1063 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

Precision aiming, particularly in group fire or alpha strike has been on the the worst balance issues ongoing in the MW series. As soon as it was announced that it was going that way I knew that this game was going to have the same balance issues. No surprise that it does. While I realize a cone of fire is a dream at this point, I could live with reduced effectiveness for any group or alpha fired weapon. The first couple would be full damage, but any additional would be something like dam=1-((n-1)*.1)

[Tombstoner]

Shumabot, on 27 February 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

You cant institute the changes suggested here in one week. It would require the creation of an entirely new mechanic, the application of that mechanic to everything, and then bug testing on it. They already can't do things without a month lag, so we'd be looking at probably 2-4 months of what is a truly awful solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Not a week.

This is why discussing it is kind of a wast of time. i think the game is too far along the development path. As an addition to an expansion pack ok. more likly i think things like 12 vs 12 are taking priority. who knows maybe they have built it and tried it out. felt that its best not to try it in beta.

The move to 2x armor was a direct response to survival time. if however a COF was added than the armor on the R/L t and arms wouldn't go to waist. i do like the idea that arms/legs and l/r ct torsos should not have the same amount of armor per tone of internal as it is now. This would also increase survivability.

[Zyllos]

Shumabot, on 27 February 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

You cant institute the changes suggested here in one week. It would require the creation of an entirely new mechanic, the application of that mechanic to everything, and then bug testing on it. They already can't do things without a month lag, so we'd be looking at probably 2-4 months of what is a truly awful solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Not a week.

Not the suggestion I gave: Reduction of Pin-Point Alphas and Emphasis on Arms

The only thing the devs need to do is turn off convergence ray-traces for weapons. That is all they need to do. Because the arms already point directly at the Arm crosshair and torsos at the Torso crosshair.

And considering they have programmers which know how to program (thus OOP), this is probably just as simple as setting a #define or variable in the code.

I also heard they are planning on adding a public test server, which is PERFECT for these types of changes.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 February 2013 - 02:43 PM.

[Badconduct]

Quote

Groups of weapons are ALWAYS more effective than a single weapon of that type. Always. This is why people boat weapons. It’s because it’s the smart thing to do.

This is inaccurate.

If you miss with 3 weapons, than you get the heat of three weapons and damage of 0.

If you miss with 1 of 3 weapons, you get the heat of 3 weapons and the damage of 1.

So, assuming everyone hits 100% of the time, they don't.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Badconduct, on 27 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

This is inaccurate.

If you miss with 3 weapons, than you get the heat of three weapons and damage of 0.

If you miss with 1 of 3 weapons, you get the heat of 3 weapons and the damage of 1.

So, assuming everyone hits 100% of the time, they don't.

Poor logic. If you assume the hit rate is the same groups are always better as they clump damage. Assuming 33% hit rate for one and 0% for the other...

[Doc Holliday]

Tombstoner, on 27 February 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

The move to 2x armor was a direct response to survival time. if however a COF was added than the armor on the R/L t and arms wouldn't go to waist. i do like the idea that arms/legs and l/r ct torsos should not have the same amount of armor per tone of internal as it is now. This would also increase survivability.

So why, exactly, are you wasting armor on your arms then? Drop that armor and put those tons to good use. No one's keeping you from it.

You know what, I'll just go ahead and answer that for you.

You won't drop that armor because it's needed. Why is it needed, when far and away most people target CT?

Because no one aims perfectly 100% of the time. In fact, no one aims perfectly even 75% of the time. I have never yet seen a mech die with only one location having taken damage. Not once. Ever. And I'll bet that doesn't happen even .1% of the time. If you collected stats, I expect you'd find at least 25% of the time, a mech loses at least one extra location before death. You don't need randomization to spread damage around over various locations because us pilots do that just fine on our own. If pinpoint precision accuracy in alpha was really the problem it's trumped up to be here in this thread, everyone would be running sniper weapons because nothing else would be worth running. At the very least, you would ALWAYS see sniper builds topping the kill charts, if not the damage charts. You don't see that though. This is why the problem does not exist.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 27 February 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[Terror Teddy]

I really dont see the point.

The tabletop wanted to simulate movement and pilot error with penalties to hit, and we have those even if all weapons hit the "same" spot.

It's the actual movement and error of human pilots so it's already there.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

It doesn't matter what PGI said at this point, because what we have is a shooter, not a mech sim. You're looking for a mech sim. This game is not what you're looking for. It's that simple. Did they lie to you? Probably.

https://mwomercs.com/game

'MechWarrior Online

A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3049 AD. As a pilot known as a "MechWarrior", you are about to take control of the most powerful mechanical battle units the universe has ever seen.'

[HRR Insanity]

Badconduct, on 27 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

This is inaccurate.

If you miss with 3 weapons, than you get the heat of three weapons and damage of 0.

If you miss with 1 of 3 weapons, you get the heat of 3 weapons and the damage of 1.

So, assuming everyone hits 100% of the time, they don't.

If you hit, you get 3x the damage on a single panel... as opposed to 1 weapon somewhere.

People who are bad at the game (gunnery wise) will be screwed in either circumstance.

Group fire is always superior for pilots with skill.

PS: Some of my builds generate 0 heat. So there is no downside to group fire (aside from ammo... and I have enough).

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Insanity, on 27 February 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

https://mwomercs.com/game

'MechWarrior Online

A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3049 AD. As a pilot known as a "MechWarrior", you are about to take control of the most powerful mechanical battle units the universe has ever seen.'

Sure. They can call it whatever they want.

HRR Insanity, on 27 February 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

If you hit, you get 3x the damage on a single panel... as opposed to 1 weapon somewhere.

People who are bad at the game (gunnery wise) will be screwed in either circumstance.

Group fire is always superior for pilots with skill.

PS: Some of my builds generate 0 heat. So there is no downside to group fire (aside from ammo... and I have enough).

There doesn't need to be a downside to group fire. There's already a downside in stacking too many of the same type of weapons. The core design is working quite well.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 27 February 2013 - 03:07 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Terror Teddy, on 27 February 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

I really dont see the point.

The tabletop wanted to simulate movement and pilot error with penalties to hit, and we have those even if all weapons hit the "same" spot.

It's the actual movement and error of human pilots so it's already there.

But didn't you hear? Those penalties are supposed to represent the mech's skill, not the pilot's. The pilot doesn't shoot the guns, he tells the mech to! It's true, because it's in some canon book somewhere!

/end sarcasm

Edited by Doc Holliday, 27 February 2013 - 03:09 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Le0yo, on 26 February 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Der Geisterbaer the extreme comparisons you are making are so bias and actually crazy

Huh? Which particular comparison was "extreme"?

Quote

where do you draw the comparison of changing the main character to the weapons?

~erm~ Where did my comparison change the main character? It was your reference of "Batman" and his various incarnations.

I merely took that comparison and told you that with the exception of comic book based "Future Batman" all widely known versions of Batman (aka the "Bruce Wayne Batman") are identical when it comes to what defines Batman as a person and thus as a "franchise". The majority of people would never accept an incarnation of a Bruce "Batman" Wayne that doesn't adhere to the basic premises of the well known character (murdered parents, vigilante, millionaire or otherwise rich of resources, tech gadgets, highly skilled athlete and genius <- pretty "long" list I'd say, but that's "Batman").

From there I went to the franchise called "BattleTech universe" that happens to have vers destinct premises of it's own, namely:

1. The main battle forces of the 31st. century are BattleMechs with synthetic muscles and fusion reactors as engines with various weapons.
2. Effective weapon ranges of these machines are dramatically reduced due to a very high inaccuracy of all used weapons, regardless of type and in total ignorance of how our real world weapons perform there.
3. Heat is a limiting factor to weapon usage per time, but it also increases the inaccuracy of all weapons on a BattleMech.

These are very basic premises (the list not being longer than for Batman) and are - despite you constantly claiming otherwise - not only a result of the TT rules, but also something that is integral part of the whole "fluff" / "lore" of the BT universe as a whole.

Now let's look at MW:O (and to a certain extend also to its predecessors, and even some of the games you and others suggested that I should rather play) and let's see which of these premises where transfered to the respective implementations:

The FPS games, including MW:O are using:

• premise one about the use of BattleMechs as main combat machinery
  
• the first half of the second premise by using weapon "insanely" short ranges, but pretty much all of them ignored and still ignore the part about inaccuracy.
  
• Again, only one part of the premise is used. While heat was and is used to limit weapon throughput, none of the FPS games seem to increase weapon inaccuracy due to increased heat levels.

The real time strategic (or rather tactic) games (MechCommander series):

• premise 1 is kept again
  
• premise 2 is questionable, but not to same degree as in the FPS games: Very limited combat ranges in accordance to lore and tt rules? Yes Inccuracy of weapons? At least partially (otherwise pilot accuracy/precision skills wouldn't be included)
  
• premise 3 - at least to my knowledge - isn't used either or at least rather scarcly: You usually don't see BattleMechs shut down that often in MechCommander due to overheat. Nor seems heat to affect the accuracy of the simulated mechs. There is of course a limitation to frequency of weapon usage due to heat (as well as reload times). For upcomming games we'll have to see how they do it

Turn based TT simulation games (MegaMek) and most likely the forthcoming "tactics" game you link all the time:

• Since they're going by the TT rules they somewhat automatically adhere the premises, but also keep the flaws of the game play that come from the dice mechanics.

Now, MW:O - by it's own defintion (http://mwomercs.com/game) tries to simulate a BattleMech in combat, yet it doesn't follow the premises of the gaming universe (and it's technology).


So I have to repeat my earlier question: Why are some of you people so dead set about not even remotely trying variations within the game mechanics that would bring this game closer to said basic premises and could possibly alleviate some of the mechanical problems at least some people claim to see?

Quote

his gear is totally different in the modern incarnation just like weapons can be changed in this you still have all the cannon mech's and the lore

And that's plain wrong: BattleTech lore isn't there, since in BattleTech lore weapons, mechs and pilots simply do not have the kind of pin point accuracy that the current implementations brings about.

Quote

but the rules and function of the weapons and art style can and should change because what you are arguing for well ITS BALANCED FOR A TABLE TOP!

Nice SHOUTING, but still wrong ...

Quote

I never ever said every game that was made was an improvement over original creations but some are...

I didn't say that you said something else ... I merely noted that none of fps implementations was an actual evolution, since they all lack the very destinct features that are basic premises of the BT universe.

Quote

what you describe would turn this game into a boring brawl fest with little tactics other than choosing a mech to gang up on, it would not even be worth engaging at range terrain would serve nothing more than a sight block to getting tickled by single fire weapons obviously the closer in the more effective the weapons would be both teams would just want to get in close you would be gimping yourself taking ranged I cant think of anything more arcade and less sim than walking up and shooting the crap out of things point blank.

I'm always marveled at what people can predict for something without ever having it seen tested to a minimum extend.
But I guess that's the same kind of narrow thinking that makes you constantly use inflamatory language while having no real arguments.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 27 February 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

There doesn't need to be a downside to group fire. There's already a downside in stacking too many of the same type of weapons. The core design is working quite well.

For any weapon you can use well (which includes maneuvering into the range required to use the weapon), more of that weapon will make you more effective.

There is no downside to stacking the same weapon to have weaponX3 or weaponX5. It is the smart thing to do.

PS: I sent you an invite in-game if you'd like to compare some notes in the actual game environment.

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Insanity, on 27 February 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

For any weapon you can use well (which includes maneuvering into the range required to use the weapon), more of that weapon will make you more effective.

It will make you slightly more effective in one small way, and leave you completely helpless in twice as many ways.

Quote

There is no downside to stacking the same weapon to have weaponX3 or weaponX5. It is the smart thing to do.

Really? After all this discussion, you're going to make such an ignorant and stupid statement? It should be patently obvious why that is factually incorrect.

Here's a perfect build, based on your claim.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...36fb282166fe543

Quote

PS: I sent you an invite in-game if you'd like to compare some notes in the actual game environment.

I'd consider taking you up on that, except I'm currently boycotting the game because of the ridiculous ECM.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 27 February 2013 - 04:25 PM.

[HRR Mary]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

It will make you slightly more effective in one small way, and leave you completely helpless in twice as many ways.

I would personnaly love that you list those drawbacks.

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Really? After all this discussion, you're going to make such an ignorant and stupid statement? It should be patently obvious why that is factually incorrect.

Here's a perfect build, based on your claim.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...36fb282166fe543

You actually try to ridicule the reasonning, which is not very helpful to the discussion, to say the least,

Now, consider the 4PPC Stalker, the 3 LRM20 Atlas RS, the 7medlas Hunchback, the Twin Gauss Cat, which are perfectly able to function (unlike your example) under the set rules of MWO.

Having played all iterations of MW, I can tell you this : All competitive players I met, or played with, have used multiple weapons of the same type, in the same group, for their configs.

If doing that does not give you an advantage, why did those players do that ?

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

I'd consider taking you up on that, except I'm currently boycotting the game because of the ridiculous ECM.

Sorry to hear that.

Like Insanity, I would have appreciated teaming with you to compare our actual experiences and builds. It might have helped understand why we see the game so differently.

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Mary, on 28 February 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

I would personnaly love that you list those drawbacks.

Give me one of your boat builds, and I'll tell you exactly what the drawbacks are.

Quote

You actually try to ridicule the reasonning, which is not very helpful to the discussion, to say the least,

Not at all. He made a very specific statement, and I pointed out how it was factually incorrect.

Quote

Now, consider the 4PPC Stalker,

I've done that build. It's very vulnerable up close. It generates way too much heat, even now. And if you're talking actual PPCs (not ERPPCs) you've also got that minimum range inside which you are literally helpless. That's a very real concern, because the stalker is not fast and not maneuverable, and unless you're better than 99.9% of pilots in the game, many players will be able to evade enough of your shots to get in close where you can do nothing and kill you.

Quote

the 3 LRM20 Atlas RS,

Irrelevant to any of this thread. Insanity's "problem" is that multiple weapons of the same type are able to all focus in and hit the same location. His solution is weapon spread or minimizing convergence somehow. LRMs should be fine according to his description of the problem, regardless of how many of them you have.

That aside, boating nothing but LRMs leaves even more vulnerable than PPCs. ECM completely defeats them at any kind of range, and they still have a minimum range that's even bigger than PPCs. And even without ECM, LRMs can be completely negated by taking cover after they've already been fired. Best hope you get caustic and alpine all the time with that build or you'll end up like all those LRM boats I've slaughtered: backed up against a wall and completely helpless to do anything.

Quote

the 7medlas Hunchback,

The 4P only has energy slots and it's too small to make a good PPC boat. What else do you think most people would run on it? It's far from OP though, as it rarely tops the damage or kill charts, and was only ever really popular back when repair & rearm was in effect because it uses no ammo.

That being said, I run mine with a large laser in the left arm and small lasers elsewhere. It gives me more flexibility and makes it noticeably more effective.

Quote

the Twin Gauss Cat,

The Twin Gauss Cat was always a bit of a gimmick build, like a 4PPC stalker. Best hope you kill your opponent at range, because once they get in close with a balanced build you're done. Gauss also weighs so much for the damage it does, you have to give up a lot of other things to make it work. Hence, why that build uses only two gauss and nothing else. The best gauss builds use one gauss.

However, the devs did seem to agree that the dual gauss was a bit too powerful. The solution? Give gauss a bigger downside. They did, and now far fewer players use that build. That's how you balance a weapon system. You don't scrap the whole system and start over from the ground up because a few players see a nonexistent problem.

Quote

which are perfectly able to function (unlike your example) under the set rules of MWO.

The example I gave is perfectly functional. You can take it into battle and you can shoot at other mechs. It's the perfect example, however, to show how wrong the idea is that stacking more of the same weapon is always better. There's always a tipping point where more of the same weapon is not better, and most boats go well past that point. The 4PPC stalker, for example, would be much better with just 3 PPCs. The dual gauss cat would be much better with just one gauss and some medium lasers as well. I could go on.

Quote

Having played all iterations of MW, I can tell you this : All competitive players I met, or played with, have used multiple weapons of the same type, in the same group, for their configs.

Of course they do. No one's going to go out of their way to make sure every single weapon on every build is different from every other weapon. Your statement is pointless and meaningless.

Quote

If doing that does not give you an advantage, why did those players do that ?

I never said that having more than one of any given weapon can't give an advantage.

Anything in the game that you can equip on a mech has a downside. Putting a good build together is all about figuring out how to minimize the downsides and leaving your mech with as few weaknesses as possible. The question with everything you put on a mech, down to each .5 ton of armor is "does the upside of this outweigh the downside, and would there be something else with more upside and less downside?"

Edited by Doc Holliday, 28 February 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[urmamasllama]

urmamasllama, on 27 February 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

First thing is left and right arm weapons need to have individual weapon convergence, so that lining up a shot will be a bit trickier as both arms have to individually line up on the target.

Secondly weapons fire shouldn't be 100% accurate to where you aim with lasers and ballistics(it should however be within the inner circle of the reticle at the weapon's optimum range), and should be addressed in one of three ways:

• First would be what I call a build quirk where a permanent quirk is applied to a weapon that makes it slightly off in a random direction from the reticle. "darn thing always drifts a little to the left" In this way a player can know personally with time how his mech's weapons work in combat, and the skilled ones can compensate for it while making perfect aim a little harder. It will also reduce the effectiveness of certain cheese builds by making them unable to perfectly line up to a single point on a target.
  
• Second is similar to the first which I call a per match quirk. It would be the same except the drift is different for each weapon on a per drop basis.
  
• Third would be what I call jiggle. The amount the aim is off, and direction is random on a per shot basis similar to what you see in many fps games with with guns like AK-47s that are generally inaccurate. (i'd prefer this not be implemented because its a mechanic that doesn't allow for skill)

Finally I would like to see movement affect convergence. a walking mech should not be as accurate as a stationary one. This could easily be fixed by changing something that has bothered me since I started playing currently as your mech is moving you stay stationary meaning as your cockpit bobs up and down, you don't. If your vision followed the movement of the mech I probably would say we might not even need any of the other changes see as being stationary makes you very vulnerable. It would be a decent tradeoff for being able to aim with precision

quoting myself from a thread i made last night the op is right about weapon spread however his ideas for addressing it are quite flawed as they don't allow for player skill to compensate. RNG fire(read cone of fire) is never the answer.

[Doc Holliday]

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

quoting myself from a thread i made last night the op is right about weapon spread however his ideas for addressing it are quite flawed as they don't allow for player skill to compensate. RNG fire(read cone of fire) is never the answer.

I suggest you reread the last half-dozen pages of this thread before you post more. It's already been pointed out numerous times why weapon spread is not an issue.

[MustrumRidcully]

HRR Mary, on 28 February 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

I would personnaly love that you list those drawbacks.

And that is one of the secrets of boat builds, independent of convergence and what not. They have a clearly defined, well known weak spot, that the pilot can actiovely work to avoid, and instead get into his clearly defined strong spot. Instead of trying to fight a short range boat at short range, a long range boat can fight at long range. If your close range or long range boat meats a versatile mech, it works to avoid it at any range itself isn't strong.

It isn't always easy, but you have one advantage if you know at least your own strong and weak spots - whereas the versatile mech knows if he meets a specialist in his specialist range, he's screwed.

[Doc Holliday]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 February 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

And that is one of the secrets of boat builds, independent of convergence and what not. They have a clearly defined, well known weak spot, that the pilot can actiovely work to avoid, and instead get into his clearly defined strong spot. Instead of trying to fight a short range boat at short range, a long range boat can fight at long range. If your close range or long range boat meats a versatile mech, it works to avoid it at any range itself isn't strong.

It isn't always easy, but you have one advantage if you know at least your own strong and weak spots - whereas the versatile mech knows if he meets a specialist in his specialist range, he's screwed.

That's completely ignoring the fact that it's far harder for a specialist to force all engagements to a situation where he excels than it is for a versatile pilot to exploit the weaknesses of said specialist.

So go ahead. Post your specialist builds. I'll point out exactly how they suck and how they can be easily defeated.