1063 replies to this topic

[HRR Insanity]

Kaboodle, on 07 January 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

I like how he calls the massively problematic 6xPPC stalker the overpowered flavor this month. Vdek would be proud. You realize it can only be fired once every 15s.

It is symptomatic of a larger issue. The appropriate Stalker build is 4xPPC + 2-4xSRM6. That is the boat that you should be running. Same damage as 2xAC20 out to nearly 500m+ and if they close on you, the damage goes up. Boated weapons = better.

Quote

Honestly I think adding such a HUGE luck based gameplay mechanic would be stupid. One of the best parts is that if I aim at something, I hit it.

You can. You just can't do it with all your weapons at once.

Quote

Making it so there was a cone of fire would mean that "boating" as you so put it, would be utterly luck based. And since plenty of mechs were designed to at least partially boat, 4x MPulse on the atlas variant, multiple mechs have 3-4 MedLas as stock too, and they are MEANT to be fired together. If you don't want your own personal aim to be a factor in a match, go play WoT where %s to Penetrate and Cone of Fire have a larger effect on gameplay than ability to aim.

No, they weren't. All of those variants (and all the other variants in the game) were based on CBT canon 'Mech configurations.

The Devs already had to nerf ML heat because of the canon HBK-4P and AWS-8Q. They're both completely overpowered due to weapon convergence. Now the ML is a much weaker weapon and that punishes 'Mechs only running 1-2.

This is ALSO why the Devs are afraid to implement DHS properly. They know it will make boated energy weapons unstoppable.

How many times have you been afraid of a Centurion with it's 2 MLs? Never. Because it will never get through your armor before you kill it.

Quote

If you want TT based Mechwarrior, go get into the Mechwarrior Tactics beta, it's basically a cut and paste TT into a game.

I want a balanced MechWarrior game. This problem has existed since MW2... MW3... MW4... and now will be perpetuated into MWO unless we actually test and try to fix it.

Quote

Leave us people who like to aim and pinpoint direct attacks, be able to do it.

You can. You just have to use bigger weapons or your smaller weapons in sequence if you don't want to worry about weapon spread.

That's called balance.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 07 January 2013 - 06:46 PM.

[Draxtier]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

So you enjoy the fact that the best configurations are always going to be n*WeaponY?

I enjoy the fact that n*WeaponY are more effective than 1*WeaponY, and optimized configurations reflect that fact. I don't agree that they are always the best configurations.

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

You will not enjoy it when you run into a competitive team that is min/maxing boats.

I've run in to teams which are min/maxing boats and making the best use of the current nature of the game. They're very effective, and that's appropriate. They deserve to be. The only thing that should be able to compete with a team of well prepared and coordinated players in optimized mechs is another team of well prepared and coordinated players in optimized mechs.

If you aren't enjoying running in to competitive teams in min/maxed boats, the changes to matchmaking should address that issue for you, by putting you up against teams which are more equal to the teams you find yourself on. It doesn't require neutering the effectiveness of weapons groups.

Edited by Draxtier, 07 January 2013 - 06:46 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Draxtier, on 07 January 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

I enjoy the fact that n*WeaponY are more effective than 1*WeaponY, and optimized configurations reflect that fact. I don't agree that they are always the best configurations.

The problem is that you can't balance big weapons vs. small ones when you can take N*small weapon and do MORE damage than a big weapon for less tonnage and heat. The only way to fix that is to nerf small weapons (already done, see current MLs, SLs, etc). This is usually done by decreasing their damage (MGs) or increasing their heat (MLs).

This leads to making small 'Mechs underpowered relative to their bigger cousins because they just don't have the tonnage to run the small weapons efficiently nor can they fit the big weapons.

Add to this the doubled armor and you see a bad death spiral developing in the weapon balance land.

Quote

I've run in to teams which are min/maxing boats and making the best use of the current nature of the game. They're very effective, and that's appropriate. They deserve to be. The only thing that should be able to compete with a team of well prepared and coordinated players in optimized mechs is another team of well prepared and coordinated players in optimized mechs.

If you aren't enjoying running in to competitive teams in min/maxed boats, the changes to matchmaking should address that issue for you, by putting you up against teams which are more equal to the teams you find yourself on. It doesn't require neutering the effectiveness of weapons groups.

Don't get me wrong. I run boats. When I play competitively, I run the most broken overpowered configurations available.

The point is, there is a way to make the game more balanced and better. Why would we not want that?

[Soy]

There is a way to make your gaming experienced more balanced and better.

Simply stop focusing on the arbitrary 'win' by only [according to yourself] using power builds. By only focusing on math and cheesing out stuff you're simply selling your own potential for experiences in this game short. Not to mention robbing yourself of any meta or general experience you'd be gaining if you considered that in the future, theres a great chance a weapon you think is underpowered or not efficient at the upper ends of meta and competitive fighting will be tweaked and possibly float up into a higher power tier, after being dismissed as obsolete or rogue early on [like say, now].

Detach from the ego, which is meaningless at this point since it's beta anyways. Just have fun. You can wreck faces and have a great time with any mech, any weapon, don't act coy.

Edited by Soy, 07 January 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Soy, on 07 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

There is a way to make your gaming experienced more balanced and better.

Or I could go play a game that attempts to be balanced...

Quote

Simply stop focusing on the arbitrary 'win' by only [according to yourself] using power builds. By only focusing on math and cheesing out stuff you're simply selling your own potential for experiences in this game short. Not to mention robbing yourself of any meta or general experience you'd be gaining if you considered that in the future, theres a great chance a weapon you think is underpowered or not efficient at the upper ends of meta and competitive fighting will be tweaked and possibly float up into a higher power tier, after being dismissed as obsolete or rogue early on [like say, now].

There is no way to 'tweak' weapons that will not play into the issue I'm describing. If you balance weapons so when they are piled up to make a ML20, it's not going to bode well for the power of the single ML.

Quote

Detach from the ego, which is meaningless at this point since it's beta anyways. Just have fun. You can wreck faces and have a great time with any mech, any weapon, don't act coy.

Beta is a time to find the bugs and fix them. This is a bad design decision that needs to be corrected to make the game better. Just like all of the other unbalanced/broken/poorly designed things that we're trying to find/exploit. We're trying to fix things in Beta. Not ride along whistling in the dark about how everything will be better 'someday'.

[Soy]

You could go play a game that is balanced?

...

You realize this is a beta, right?

I mean you say we're trying to fix things in Beta, not whistling dixie. Of course. But as far as "we" fixing things? No, sir. And you give that impression in your OP...

...see, you aren't PGI. Your "warnings" like Chicken Little aren't necessarily the same concerns that PGI has, nor do your warnings have to match up with their prerogatives and their schedule and their plans.

Stop acting like your voice directly influences the path of this game and realize what you do in game is what influences the path. Open the door to a larger experience and you will actually be giving them a broader range of feedback. Maybe that is what they need. How can they balance the Flamer when 99% of the forum users are quick to dismiss it? How do they get proper feedback from players who avoid using it, don't fight against it, don't have any ideas for it, etc?

We're test subjects, not a congress.

PS - And you aren't a prophet. Just play the game give your feedback and explore the features and mechanics. Make meta notes gain experience have fun develop social bonds. But as far as pretending that the sky is falling if they don't follow your Nostradamus warnings?

Seriously?

Edited by Soy, 07 January 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Soy, on 07 January 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

You could go play a game that is balanced?

...

You realize this is a beta, right?

Yes, of course. But that's why were here. We're testing. This is a poor design decision.

Quote

I mean you say we're trying to fix things in Beta, not whistling dixie. Of course. But as far as "we" fixing things? No, sir. And you give that impression in your OP...

Really? You don't think that the forums influenced PGI ever? ECM/Jenner?

Quote

...see, you aren't PGI. Your "warnings" like Chicken Little aren't necessarily the same concerns that PGI has, nor do your warnings have to match up with their prerogatives and their schedule and their plans.

I waited 6 months. I will continue to wait.

Quote

Stop acting like your voice directly influences the path of this game and realize what you do in game is what influences the path. Open the door to a larger experience and you will actually be giving them a broader range of feedback. Maybe that is what they need. How can they balance the Flamer when 99% of the forum users are quick to dismiss it? How do they get proper feedback from players who avoid using it, don't fight against it, don't have any ideas for it, etc?

I have run every single weapon in the game. As recently as this weekend, I was running Flamer 'Mechs just to be sure that I couldn't figure out a way to make them work. I'm quite familiar with the game and make regular suggestions. This is one of those suggestions.

Quote

We're test subjects, not a congress.

/shrugs/ If enough people agree that something is a problem, then hopefully PGI will fix it.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 07 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[Soy]

I dunno, the way you argue your OP is less suggestion than ultimatum.

[HRR Insanity]

Soy, on 07 January 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

I dunno, the way you argue your OP is less suggestion than ultimatum.

That's because if it's not fixed... the game is going to be nearly impossible to balance.

[Soy]

I truly respect and admire your passion and concern.

I don't share any of your sentiments of doomsday, call me an optimist or a fanboy, whatev. Typical Beta shenanigans in my eyes, nothing new, things will get worked out naturally.

Edited by Soy, 07 January 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Soy, on 07 January 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

I truly respect and admire your passion and concern.

I don't share any of your sentiments of doomsday, call me an optimist or a fanboy, whatev.

It could just be so much better. It could be a real MechWarrior/BattleTech simulator. And they're missing the opportunity.

[Nonsense]

So, part of the problem is that in closed beta, the doubling of armor and cheap XL engines made closing distance with enemies MUCH less risky. To compensate, they probably should have made long range weapons better somehow...either by directly buffing them or by making maps larger and/or more open.

Instead, people just started boating short range weapons, which made boating MLas seem like a problem when really the problem was that the MLas boat should simply die at range unless they're a really good pilot who knows how to take opportunity shots.

This general oversight has caused a lot of balance issues. I think you're getting at the right idea, but this general "spread damage" concept won't fix anything, IMO.

Edited by Nonsense, 07 January 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[Zyllos]

HHR Insanity is absolutely correct. Personally, weapon convergence is one of the 6 fundamental issues I see with MWO.

If you want to see my list of 6, go here.

Weapon convergence are hurting the power of single large weapons. It also allows too much fire power to be placed on a single location at a high percentage rate.

But, I am not convinced a cone of fire is the way to go about this. My reasoning behind this is because a cone of fire hurts the ability of a mech to fire single shots of weapons into a location at a distance. Yes, you could easily have the mechanics of typical FPS where the cone of fire is basically a point of where you current aim.

I think the current convergence mechanics used now should be allowable with Arm mounted weapons only, but only between the LA and RA. Any weapons mounted on the same arm will fire straight into the reticule, with the arm facing directly at the crosshair and firing all weapons relative to that position. The only movement is caused by the mech chassis your running and your speed (Ravens at top speed would bounce up and down a lot while an Awesome moving at 50% max throttle would have very little swing in the arms). All other weapons (torsos and head) would fire directly straight, offset off the reticule based off the cockpit (Atlas CT Medium Lasers would fire directly straight, below and slightly to the right of the torso crosshair) with a bounce.

What I think this is accomplishing is giving a strong reason to fire at arms on any mechs that can equip a number of weapons across the arms. Mechs that have articulating arms will be the only things in the game that can converge their weapons, thus dangerous by allowing most of their fire to be easily converged on a single location. But, sense the arms are usually the weakest part of any mech, anyone can choose to remove those arms, thus making a mechwarrior having to fire torso mounted weapons, which have no convergence.

With the above, you begin to see much more weapon spread without the random control of a RNG. So an EXTREMELY good mechwarrior pilot can fire many different weapons from various locations on a single location. But that mechwarrior will have to take time to aim for most of those weapons to land in a single spot, unlike now where all weapons converge on either the arm reticule or torso reticule, at all times.

[TheForce]

With group fire and pinpoint accuracy, this game is NOT MechWarrior.

MW2, MW3, and MW4 were NOT MechWarrior either.

These are all "MinmaxWarrior Robot Wars" games.

This game will NEVER be MechWarrior unless group fire and pinpoint accuracy is addressed.

Unfortunately 1/2 the people (or even more) playing this game only know the previous games and think hey are MechWarrior

[HRR Insanity]

Nonsense, on 07 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

So, part of the problem is that in closed beta, the doubling of armor and cheap XL engines made closing distance with enemies MUCH less risky. To compensate, they probably should have made long range weapons better somehow...either by directly buffing them or by making maps larger and/or more open.

Instead, people just started boating short range weapons, which made boating MLas seem like a problem when really the problem was that the MLas boat should simply die at range unless they're a really good pilot who knows how to take opportunity shots.

This general oversight has caused a lot of balance issues. I think you're getting at the right idea, but this general "spread damage" concept won't fix anything, IMO.

The reason they doubled armor was because 'Mechs were dying too fast. The reason 'Mechs were dying too fast is because you could combine weapons into 'super'weapons that hit a single panel.

Being unable to do damage rapidly made people able to close to short range despite concentrated damage from LRMs, etc. Thus, LRMs were buffed. Then nerfed, then buffed. Etc.

It all started when they wanted to make 'Mechs more survivable. Instead of addressing the problem, they started a cascade of poor balance decisions.

Concentrated damage is the problem.

Please keep in mind I am NOT advocating for dice rolls or random damage. I want gunnery to matter. With my proposed solution, individual weapons can still be fired with pinpoint precision. Only when you would try to concentrate damage would the cone of fire come into effect.

This also allows us to balance heat effects. Movement effects. Everything could be balanced with this.

[TheForce]

Soy, on 07 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Simply stop focusing on the arbitrary 'win' by only [according to yourself] using power builds.

I play to win. Decreasing my chances of winning isn't logical. I'm going to be a MinmaxWarrior if thats going to help my chances of winning.

[HRR Insanity]

Zyllos, on 07 January 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

But, I am not convinced a cone of fire is the way to go about this. My reasoning behind this is because a cone of fire hurts the ability of a mech to fire single shots of weapons into a location at a distance. Yes, you could easily have the mechanics of typical FPS where the cone of fire is basically a point of where you current aim.

My suggestion basically makes the cone of fire ZERO for individual shots, regardless of range. This would be potentially modified by movement or heat.

Quote

I think the current convergence mechanics used now should be allowable with Arm mounted weapons only, but only between the LA and RA. Any weapons mounted on the same arm will fire straight into the reticule, with the arm facing directly at the crosshair and firing all weapons relative to that position. The only movement is caused by the mech chassis your running and your speed (Ravens at top speed would bounce up and down a lot while an Awesome moving at 50% max throttle would have very little swing in the arms). All other weapons (torsos and head) would fire directly straight, offset off the reticule based off the cockpit (Atlas CT Medium Lasers would fire directly straight, below and slightly to the right of the torso crosshair) with a bounce.

Most torso mounted weapons are thought to be gimbled to allow for some deflection. But who cares about the 'reason' why it works. Let's make the gameplay work. Cone of fire for everything is just easier.

Quote

What I think this is accomplishing is giving a strong reason to fire at arms on any mechs that can equip a number of weapons across the arms. Mechs that have articulating arms will be the only things in the game that can converge their weapons, thus dangerous by allowing most of their fire to be easily converged on a single location. But, sense the arms are usually the weakest part of any mech, anyone can choose to remove those arms, thus making a mechwarrior having to fire torso mounted weapons, which have no convergence.

Interesting concept, but that will just mean people will run things like the Guassapult. Two GR rounds that close together are almost always going to hit the same panel.

Quote

With the above, you begin to see much more weapon spread without the random control of a RNG. So an EXTREMELY good mechwarrior pilot can fire many different weapons from various locations on a single location. But that mechwarrior will have to take time to aim for most of those weapons to land in a single spot, unlike now where all weapons converge on either the arm reticule or torso reticule, at all times.

It's an interesting concept and if it works to spread damage, I'd be willing to test it. We just need something.

Thanks for the ideas.

[Damocles]

I support the idea of COF. And saying it becomes a "luck-based" game is utter bs. It just means there are a different set of mechanics to overcome to be a skilled pilot. Maybe that would mean more stop-and-shoot fights and less 150kph lagged commandos.

Hell itd actually make it HARDER to be a light pilot if your cone increased due to speed or collisions or dmg taken.
But of course those things would affect all weight classes.

I think the main desire for most people that support or forward the COF idea is that
It's Beta AND We want to Test this.

Prove it doesn't work through actual use.

Edited by Damocles, 07 January 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[Zyllos]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

My suggestion basically makes the cone of fire ZERO for individual shots, regardless of range. This would be potentially modified by movement or heat.

Most torso mounted weapons are thought to be gimbled to allow for some deflection. But who cares about the 'reason' why it works. Let's make the gameplay work. Cone of fire for everything is just easier.

Interesting concept, but that will just mean people will run things like the Guassapult. Two GR rounds that close together are almost always going to hit the same panel.

It's an interesting concept and if it works to spread damage, I'd be willing to test it. We just need something.

Thanks for the ideas.

I figured having weapons which only converged with arms (but individual weapons on the arms themselves not converging) and torsos only firing straight would make weapons spread much more when firing from multiple locations while allowing for weapons in single locations to go where you aim them.

Would also think that having no RNG in the aiming would be easier to swallow while still producing more spread in weapons fire. But the original issue still remains, weapon convergence, or in my case, one of the six issues.

[Cik]

OP is correct on every count. it's notable that almost everyone in this thread that tries to smear him hasn't actually managed to comprehend the OP. honestly this would halfway fix the game overnight, along with a small nerf or change to ECM IMO. the only thing left after that would be to rewrite the netcode entirely. poof, best game ever made.