thus giving you the ability to sit there and camp and play some sniper war? Thus making the other 80% of weapons useless?

MWO is going to go ahead and have to admit that LONG range 1 shot weapons have no place in the game. It simply does not mesh and cannot mesh with a game with "random" maps. If you go brawler and end up in a wide open map you are dead because of bad luck. If you go long range sniper and end up on a map with tons of cover and no open spaces... again you die because of bad luck. In TT you KNEW where you would be fighting so you would arm up accordingly.

Faster mechs WILL close the distance before you can kill them in this game if there is cover. It's a fact. 120+ kmph and you get 1 shot per 4 seconds. Even if you hit em... they still close the distance. So, again MWO needs to just go ahead and remove those "extended long" range weapons as they are and get AWAY from CANNON. Cannon TT cannot work in MWO.

What needs to happen is cannon needs to go out the door and create weapons in the SPIRIT of TT. Short range weapons, medium range weapons, and long range weapons. That's it. Rock/paper/ scissors.

The only thing I can think of to "fix" long range weapons, not LRMS, is to give them more damage at max range. So, if you do land that LONG shot the weapon is worth it. You're only going to get a max of 1 -2 shots on faster mechs so the damage needs to REALLY hurt them. But the damage should REDUCE up close. Other wise the weapon would be op. And "Extra long" long range should be like minimum minimal damage under 600 meters or something. Balancing would need to be used.

There is simply no way to use them as cannon TT as it is. You'd have to break cannon and slow the mechs down a lot to get in enough shots to make the "sniper" weapons worthwhile. So, it's better to fix the weapon and break cannon than it is to break the rest of the game to make them work.

[Lerzpftz]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The people who can and do use them effectively are what....? lol

They are better than other players. IF PPCs are nicely balanced, why is everybody running around with Gauss and LRMs? I myself also had quite some success with a 3 PPC awesome (before the reset) and got 1-2 kills per match with it. When i switched to LRMs it was more like 3 or 4.

[Alfred VonGunn]

Helmer, on 05 November 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

When developing MWO PGI started with the exact TableTop stats . As someone who has been testing since the early Friends and Family stages, I felt that the game (with a 1 - 1 TT translation) was simply not fun.
Small lasers on a fast moving 'mech was an instant win button, LRMs were grossly ineffective, and Autocannons were next to useless.

Although I can respect the opinion that perhaps PGI has strayed too far from the TT values, I feel that almost every single change has been for the better. Things are still in a state of balancing and fluctuation. Adherence to the original TT rules is great, however, there comes a time when the TT fail in a First Person setting such as this.
The TT rules were very complex for a TT game, however, they represent , in some cases, abstract values and concepts that are not needed in a environment such as this. The rules do not scale well and must be adapted.


Again, I can respect your opinion, I hope you can understand that perhaps not everyone will agree with you.


Cheers.

While I respect that Helmer.. IN this case the OP is closer to right.. If you KEEP the Heat output numbers from TT but cut the Heat Dissipation by roughly 40% something isn't going to work right.. If your doing this then Heat on the ERPPCs needs to be reduced to 12 or so to make the 9M even kind of effective...

I have always loved the Awesome since it came out back in the 80s.... But with the current change it is going to be broken plain and simple. It should be the current premier Sniper in the game of the current mechs.. But it is not do to heat issues..

[MustrumRidcully]

Below ranges of 90m, the PPC may be useless, but it is actually still pretty good at 200m or 500m. These are distances you can have in the regular game despite the maps design encouraging brawling.
(in the table top, it was a bit more extreme here - long range meant that at short range, you were really good at hitting - MW:O doesn't model this at all really, because Battletech aiming has little resemblance to real world and certainly not mouse aiming).

There isn't really a need for the ER PPC if it wasn't for the minimum range improvement - but this advantage is not even worth 3 heat in my opinion - just lower its ROF to something one second lower than the regular PPC and be done with it. If it was just that...

But the real thing keeping long range weapons down is their exorbitant heat cost. Their range advantage is costing them too much.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 November 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[SteelPaladin]

Kraven Kor, on 06 November 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Ran into a guy last night with 2x Gauss and 1x ER PPC. He removed my Hunchback's right torso in single alpha (I was fresh but for the damage from a single LRM-20 volley.) Never even got to fire my Gauss that round lol.

Have seen some 2x ER PPC Awesome or Cat builds that at least didn't suck. Usually an Awesome 8Q or 9M with 2x ER PPC and 1x Large Laser or LPL or MPL's.

2 Gauss + an ER PPC I could see being good. The GRs generate about as close to 0 heat as you possibly can w/o actually generating 0, so the entirety of the engine's dissipation would go to the PPC. STILL couldn't get full fire rate out of the PPC unless they were dedicating more than engine sinks, but a old-school Awesome-style 3-2-2-3-2-2 would lay out a lot of damage. Of course, the ONLY reason that works is because the two weapons have an identical fire profile (same projectile speed = same lead needed) and the GRs are propping up the PPC's weakness by generating only 2 heat for both per shot versus the PPC's 13.

2 ER PPCs is just insanity, though. You can snipe at roughly GR range and w/GR accuracy, but doing less damage and a LOT less often. Sure, your tonnage is less, but what are you doing w/that tonnage? It's not light enough to make up for the heat w/sinks, and any "backup" weapons you mount w/the tonnage are really going to be your primaries because they'll be all you can seriously sustain. You just end up half mediocre sniper and half mediocre brawler.

[MCXL]

Do dee doo, read my threaaaaad.

Munstrum is pretty well aware of the games imbalances and I took what he and others have been talking about in balance, and really expanded on it.

If you really feel like the "FEEL" of this game isnt Mechwarrior, I have pretty much explained why that is. Click the link in my sig, read through the thread (there are several HUGE posts, but lots of info to convey)

[Sephlock]

Ghost Bear, on 05 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

I stopped reading after the DHS phrase.

What part of "it broke the game, heat was no longer an issue" do you not get?

Thats not breaking the game, its making it fun and awesome. They take up more space and are expensive!

And why 1.4?

[IsilZha]

I don't know anything about the tt game but the argument seems to be here x should stomp y because of quality.
its a general accepted mechanic in most everything (including real life) that as quality increases quantity decreases,
also true is that no commander would commit to a battle that is completely detrimental and/or pointless in every way,
every battle ever fought was fought because the commander thought that the goal whatever it may be was within reach.
to those that say suicide charges/attacks are an exception you are wrong, the commanders goal in a suicide attack is just not the one that was stated to the troops, likely a moral, cultural or emotional goal, and that commander thought that it was achievable in that battle. So applying this to MWO, you get this result in an 8 on 8 match if one team of 8 is all high quality and the other 8 are all low/normal quality and the quality ratio is as you stated before is 5/8 then one team is effectively outnumbered 1.6 to 1. also true is the statement in a battle between two forces identical in every way but quantity, the larger force will always win. Thus because MWO does not and cannot give any context into why this particular battle is being fought it must be assumed that the commanders your team's commander's goal is for your team to achieve a military victory because that is the goal of the match, thus it must also be true that said commander thought that his force had a sufficient chance to achieve said goal of victory, thus a battle such as the one previously discussed (8 on 8 with one force being effectivly outnumbered 1.6 to 1) with a goal of military victory through elimination of hostiles would never take place. So if PGI is required to follow a literal interpretation of the canon they face an (for them) irresolvable paradox: they must conform to canon load-outs and canon balence, but they must also conform to canon military strategy (which assuming the sentients in the BT universe are human) is what I summarized at the start. these two conditions are mutually exclusive in the 8 on 8 randomized format that MWO uses. because you forbid balancing the quality that breaks canon only one type of resolution is present: using a system that strictly enforces a team composition balance ratio, such a system could be implemented in two places as part of the game or by the end-user. because it would be impossible ($$$) for PGI to implement, it would fall to the end user, so there would be an external system for making teams and the native match making would go to hell (and still be breaking canon) and shortly after the game would die and you would have lost everything. so the only logical option (and the one PGI impelmented) is breaking literal canon on load-outs and equipment and the nice thing about this is if it really bugs you, you can abstract single mechs into groups of mechs thus even the compromised canon is preserved, example a single high-quality mech represents a group of 5 mechs a single low-quality mech represents a group of 8 mechs.
I read your long and thoughtful post so I responded with one of my own and I hope you will afford me a similar courtesy

[Bleary]

Rifter, on 05 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

When you start to break stock canon designs such as descibed above to the point where tier two tech is WORSE that tier one tech but still alot more expensive you are now in a place where you are just making a mockery of battletech and the lore involved and should stop using the BT/MW name.

If you want to make a big stompy robot game fine im ok with that, i like big stompy robots, but dont try and pawn this crap off as BT because it clearly is NOT in the direction this game has taken. Call it hawken, world of mechs, gundam robots online, whatever you want but dont abuse the BT/MW name like this if you are going to clearly step away from it to the point where stock designs are unplayable and worse than the designs they are supposed to be a upgrade from because you have broken the game mechanics to the point that makes them useless more expensive upgrades.

Just something to think about, and if you think that example is bad i can throw some clan deisngs in there that are alot more broken than that awesome example.

If you think those examples are bad I can name dozens of canon designs that are a lot more broken under the TT rules than that Awesome example would be in MWO.

Battletech is not and has never been a balanced game. Canon double heat sinks are not balanced. Canon autocannons are not balanced. Canon targeting computers and C3 networks are laughably unbalanced. If they stick exactly to canon weapon and equipment values, many stock 'Mechs will be worthless. You want to ride around in a stock Blackjack if AC/2s and DH work exactly like they do in TT?

The changes to heatsinks and other things hurt some stock 'Mech variants (like the Awesome 9M) and help others. MWO is not Battletech. It's real time, it doesn't have randomized hit tables. It's not the same game, and the same things will not necessarily work the same way. I'd rather PGI actually playtest TT values and adjust accordingly, myself.

Edited by Bleary, 06 November 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[Yeach]

Bleary, on 06 November 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Battletech is not and has never been a balanced game. Canon double heat sinks are not balanced. Canon autocannons are not balanced. Canon targeting computers and C3 networks are laughably unbalanced. If they stick exactly to canon weapon and equipment values, many stock 'Mechs will be worthless. You want to ride around in a stock Blackjack if AC/2s and DH work exactly like they do in TT?

The changes to heatsinks and other things hurt some stock 'Mech variants (like the Awesome 9M) and help others. MWO is not Battletech. It's real time, it doesn't have randomized hit tables. It's not the same game, and the same things will not necessarily work the same way. I'd rather PGI actually playtest TT values and adjust accordingly, myself.

I agree Battletech is NOT balanced.

But what is the MWO aim here?

To have all weapons / mechs balanced?
If that is case why should some mechs/weapons cost more than others?
Aren't more expensive weapons/mechs supposed to be better than cheaper ones?

Thorn Hallis, on 06 November 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

MWO is still more Mechwarrior then the whole 4-series combined. Thats enough for me.

I disagree on the sole fact that at least in MW4 PPCs, Gauss Rifles and AC20s, the big GAME weapons and the mainstay weapons of Battletech are that.

In MWO, PPCs and AC20s are pittance in comparison to what they should be.
(due to a combination of factors but mostly heat model)

[LKHERO]

Quote

I agree Battletech is NOT balanced.

But what is the MWO aim here?

To have all weapons / mechs balanced?
If that is case why should some mechs/weapons cost more than others?
Aren't more expensive weapons/mechs supposed to be better than cheaper ones?

If they're trying to balance the game more so than TT, they're doing an horrendous job at it.

[Galaxy Drifter]

Garth Erlam, on 06 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

I'm not a designer, but I will say that DHS at 2.0 heat allowed me to core a fully armoured Atlas from behind in roughly 3 seconds. In my Jenner. Keep in mind that the 1.4 times boost isn't just to cooling DOWN, it's a boost to heat THRESHOLD as well.

That does not make any sense. A Jenner with SHS can alpha strike for 3 seconds. How does have DHS at 2.0 allow you to core an Atlas in 3 seconds?

[Ghosth]

Trying to balance weapons with heat is always going to favor the smaller mech over the bigger one.

6 small lasers is perfectly acceptable weapon load for a jenner. Show me a single Awesome or Atlas that would go into battle with just that.

Also, testing should be started with the trial mech's, all 8 of them, including the Cat K2 with 2 PPC's and the Awesome.
Trial mechs should be the standard by which everything is measured, not lights.

[Jeff K Notagoon]

Quit thinking MWO is supposed to be a translation of battletech. It's not. It's just a game that takes place in the same universe.

Also balance and fun is more important than canon.

[Windies]

Another thing to consider is that maybe he cored the Atlas so easy because of the internal damage bug? It does kind of make sense.

[HRR Insanity]

Helmer, on 05 November 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

When developing MWO PGI started with the exact TableTop stats . As someone who has been testing since the early Friends and Family stages, I felt that the game (with a 1 - 1 TT translation) was simply not fun.

Small lasers on a fast moving 'mech was an instant win button, LRMs were grossly ineffective, and Autocannons were next to useless.

Although I can respect the opinion that perhaps PGI has strayed too far from the TT values, I feel that almost every single change has been for the better. Things are still in a state of balancing and fluctuation. Adherence to the original TT rules is great, however, there comes a time when the TT fail in a First Person setting such as this.

The TT rules were very complex for a TT game, however, they represent , in some cases, abstract values and concepts that are not needed in a environment such as this. The rules do not scale well and must be adapted.

The only reason that happened is because the Devs stubbornly refuse to add weapon spread which fixes ALL of your complaints and allows canon weapon, heat, armor, and damage values.

That's the problem. It's always been the problem.

Add cone of fire, fix MWO.

Insanity

Edited by HRR Insanity, 06 November 2012 - 06:04 PM.