532 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

You risk engaging a strawman there, arden - It doesn't have to be 100 % true to Battletech. But
1) If they want to use stock mechs in this game, they should work reasonably well - at least not wrse than they did in the table top. They did not achieve that goal so far.
2) If they want to have a decent PvP game, they need to balance the weapons decently as well. They did not achieve that goal so far.

[Mr Mantis]

Well if this is not as battletech as you would like, with all the stolen anime, maybe you should play this insted. Mechwarior has been ravaged many times, Mech Assult for example feels so unlike Battletech it hurts me. We have never seen a development team trying to stay so close to the TT and still make it fun.

dev team nerfing permacool = good idea

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 19 November 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

I don't disagree, I can build very efficient mech's that kill very quickly. The problem I and many others have is that no matter the chassis or the role I build the mech to fill, I have to use the same weapons on every build. I look at three things when building a mech, firepower, mobility, heat production/dissipation. The less mobile a mech is the more reach I want my firepower to have, while at the same time not costing me so much heat production that I cannot feasibly dissipate it during an engagement. This is the problem you run into with higher heat weapons like AC/20, PPC, ER PPC, LL, ER LL etc..

I also know that due to map design, I do not need a weapon that strikes over 300-400m. Unless I pilot specifically for an engagement at that range, and my enemy pilots for an engagement at that range, It's simply unneeded. This is why you see ML's, SL's, SPL's and MPL's, being the highest efficency weapons, not only in just heat, but also usability and functionality. Gauss as well though it really doesn't need to be used as an example.

I'm not saying you can't be effective with the higher heat weapons, I know that I can be, However when compared to other weapons they are just simply vastly inferior. You don't have to believe that, the math is there to prove it, the experience is there to prove it. Your belief or acceptance is strictly optional.

I believe that, but you had the same thing in TT, of course the higher heat weapon were a tad more effective but not much. I would take 3 Medium Lasers over an ER PPC at this range anytime, in both MWO and TT.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 19 November 2012 - 03:08 AM.

[Rifter]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 November 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

You risk engaging a strawman there, arden - It doesn't have to be 100 % true to Battletech. But
1) If they want to use stock mechs in this game, they should work reasonably well - at least not wrse than they did in the table top. They did not achieve that goal so far.
2) If they want to have a decent PvP game, they need to balance the weapons decently as well. They did not achieve that goal so far.

Exactly, if you are going to use stock mechs with stock loadouts that you are TAKING STRAIGHT FROM TT, then you have to make the mech work like it does in TT and be able to function like it does in TT, if you arent then why take the mech variant from TT to begin with.

If you arnt going to do that then make your own custom variants and stop feeding us crap varients that are only crap because you have changed to much of the game mechanics from TT that it renders them useless or as stated in the OP a downgrade over the older model while costing alot more money.

[Alexa Steel]

Rifter, on 19 November 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

Exactly, if you are going to use stock mechs with stock loadouts that you are TAKING STRAIGHT FROM TT, then you have to make the mech work like it does in TT and be able to function like it does in TT, if you arent then why take the mech variant from TT to begin with.

If you arnt going to do that then make your own custom variants and stop feeding us crap varients that are only crap because you have changed to much of the game mechanics from TT that it renders them useless or as stated in the OP a downgrade over the older model while costing alot more money.

No, the pilot just has to adapt and learn some fire discipline.

Yes its more expensive when fielding the same loadout, because you cant just "update" a variant in MWO wich is good.

You have to rethink and use a new loadout.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 19 November 2012 - 03:17 AM.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 19 November 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

I believe that, but you had the same thing in TT, of course the higher heat weapon were a tad more effective but not much. I would take 3 Medium Lasers over an ER PPC at this range anytime, in both MWO and TT.

Imagine if the design of the game was more open though, excuse my term but, more "Mechwarrior". While a PPC or ER PPC or LL might still not be as effecient, it would have a use. It would have a purpose. The problem is they have taken the purpose out of half of the weapons, and then not really nerfed them but hampered their use in brawly combat. All we have is brawly combat though, so tell me where their use is?

Look at the Gauss and why it's used so much and highly effective. It's low heat, usable at range and in a brawl, highly sustainable and spammable. It's ammo dependant but is easily overcome by not needing practically any heatsinsk at all.

Now look at a PPC in contrast and see why it's not used. It's extremely high heat, it has a minimum range so makes it a hinderance in brawls, it's not ammo dependant but makes up for that by needing more heatsinks than even LRM boats take in ammo.

Is the PPC effective? To a degree, yes it is. Is it viable? no it's not because it is stuck in such a niche role inside of this game, and has more tonnage requirements than most ammo based weapons.

[Leetskeet]

arden, on 19 November 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

1. Quit playing
2. Cry about it
3. Make your own dam game.

And then you're all alone

It's glorious

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 19 November 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Imagine if the design of the game was more open though, excuse my term but, more "Mechwarrior". While a PPC or ER PPC or LL might still not be as effecient, it would have a use. It would have a purpose. The problem is they have taken the purpose out of half of the weapons, and then not really nerfed them but hampered their use in brawly combat. All we have is brawly combat though, so tell me where their use is?

Look at the Gauss and why it's used so much and highly effective. It's low heat, usable at range and in a brawl, highly sustainable and spammable. It's ammo dependant but is easily overcome by not needing practically any heatsinsk at all.

Now look at a PPC in contrast and see why it's not used. It's extremely high heat, it has a minimum range so makes it a hinderance in brawls, it's not ammo dependant but makes up for that by needing more heatsinks than even LRM boats take in ammo.

Is the PPC effective? To a degree, yes it is. Is it viable? no it's not because it is stuck in such a niche role inside of this game, and has more tonnage requirements than most ammo based weapons.

I unserstand that, I personally never saw use for the PPC to begin with, LLs and ER LLs however are core pieces of my weaponry and I do with them just fine, quite good actually.

I never liked PPCs and so I have little experience with them, however I talked to a few PPC users (friends of mine) and they told me that using it is harder than in other games but not nearly as bad as many people make them out to be.

Again I personally cant confirm that, but whoever states LLs are useless is wrong, because I see them deployed by alot of folks and to good effect I might add.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 19 November 2012 - 03:31 AM.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 19 November 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

I unserstand that, I personally never saw use for the PPC to begin with, LLs and ER LLs however are core pieces of my weaponry and I do with them just fine, quite good actually.

I never liked PPCs and so I have little experience with them, however I talked to a few PPC users (friends of mine) and they told me that using it is harder than in other games but not nearly as bad as many people make them out to be.

Again I personally cant confirm that, but whoever states LLs are useless is wrong, because I see them deployed by alot of folks and to good effect I might add.

I personally don't think any weapons in MW:O are useless, I just think they are incorrectly balanced within the scope of this game because elements of them have changed without any thought to their uses both in lore and in game.

I mean why is a weapon, such as the gauss, able to be heat free, sniper and brawler weapon, spammed to the high heavens with no drawbacks, and do more damage than a PPC considered balanced against a PPC when both of their roles are the same?

I think LL in contrast to ML and SL are outclassed and unviable due to heat and map design. I don't think they are useless, just unviable.

PGI pretty much skipped the step of balancing on paper and went straight to balancing through experience. The problem is you need a good balance on paper before you start balancing based on human perception because human perception is going to range wildly from person to person and experience to experience. You need a good basis from which to start. The weapons lack that basis because they just implemented and then went straight to in game testing.

[GrabbleRus]

Devs are trying to emulate a playable BT UNIVERSE here, not tabletop game. If you don't understand the difference - you're not a BT fan. Go home.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 19 November 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

I personally don't think any weapons in MW:O are useless, I just think they are incorrectly balanced within the scope of this game because elements of them have changed without any thought to their uses both in lore and in game.

I mean why is a weapon, such as the gauss, able to be heat free, sniper and brawler weapon, spammed to the high heavens with no drawbacks, and do more damage than a PPC considered balanced against a PPC when both of their roles are the same?

I think LL in contrast to ML and SL are outclassed and unviable due to heat and map design. I don't think they are useless, just unviable.

PGI pretty much skipped the step of balancing on paper and went straight to balancing through experience. The problem is you need a good balance on paper before you start balancing based on human perception because human perception is going to range wildly from person to person and experience to experience. You need a good basis from which to start. The weapons lack that basis because they just implemented and then went straight to in game testing.

I agree, though I still think that weapons like the ML or SL are meant as allround weapons, hence they are good for most situations. There are alot of factors going into the usefullness of a weapon.

One example:

If Iam running a Raven I normally use either 4 ML or 4 MPL since I have 4 energy points and Iam largely dependant on hit and run tactics, I want to dish out as much damage as possible in one run. Hence I use the MLs, yes SLs produce less heat and have a higher ROF but I wont fire more than two salvos at an enemy in one run anyway, due to my playing style.

If Iam running a Cent with 4 energy slots I would use 2 LLs in the arm and 2 MLs in the Torso + 2 StreakSRM2s, Iam able to dish out burst damage and DPS. So I might be wrong, but the weapons I choose fit my playing style very well. So I might not experience some of those flaws, because I can handle the limitations quite well.

You could be right though and I could be completely wrong, but MOST weapons work well for me.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 19 November 2012 - 03:56 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Windies, on 19 November 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

PGI pretty much skipped the step of balancing on paper and went straight to balancing through experience. The problem is you need a good balance on paper before you start balancing based on human perception because human perception is going to range wildly from person to person and experience to experience. You need a good basis from which to start. The weapons lack that basis because they just implemented and then went straight to in game testing.

To be fair, things like beam duration or missile behaviour can't be properly balanced on paper.

[MustrumRidcully]

Stormwolf, on 19 November 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

To be fair, things like beam duration or missile behaviour can't be properly balanced on paper.

Then use Excel Sheets and statistic data from the server. Or maybe go further, write C++ program code if Excel gets too clumsy.?

What is the average hit rate of an unloaden swallow with a Gaus Rifle? Compare that to the hit chance of LRMs. Adjust damage accordingly.

It's all doable. But maybe not with the manpower they have. But I am pretty confident that a single person spending 2 days with Excel can deliver a better balanced weapon system than we have now. It won't be perfect, it will need additional data from the server and feedback from beta testers.

Alexa Steel, on 19 November 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

No, the pilot just has to adapt and learn some fire discipline.

Fire discipline doesn't make your mech better. It just means you don't shutdown. But you pay for that by delivering a lot less damage. If you had instead customized your mech so it would handle the heat load better, you would have gotten more damage for less management effort.

[Alexa Steel]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 November 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

...
Fire discipline doesn't make your mech better. It just means you don't shutdown. But you pay for that by delivering a lot less damage. If you had instead customized your mech so it would handle the heat load better, you would have gotten more damage for less management effort.

Yes but since your options are limited, you have to adapt. Personally I like it better that way.

[MustrumRidcully]

Alexa Steel, on 19 November 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Yes but since your options are limited, you have to adapt. Personally I like it better that way.

But why ask noobs to play a mech that is difficult to play and they can't handle yet?

Why make a mech difficult to handle that wasn't even difficult to handle in the table top (and the lore based on that table top)?

Has there been some recent innovative finding that it's best to give new players the most difficult to play characters/classes/builds so they learn faster, contrary to the practive and experience from hundreds of games before this one?

Did the lore actually state "A Jagermech is known for overheating in 6 seconds if it fires all its weapons and is deemed by most pilot as very heat inefficient"?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 19 November 2012 - 04:25 AM.

[Alexa Steel]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 November 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

But why ask noobs to play a mech that is difficult to play and they can't handle yet?

Why make a mech difficult to handle that wasn't even difficult to handle in the table top (and the lore based on that table top)?

Has there been some recent innovative finding that it's best to give new players the most difficult to play characters/classes/builds so they learn faster, contrary to the practive and experience from hundreds of games before this one?

Did the lore actually state "A Jagermech is known for overheating in 6 seconds if it fires all its weapons and is deemed by most pilot as very heat inefficient"?

To answer number one: EVERY mech is difficult to use for new players.

To answer number two: because this is NOT the table top.

[Diablobo]

I wonder which phrase is more used and more annoying.
"It's not TT it's a video game" or
"Relax, it's just a beta"

I vote for the "Video Game Not TT" fools.
At least the beta guys know that things can and will be changed, and they have been proven correct.
The TT/Video Game idiots however, completely overlook the fact that the weapon damage and heat values are almost exactly the same as the TT, but the firing rates are tripled while the heat dissipation remains the same. If the firing rates are tripled, then why aren't either the weapon heats reduced by a third, or the heat sinks tripled?
They stuck realtime video game firing rates into a game with a turn based heat system.
COMPLETELY BROKEN

[Alexa Steel]

Diablobo, on 19 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

I wonder which phrase is more used and more annoying.
"It's not TT it's a video game" or
"Relax, it's just a beta"

I vote for the "Video Game Not TT" fools.
At least the beta guys know that things can and will be changed, and they have been proven correct.
The TT/Video Game idiots however, completely overlook the fact that the weapon damage and heat values are almost exactly the same as the TT, but the firing rates are tripled while the heat dissipation remains the same. If the firing rates are tripled, then why aren't either the weapon heats reduced by a third, or the heat sinks tripled?
They stuck realtime video game firing rates into a game with a turn based heat system.
COMPLETELY BROKEN

What a bunch of nonesense, of course heat needs tweaking, nobody is denying that but not to the degree many want it to be. TRIPLE the heat dissipation? Are you mad? I could hold the trigger in ALL of my mechs and I would NEVER overheat.

The ROF was changed while the heat stayed the same, so what? Stop comparing the TT with the video game, they cant be compared. The game is BASED on the TT not modeled AFTER the TT.

The whole system works quite well, not perfect but to the point actual skill is needed so the piloted fusion reactor does not shutdown. <= and this is how its supposed to be.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 19 November 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Alexa Steel, on 19 November 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

To answer number one: EVERY mech is difficult to use for new players.

But are all equally difficult to use?

Quote

To answer number two: because this is NOT the table top.

But it's still Battletech, right? Do you think there are a lot of Battletech novels and stories that describe Jagermechs shutting down after 6 seconds of fire?

Or aren't we even creating a Battletech game here, and are just doing what Battletech did to other franchies - stealing a bunch of mechs and then creating our own game?

[Alexa Steel]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 November 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

But are all equally difficult to use?

Depends on the player, I liked all trials except the Awesome, because I cant hit anything with PPCs xD

Quote

But it's still Battletech, right? Do you think there are a lot of Battletech novels and stories that describe Jagermechs shutting down after 6 seconds of fire?

Or aren't we even creating a Battletech game here, and are just doing what Battletech did to other franchies - stealing a bunch of mechs and then creating our own game?

Yes its BASED on BT its not BT. You cant straight up translate a TT into an FPS, adjustments need to be made, regardless of lore or whatever.