791 replies to this topic

[Dren Nas]

RG Notch, on 10 November 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Wait a minute, you seriously saying that players wanted the game to not be balanced? Seriously?

Let me clarify, I want a realistily balanced game. Having realisitc support is not over powered. It is realistic. I want a game that's balanced toward realism and how things might actually be in the battlefield. I don't want a game that's just "balanced"... like world of warcraft where everything is homogonized and boring.

crabcakes66, on 10 November 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Realism in a game of giant robots. Call of duty comparison.

This has all the hallmarks of a good argument.

Add something useful or shoo troll

[Noth]

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

What about the people that were hoping for a mechwarrior game that would be somewhat realistic? If you want a game, I'm sure call of duty is balanced...

Realistic in a game with 100 ton mechs and weapons that defy physics and common sense. You pick an odd thing to cling to reality with. Also in reality, in lore, LRMs were not the best kill weapons. They were almost always used to soften up mechs and finish weakened mechs, while in numbers could be devastating. This is a game, it is seeking to have competitive leagues and be a game, not a pure simulator.

[Dren Nas]

Noth, on 10 November 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Realistic in a game with 100 ton mechs and weapons that defy physics and common sense. You pick an odd thing to cling to reality with. Also in reality, in lore, LRMs were not the best kill weapons. They were almost always used to soften up mechs and finish weakened mechs, while in numbers could be devastating. This is a game, it is seeking to have competitive leagues and be a game, not a pure simulator.

So what you're saying is that, since this is a science fantasy game... it should not have anything to do with fact?

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Shaddock, on 10 November 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I dont think he means he doesnt want the game to be balanced, he just doesnt want everything equally nerfed into the ground to where the only difference between weapon systems is the graphics.

Yes. LRMs are exactly the same as every other weapon in the game.

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

So what you're saying is that, since this is a science fantasy game... it should not have anything to do with fact?

What facts are we talking about here?

Edited by crabcakes66, 10 November 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[Noth]

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Let me clarify, I want a realistily balanced game. Having realisitc support is not over powered. It is realistic. I want a game that's balanced toward realism and how things might actually be in the battlefield. I don't want a game that's just "balanced"... like world of warcraft where everything is homogonized and boring.

There is no such thing as realistic balanced gameplay by the simple fact is that real is not balanced at all. Realistic support in a game like this is OP. Why? because it's a low risk high reward that makes other roles completely wasted. It makes the matches into standoff with very few tactics and strategies that quickly become stale.

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

So what you're saying is that, since this is a science fantasy game... it should not have anything to do with fact?

I'm saying that like all science fiction they have basis in theory and pick and choose what is ultimately realistic. They then interject reasoning why something is not realistic. I'm saying since this is a game, it needs to be balanced.

[Dren Nas]

Noth, on 10 November 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

There is no such thing as realistic balanced gameplay by the simple fact is that real is not balanced at all. Realistic support in a game like this is OP. Why? because it's a low risk high reward that makes other roles completely wasted. It makes the matches into standoff with very few tactics and strategies that quickly become stale.



I'm saying that like all science fiction they have basis in theory and pick and choose what is ultimately realistic. They then interject reasoning why something is not realistic. I'm saying since this is a game, it needs to be balanced.

Wait... wait... so you want a game where everyone is 300km or less to be viable during combat?

Are we arguing what would be best for the game? Because mechwarrior has always been about tactics. Support mechs with lackluster support aren't worth a slot.

Are you trying to argue the fallacies of trying to apply logic and reasoning to science fiction? To which I reply, today's science fiction it tomorrow's science fact.

[Ghostrider0067]

Noth, on 10 November 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'm saying that like all science fiction they have basis in theory and pick and choose what is ultimately realistic. They then interject reasoning why something is not realistic. I'm saying since this is a game, it needs to be balanced.

I'll go with this. This is a game, essentially, about tanks on legs. It takes a fair amount of fantasy to appreciate the enormity of the possibilities as put forth in this game. While we may not yet be there technologically speaking, we will be at some point in the future (and certainly by 3050) unless... the Mayans are right.

[Joseph Mallan]

Noth, on 10 November 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Realistic in a game with 100 ton mechs and weapons that defy physics and common sense. You pick an odd thing to cling to reality with. Also in reality, in lore, LRMs were not the best kill weapons. They were almost always used to soften up mechs and finish weakened mechs, while in numbers could be devastating. This is a game, it is seeking to have competitive leagues and be a game, not a pure simulator.

Realism fire support can turn the tide of a battle quickly because it is powerful.

If you wanna play in tournaments, let the jocks have their balance and us Simmers our proper weapon balance.When the game goes live and we are facing the Clans with weapons that are Nerfed to powder puff, I will just watch the QQ and play my fiddle.

[Shaddock]

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

To which I reply, today's science fiction it tomorrow's science fact.

Can I has space pie now?

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Wait... wait... so you want a game where everyone is 300km or less to be viable during combat?

The funny part about your typo. Is that if this were realistic 300km would be a good number for missile combat ranges.

[Dren Nas]

Ghostrider0067, on 10 November 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

I'll go with this. This is a game, essentially, about tanks on legs. It takes a fair amount of fantasy to appreciate the enormity of the possibilities as put forth in this game. While we may not yet be there technologically speaking, we will be at some point in the future (and certainly by 3050) unless... the Mayans are right.

lol. I agree. If we get there LRMs will absolutely destroy people, but again, I'm not asking to take an atlas down with 3 volleys of missiles. I want him to be able to make him regret popping out in the open and walking across the map by using LRMs that are balanced damage balanced in regards to similar weapons slot/tonnage

crabcakes66, on 10 November 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

The funny part about your typo. Is that if this were realistic 300km would be a good number for missile combat ranges.

Again, shoo troll. Be relevant to the topic or please don't post.

[Bagheera]

Ok, if we all agree on the flight path, then we can continue. Sorry OP, but on this forum it takes several iterations of a point to ensure that people are not talking about it.

DMG was stated as being set to 1.7 for this patch. (see where I quoted Paul from the hotfix thread)

Which should be, in theory, plenty. Back when they were 1.5 they were ok - usable, but not auto-win buttons, so one would think 1.7 would work nicely.

Is DMG currently 1.7 per missle or not? Ie is the hotfix working as intended or is it broken (regarding dmg)? Or is that quote in error and they lowered the dmg below that by intent?

Edited by Bagheera, 10 November 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[Noth]

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Wait... wait... so you want a game where everyone is 300km or less to be viable during combat?

Are we arguing what would be best for the game? Because mechwarrior has always been about tactics. Support mechs with lackluster support aren't worth a slot.

Are you trying to argue the fallacies of trying to apply logic and reasoning to science fiction? To which I reply, today's science fiction it tomorrow's science fact.

There were not tactics before the artemis. There was a singular tactic of using cover. There was the strats of AMS blankets and using a light to distract so you can move. I've seen more tactics since the hotfix than I did in any game involving LRMs prior to the artemis.

I regularly engage at 400+ meters and maintain that range and do very well. Also the devs want more focus on closer combat (stated so on kotaku recently)

If you cannot make the LRMs useful as support currently, you are doing it wrong as there are plenty of people who can and do. They are no longer easy mode, and take thought and more coordination to use effectively.

As for science fiction being tomorrows science fact, yeah true... sometimes. In this game we have tank cannons that fire slower projectiles than some hand guns, I highly doubt that that is our future.

[Dren Nas]

Bagheera, on 10 November 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Ok, if we all agree on the flight path, then we can continue. Sorry OP, but on this forum it takes several iterations of a point to ensure that people are not talking about it.

DMG was stated as being set to 1.7 for this patch. (see where I quoted Paul from the hotfix thread)

Which should be, in theory, plenty. Back when they were 1.5 they were ok, so one would think 1.7 would work nicely.

Is DMG currently 1.7 per missle or not? Ie is the hotfix working as intended or is it broken? Or is that quote in error and they lowered the dmg below that by intent?

We'll see if that fixes it. Right now they just need something. :-/

[Ghostrider0067]

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

lol. I agree. If we get there LRMs will absolutely destroy people, but again, I'm not asking to take an atlas down with 3 volleys of missiles. I want him to be able to make him regret popping out in the open and walking across the map by using LRMs that are balanced damage balanced in regards to similar weapons slot/tonnage

And I can see and agree with that. As I said before, I think a full LRM15 volley or two should give an Atlas or any other assault mech something to think about. Should it reduce his capacity to engage sufficiently that he would need to retreat? Not necessarily given the nature and awesomeness that is an Atlas in full-on war mode, but it should certainly get that mech driver's attention enough to rethink his strategy somewhat.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Bagheera, on 10 November 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Is DMG currently 1.7 per missle or not? Ie is the hotfix working as intended or is it broken (regarding dmg)? Or is that quote in error and they lowered the dmg below that by intent?

It's confirmed to be 1.7 in the game files.

[Noth]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 November 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Realism fire support can turn the tide of a battle quickly because it is powerful.

If you wanna play in tournaments, let the jocks have their balance and us Simmers our proper weapon balance.When the game goes live and we are facing the Clans with weapons that are Nerfed to powder puff, I will just watch the QQ and play my fiddle.

They won't make what is essentially two games. They are going to make one game and balance it as one game. If you want a pure sim, better look at a completely different game. Also LRMs can currently turn the tide of battle pretty dang quickly. They just don't dictate the battle like they used to.

[Shaddock]

Bagheera, on 10 November 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Ok, if we all agree on the flight path, then we can continue. Sorry OP, but on this forum it takes several iterations of a point to ensure that people are not talking about it.

DMG was stated as being set to 1.7 for this patch. (see where I quoted Paul from the hotfix thread)

Which should be, in theory, plenty. Back when they were 1.5 they were ok - usable, but not auto-win buttons, so one would think 1.7 would work nicely.

Is DMG currently 1.7 per missle or not? Ie is the hotfix working as intended or is it broken (regarding dmg)? Or is that quote in error and they lowered the dmg below that by intent?

I could be wrong but I thought they were about 1.7 before the hotfix which they stated lowered them. It feels like they are closer to 1 but I am not a total stat guy and havent dug in to look. I just know the feel of the missiles and the damage they appear to do is below what I think is reasonable.

Edit 1:

If the files are right and they are 1,7 they must have been higher before the hotfix, whatever they were the day we hit open beta I thought was the closest to right we have had.

Edited by Shaddock, 10 November 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[DeathVader]

lrms are like rocket propelled shotgun ammo.
does damage to all/most parts of the mech at certain ranges but not point blank
and depending on the angle.
da only reason lrms are op in prehotfix is because the missiles are very packed
mostly body hits = instant kills
the 1.7 damage per missile i think is good enough
the only problem i have is the ammo cost is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to friggin high
they need to lower it

oh and i am currently using a hunchback lrm boat just letting you all know

[Noth]

Shaddock, on 10 November 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

I could be wrong but I thought they were about 1.7 before the hotfix which they stated lowered them. It feels like they are closer to 1 but I am not a total stat guy and havent dug in to look. I just know the feel of the missiles and the damage they appear to do is below what I think is reasonable.

They were 2.0 before the hotfix. THe damage drop off everyone is seeing is not from the damage change. It's from the fact that people have gotten used to being dead when stepping out of cover and thus have become better at using such. In turn it takes more effort and coordination to be good as a missile boat.

Edited by Noth, 10 November 2012 - 11:03 AM.