1063 replies to this topic

[Bubba Wilkins]

HRR Insanity, on 22 January 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

I have no desire to remove the quasi-realism. I want to make it MORE like the universe the game is trying to simulate.



/sighs/ Read the post. You can't balance weapons using BT or MW as a base if you leave weapon convergence in the game.

If you want to start over with new weapon tonnages/criticals/damage/armor models... that's fine. But the Devs didn't and don't want to. Yes, there will be better weapons. But as the DEVS have stated they're going to try to balance weapons, you have to try to actually balance them.

At present, the ability to combine weapons into super-weapons makes the game impossible to balance.

See original post.

The ability to combine weapons into firing groups is a core tenant of the franchise and has existed since it's inception. It is the very origination of the term "Alpha Strike". As far as I can tell, everything is balanced damage wise just fine. PPC's need some heat adjustments though.

There is no reason to implement a linked fire penalty, it already exists and is called HEAT.
There is no reason to implement any Cone of Fire or other mechanic to semi randomize damage, it already exists and is called PILOT ERROR.

I'll give you that the convergence question has merit, but then again detailed exactly how convergence as it is currently implemented is feasible (to an extent) and well within BT lore.

The only thing which needs to be corrected with convergence is the ability to set it to match the range of a locked designated target rather than wherever the cursor is currently pointed.

[HRR Insanity]

Bubba Wilkins, on 22 January 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

The ability to combine weapons into firing groups is a core tenant of the franchise and has existed since it's inception. It is the very origination of the term "Alpha Strike". As far as I can tell, everything is balanced damage wise just fine. PPC's need some heat adjustments though.

Incorrect. Alphastrike refers to firing all weapons. It does not refer to those weapons all hitting the exact same spot. It was a dangerous tactic and a last resort because it was heat prohibitive and unlikely to be accurate.

Quote

There is no reason to implement a linked fire penalty, it already exists and is called HEAT.

No, that does nothing to address the examples I've given in the original post. None. 2xAC20. 2xGuass. No heat. Combined damage. Heat has no effect.

Quote

There is no reason to implement any Cone of Fire or other mechanic to semi randomize damage, it already exists and is called PILOT ERROR.

Maybe you miss. Some people don't. Regardless, you can't balance small weapons vs. big ones without dealing with the issue I've described in the original post.

Quote

I'll give you that the convergence question has merit, but then again detailed exactly how convergence as it is currently implemented is feasible (to an extent) and well within BT lore.

The only thing which needs to be corrected with convergence is the ability to set it to match the range of a locked designated target rather than wherever the cursor is currently pointed.

That makes everything worse, not better. Weapons that converge to a pinpoint are a problem because they break weapon balance.

See original post.

[Steel Talon]

Quote

[color=#959595]Yes, the AC20 is a 'decent' weapon in that it will actually reduce armor on a 'Mech by 20-60% in a section. In the TT version, the AC20 was a devastating weapon that could cripple 'Mechs.[/color]

[color=#959595]Currently it damages paint slightly better.[/color]

[color=#959595]In MWO, the most effective use of an AC20 is in... a Pair of AC20s.[/color]

[color=#959595]It is significantly worse than 4 MLs + sufficient sinks to fire them forever. For less tonnage.[/color]

Significant ballistic weapons needs knockdown mechanic, cause when i see commando still standing after taking hit from AC/20, I dare to say that BF3 is more simulator than MWO.

[AustinNH]

I totally agree with torso mounted weapons not converging automatically. They should converge to a pre-set distance, either the max effective range of the weapon, or a distance set by the user in the mech-lab (so you could tune it for convergence in brawling range, sacrificing pinpoint sniping damage).

As for cone of fine, it certainly makes sense to me that catapult firing two gauss or two AC/20s simultaneously would experience significant "recoil" or "impulse" preventing them from firing perfectly accurately. Maybe the targeting computer or whatever can compensate for the recoil of a single ballistic firing, but not for two firing simultaneously.

You know, according to Newton's third law, a mech firing a ballistic weapon should receive the same impulse (read: screen shake) as a mech getting hit by that ballistic. Maybe screen shake should be implemented for firing ballistics, not just getting hit by them. And it should actually throw off the aim (unlike the current screen shake, which, as far as I can tell, shakes the screen but leaves the reticle on target.) That way every time you fire a heavy ballistic, such as a Gauss, you have to re-aim for the second one. This would give something very much like the firing cone suggested by the OP. It would take more skill to fire multiple ballistics. Also, it would not involve any arbitrary mechanics such as "wait .5 secs then fire for perfect accuracy." For that matter, aren't ballistics supposed to be able to knock down if enough hit at the same time? A mech firing enough at the same time should be able to be knocked down by the recoil too. Of course, this entire paragraph only really applies to ballistics.

Just some long-winded thoughts.

[Josef Nader]

Again, you seem to be implying that small weapons are not effective. They are. I regularly score 300-400 damage in my Spider with 2 medium pulse lasers and nothing else (no, not even ECM). My single AC20, 2 MLaser Wang and my 2 MLas, Slas, AC20 hunch regularly put out between 500-700 damage through sheer, dogged determination. Carefully placed shots are far more important to this game than a super high alpha strike, and the perfect accuracy is what allows medium mechs to drop assaults with skillful piloting. Take out that accuracy, that ability to put shots -exactly- where they need to go, and you remove the ability for smaller mechs to drop mechs that out-gun them by a country mile.

And yes, I do play a 7 medium laser 4P. You know how that's balanced? Heat. I shut down if I fire my boombox more than twice in succession. Sure, it's a very scary alpha strike, but I have to make it count. Same for a 6 Cat, or KC20. Severe ammo limitations keep those mech's in check. The Gausscat now explodes if a kitten breaks wind on it.

Adding CoF or convergence does -nothing- to improve balance. All it does is lower the skill cap and encourage boating even more than it already does. This is a terrible idea, and it needs to stay as far away from MWO as possible.

[Roland]

Quote

Again, you seem to be implying that small weapons are not effective. They are.

No, the OP is pointing out that small weapons are currently FAR MORE effective than they really should be, when compared to like-typed large weapons.

[HRR Insanity]

Josef Nader, on 22 January 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Again, you seem to be implying that small weapons are not effective. They are. I regularly score 300-400 damage in my Spider with 2 medium pulse lasers and nothing else (no, not even ECM). My single AC20, 2 MLaser Wang and my 2 MLas, Slas, AC20 hunch regularly put out between 500-700 damage through sheer, dogged determination. Carefully placed shots are far more important to this game than a super high alpha strike, and the perfect accuracy is what allows medium mechs to drop assaults with skillful piloting. Take out that accuracy, that ability to put shots -exactly- where they need to go, and you remove the ability for smaller mechs to drop mechs that out-gun them by a country mile.

And yes, I do play a 7 medium laser 4P. You know how that's balanced? Heat. I shut down if I fire my boombox more than twice in succession. Sure, it's a very scary alpha strike, but I have to make it count. Same for a 6 Cat, or KC20. Severe ammo limitations keep those mech's in check. The Gausscat now explodes if a kitten breaks wind on it.

Adding CoF or convergence does -nothing- to improve balance. All it does is lower the skill cap and encourage boating even more than it already does. This is a terrible idea, and it needs to stay as far away from MWO as possible.

Of course your small weapon builds are effective. Small weapons ALWAYS dominate large weapons in MW (MW2-MW4). Why? Because they are more efficient than their large cousins... and because if you combine 2 MLs you do the same damage as a large laser for LESS heat and LESS tonnage.

Summed SL and ML damage is the reason MLs have been nerfed (heat wise), the current heat mechanics are not balanced for large weapons (PPCs, etc, ie: busted), armor doubled, and that one of the reasons hardpoints were implemented.

That is the main reason to implement weapon spread. So 'Mechs with large numbers of small weapon don't consistently smack down those 'Mechs that run the larger weapons.

Please re-read the first post.

[Mister Blastman]

KinLuu, on 22 January 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Because it would be hated and a stupid thing to do for PGI.

Deal with it.

Very insightful reply. Nice counter-argument.

[BlackWidow]

[Aldon]

HRR Insanity, on 22 January 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

You didn't read the post then. Individual weapons DO go where they're aimed.

Period.

Only groups of weapons (which break the armor/damage model) will be subject to cone of fire. This balances the game and allows small weapons to co-exist with large weapons as they were intended to.

No. All weapons need to go where they are aimed. I don't have to agree with you. I think your idea is bad. Period. Sorry. I don't care about your armor/damage model.

[HRR Insanity]

Aldon, on 22 January 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

No. All weapons need to go where they are aimed. I don't have to agree with you. I think your idea is bad. Period. Sorry. I don't care about your armor/damage model.

It's not my armor/damage model. It's MechWarrior Online's armor/damage model. They lifted it directly from BattleTech and are now trying to shoe-horn it into the game without dealing with the fundamental problem outlined in the first post.

Until they do, the weapon/heat/armor/damage balance will be broken.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 22 January 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[KinLuu]

Mister Blastman, on 22 January 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Very insightful reply. Nice counter-argument.

It was not meant to be insightfull.

I was merely pointing out the result of this thread.

[Mister Blastman]

Aldon, on 22 January 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

No. All weapons need to go where they are aimed. I don't have to agree with you. I think your idea is bad. Period. Sorry. I don't care about your armor/damage model.

No, what is stupid and bad is an AC/20 in a torso having a swivel joint allowing it to aim at whatever you point at in your movement arc with pinpoint precision. That's hilarious.

Same goes with any weapon. They aren't micro-actuated.

The only weapons that should converge at all are the arm weapons. Nothing else should.

But, whatever--I have to deal with it. Because I suck at this game and have no idea what I'm talking about...

[Lexeii]

HRR Insanity, on 22 January 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

... and because if you combine 2 MLs you do the same damage as a large laser for LESS heat and LESS tonnage.

but twice the hardpoints. why do you always neglect that? If I got 2 Hardpoints and the tonnage for the heatsinks, 2LL's is better than 2 ML's. its as easy as that. comparing 2 ML's to 1LL is not the whole story.

[KinLuu]

Mister Blastman, on 22 January 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

But, whatever--I have to deal with it. Because I suck at this game and have no idea what I'm talking about...

Not because you suck. But because you are in the minority.

[b00zy]

at this point I wish they had never put the mechwarrior name on this game it is becoming very clear that the TT fanbase has no clue what so ever as to how to make a online game and will work there hardest to sabotage this game in a crusade to have to mimic the TT in everyway

[HRR Insanity]

Lexeii, on 22 January 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

but twice the hardpoints. why do you always neglect that? If I got 2 Hardpoints and the tonnage for the heatsinks, 2LL's is better than 2 ML's. its as easy as that. comparing 2 ML's to 1LL is not the whole story.

Because hardpoints are a reaction to small weapon boating. They pre-emptively prevented the 15SL boats by adding hardpoints and limiting customization. This fails because there will always be 'Mechs with more hardpoints... which makes them the preferred 'Mech because they can combine more weapons together into a bigger alpha. (See: HBK-4P, K2, Stalker, etc)

There is no way to make hardpoints work as intended to limit boating (of mostly small weapons) while still keeping the ability to customize.

Thus, yes, as long as 2MLs always hit the same spot, they will be directly better than the LL. (Unless you want all 'Mechs to have only 1 hardpoint of each type...). The problem and solution outlined in the original post still apply.

If you continue to nerf small weapons (SLs, MLs) by increasing heat, increasing armor, weakening damage... eventually PPC or LL boats will become standard of practice (they probably already are in many situations). But they will still be stacked in large numbers to combine damage.

[Aldon]

HRR Insanity, on 22 January 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

It's not my armor/damage model. It's MechWarrior Online's armor/damage model. They lifted it directly from BattleTech and are now trying to shoe-horn it into the game without dealing with the fundamental problem outlined in the first post.

Until they do, the weapon/heat/armor/damage balance will be broken.

I think the current setup is fine. It might need a few tweaks to individual weapons but I do not like what you are suggesting. Tired of this thread... Out.

[mekabuser]

cof would do nothing but annoy noobs. Do NOTHINg to stop me from pinpointing ur as. As Id just fire singly in succession.. Oh... the macros that would be created too..
Not to mention the lrm spam would multiply like a virus.


But just to be an arse,,, ill give an idea. energy based weapons create EM which as it builds up creates convergance issues..
Then ballsitics get their day in the sun.

[HRR Insanity]

mekabuser, on 22 January 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

cof would do nothing but annoy noobs. Do NOTHINg to stop me from pinpointing ur as. As Id just fire singly in succession.. Oh... the macros that would be created too..

Read original post. Your 'workaround' is directly addressed.

mekabuser, on 22 January 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

But just to be an arse,,, ill give an idea. energy based weapons create EM which as it builds up creates convergance issues..
Then ballsitics get their day in the sun.

Doesn't fix the converging ballistic issues (2xGR, 2xAC20, 4xAC2/5), etc.