1063 replies to this topic

[urmamasllama]

Doc Holliday, on 28 February 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

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.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree pinpoint aim is not something the game can work with and be properly balanced. my suggestion wouldn't stop a skilled pilot from being accurate, but it would punish mass alpha builds just enough, which is something that really needs to be addressed

Edited by urmamasllama, 28 February 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

I'm sorry but I have to disagree pinpoint aim is not something the game can work with and be properly balanced. my suggestion wouldn't stop a skilled pilot from being accurate, but it would punish mass alpha builds just enough, which is something that really needs to be addressed

Disagree all you want. The game itself proves you wrong every match.

[urmamasllama]

Doc Holliday, on 28 February 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Disagree all you want. The game itself proves you wrong every match.

status quo != correct

heck let's ignore part two of my post and look at parts one and three

1 individual reticles per arm. tell me why we shouldn't have this?

2. having the pilot's view move with the mech instead of be stationary while moving. why shouldn't we have this?

Edited by urmamasllama, 28 February 2013 - 07:09 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

status quo != correct

Results are what matters. The results of the vast majority of matches are that specialized pinpoint damage builds do not gets the most kills, do not deal the most damage, are not the last left alive, and are generally outclassed by more versatile builds.

Has absolutely nothing to do with status quo.

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

status quo != correct

heck let's ignore part two of my post and look at parts one and three

1 individual reticles per arm. tell me why we shouldn't have this?

2. having the pilot's view move with the mech instead of be stationary while moving. why shouldn't we have this?

Because they over-complicate the game and it wouldn't have half as many players as it does now.

Just the separate arms and torso reticles are confusing for new players. And no one likes to have their view constantly jarred all over the screen just from walking.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 28 February 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[urmamasllama]

Doc Holliday, on 28 February 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Results are what matters. The results of the vast majority of matches are that specialized pinpoint damage builds do not gets the most kills, do not deal the most damage, are not the last left alive, and are generally outclassed by more versatile builds.

Has absolutely nothing to do with status quo.

you don't play in the matches i do ppc stalkers and splat cats are more often than not in the top three damage dealers. i will give some credit to some of the splat cat players as they can be quite sneaky at times. but usually when i see a ppc stalker they are terrible at heat management and positioning yet come out on top of the chart for damage and kills. buts the issue is much more than that. most people just can't see it because double armor helps to mask the issue

[Doc Holliday]

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

you don't play in the matches i do ppc stalkers and splat cats are more often than not in the top three damage dealers. i will give some credit to some of the splat cat players as they can be quite sneaky at times. but usually when i see a ppc stalker they are terrible at heat management and positioning yet come out on top of the chart for damage and kills. buts the issue is much more than that. most people just can't see it because double armor helps to mask the issue

You said the problem was pinpoint damage. Splatcats do not deal pinpoint damage and are therefore irrelevant to your point. (But SRMs are in fact a bit too powerful and need their damage reduced a bit. This is why "splatcats" are often considered too powerful. However, that's an entirely different subject for a different thread, as this thread is only about pinpoint damage, which is the "issue" the OP brought up.)
And you're grossly exaggerating about PPC stalkers.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 28 February 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[urmamasllama]

Doc Holliday, on 28 February 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Results are what matters. The results of the vast majority of matches are that specialized pinpoint damage builds do not gets the most kills, do not deal the most damage, are not the last left alive, and are generally outclassed by more versatile builds.

Has absolutely nothing to do with status quo.


Because they over-complicate the game and it wouldn't have half as many players as it does now.

Just the separate arms and torso reticles are confusing for new players. And no one likes to have their view constantly jarred all over the screen just from walking.

hawken is considered to be more of an fps than a mech simulator compared to MWO and yet its hud moves with the mech. it sure doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone playing it. and its really an issue of logic i mean am i riding on a hydraulic seat that keeps me 100% stable? and you really don't put much faith in peoples ability to learn if you think new players can't pick up having three reticles i see plenty that can't keep up with two but you know what? a tutorial in game would do them a lot of good which we've been needing for a while anyway

[MustrumRidcully]

Doc Holliday, on 28 February 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

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.

Why would I? i am well aware of t hat my Stalker 3F with 4 SRM6 and 4 Medium Lasers is weak at long range. That's why I try to stay in cover until I am close.

I know that my Dual PPC, 1 Gauss Cataphract is better suited at long range. You don't need me to tell you what I already know.

But you know what - your versatile boat build - if you meet me in my speciality, you're toast (well, assuming you're no better shot than me, w hich is a pretty generous assumption in my favor, I suppose). And if my team has a mix of different boats, your versatile mechs will get crushed, unless you somehow manage to engineer things so that the long range boats are in melee and the short range mechs look from afar. That sounds much harder to me than actively positioning the "boating" team so the close rangers intercept enemies at close range, and the long rangers give their fire support from range.

[Doc Holliday]

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

hawken is considered to be more of an fps than a mech simulator compared to MWO and yet its hud moves with the mech. it sure doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone playing it. and its really an issue of logic i mean am i riding on a hydraulic seat that keeps me 100% stable? and you really don't put much faith in peoples ability to learn if you think new players can't pick up having three reticles i see plenty that can't keep up with two but you know what? a tutorial in game would do them a lot of good which we've been needing for a while anyway

Doesn't matter if they could pick it up. What matters is it would be too much bother for them. Sure, you don't want to just dumb down a game to cater to the masses. At some point though, if you want your game to be profitable, you have to minimize the complication to get enough players to make it work.

That aside, your ideas are still an unnecessary "solution" for a problem that exists only in your imagination.

[Doc Holliday]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 February 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

Why would I? i am well aware of t hat my Stalker 3F with 4 SRM6 and 4 Medium Lasers is weak at long range. That's why I try to stay in cover until I am close.

Good for you. But that's not the kind of build we were talking about. You have an equal number of two different weapons, and they help eliminate some of the weaknesses from each other.

Furthermore, you're most likely basing your build around the SRMs which are a spread pattern weapon and not what this thread is about. And I've also already admitted that SRMs are a bit too powerful and need their damage reduced. But aside from SRMs being too powerful, please explain why you didn't just cram in as many large lasers as you could possibly fit and call it good. THAT'S the kind of build the OP is claiming has no weaknesses and needs to be compensated for.

Here is what you should be running according to the OP, because it is greatly overpowered.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e84a8d4205fe11b
or
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e8ce86c85c5afa2

So, if you would be so kind, please explain why you chose to gimp your build instead of going with one of the clearly superior builds I have just posted?

Quote

But you know what - your versatile boat build - if you meet me in my speciality, you're toast (well, assuming you're no better shot than me, w hich is a pretty generous assumption in my favor, I suppose). And if my team has a mix of different boats, your versatile mechs will get crushed, unless you somehow manage to engineer things so that the long range boats are in melee and the short range mechs look from afar. That sounds much harder to me than actively positioning the "boating" team so the close rangers intercept enemies at close range, and the long rangers give their fire support from range.

I kill specialists with my more versatile builds all the time.

As for team builds, if everyone on your team is a specialist you leave yourself with only a couple of your team able to contribute the majority of the time. Yep, that sounds like a real winner.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 28 February 2013 - 07:33 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

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.

i have seen and have had lots of mechs die with just CT damage. granted it's not that often, but the larger the target the easier it is to do. this is why people boat 4-6 pps'c. i normally see a cored CT on Atlases. pin point accuracy reduced the survivability of the atlas. This is the distinction between TT and MWO. its something you can't appreciate since you never played TT. The atlas is not as powerful as it should be. that same goes for all assault mechs. The aiming system in MWO is a huge buff to light mechs.

The OP's ideas brings more balance to the game. As former TT player i see perfect convergence as sniper builds. since all the damage goes to the spot your targeting. damage spread is essential to a mechs survival. Part of the reason you see damage all over mechs is a players tendency to just spam fire as soon as the weapons recycle.
they are not being methodical and trying to hit the same location every time and that's often the goal of a skilled player.
its so much easier to hit the ct on an atlas than a commando.

You have stated that i am not being objective. i am. if CBT didn't exist before MWO i would agree with everything you have stated. but CBT does exist and significantly influences MWO. leaving out damage spread is a problem that a non TT player cant see. a cone of fire can be tuned such that at short range all weapons can hit the same location. at extreme ranges under the current system all damage can hit the same location. with a COF the damage gets spread a bit. a targeting computer or c3 system can reduce the COF converting a long range spread into a tight short range spread. if your running full tilt the cof increases by 10% and is 0% if your standing still.

[urmamasllama]

doc you're obviously blind to the over lying issue in balance for this game i know my idea only addresses one part but i also advocate for changing the missile patterns to be more like they are in living legends. the issue isn't specifically single weapon boating, it's range specializing alpha builds. full lrm boats and srm boats are far too common as well as things like ppc stalkers and although these builds shouldn't really be effective they are.

what are some of the most common builds right now
HBK-4SP 4xML 2xSRM6 short range alpha brawler
CAT A1 6xSRM6 short range alpha brawler
CAT A! 6xLRM10 long range alpha support
STK 3F 6xPPC long range alpha sniper

you are in denial if you think these builds don't work
for a counter reference to this however here is my A1 Build
the reason this works isn't because balanced builds are normally viable it's because of the thought process most players have when dealing with an A1. because they most players are used to only dealing with A1 boats they assume if i hit them at long range they should get in close at which point i hit them just as hard in close range where they get confused and go in to mid range where i hit even harder. this build only works because it preys on the current meta

Edited by urmamasllama, 28 February 2013 - 07:52 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

Furthermore, you're most likely basing your build around the SRMs which are a spread pattern weapon and not what this thread is about. And I've also already admitted that SRMs are a bit too powerful and need their damage reduced. But aside from SRMs being too powerful, please explain why you didn't just cram in as many large lasers as you could possibly fit and call it good. THAT'S the kind of build the OP is claiming has no weaknesses and needs to be compensated for.

Again, I honestly don't really care much about this discussion as I don't expect the game to change so dramatically, but you are mistaken in your understanding of what is being suggested.

Certainly, it is possible to build terrible builds with only one weapon type. But that's not really necessary.

A 6 PPC stalker is an example of a bad build... because, certainly, it puts all of its eggs in one basket. It's kind of funny, but gives up too much for not much gained over a more "balanced" stalker build.

But the "balanced" stalker build is simply FOUR PPC'S... with a bunch of SRM's as backup weapons. This build is not too hot to run at all.. and it has none of the range limitations that you claim exist. Once you are inside 90m, then you're taking large hits of SRM's to your face. But, in all honesty, you aren't likely to get that close anyway, because it's going to be nailing you with 40 point alpha strikes all the way in. If by some chance you manage to get close, you're already going to have had panels blown out, so finishing you off with the short range weapons won't be much of an issue.

I find it kind of strange that you don't really seem to grasp the utility of a large alpha strike on such a mech. The ability to kill mechs with a single shot is pretty powerful.

Again, I'm not even arguing that such a build is totally broken and needs to be nerfed... Most of my mechs focus on large precision damage, because that's the fastest way to kill mechs in mechwarrior (and always has been). But on some level, you seem to be disputing this idea.

You have mentioned that you run Dragons.. could you perhaps give me an idea of what you consider a good build?

[urmamasllama]

oh he runs dragons? probably runs a thunder clap

and those two stalkers builds you posted. pretty much yeah looks pretty close to how i run my k2 and the other one is basically the standard ppc stalker build

Edited by urmamasllama, 28 February 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[urmamasllama]

Doc Holliday, on 28 February 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

That aside, your ideas are still an unnecessary "solution" for a problem that exists only in your imagination.

oh really? then i must be in part of a mass hallucination with about half the people who read this forum and everyone in my clan

alpha builds are a problem. you need to take off your blinders and accept this

[Doc Holliday]

Tombstoner, on 28 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

i have seen and have had lots of mechs die with just CT damage. granted it's not that often, but the larger the target the easier it is to do. this is why people boat 4-6 pps'c. i normally see a cored CT on Atlases. pin point accuracy reduced the survivability of the atlas. This is the distinction between TT and MWO. its something you can't appreciate since you never played TT. The atlas is not as powerful as it should be. that same goes for all assault mechs. The aiming system in MWO is a huge buff to light mechs.

I agree that assault mechs don't feel as strong as BT lore would have them. I think it's silly however that a light mech should be as easy to hit as a heavy mech in any format. Even in TT physical size should be accounted for with roll penalties.

But that's all moot because there's one key difference between MechWarrior and TT Battletech. In MechWarrior you're controlling ONE mech, not a lance of four. If lights really were as outclassed by assaults as they are in lore no one would pilot them. There would be absolutely no point to use them at all.

Quote

The OP's ideas brings more balance to the game. As former TT player i see perfect convergence as sniper builds. since all the damage goes to the spot your targeting. damage spread is essential to a mechs survival. Part of the reason you see damage all over mechs is a players tendency to just spam fire as soon as the weapons recycle.
they are not being methodical and trying to hit the same location every time and that's often the goal of a skilled player.
its so much easier to hit the ct on an atlas than a commando.

The OP's ideas do not bring any more balance to the game. They merely move the problem to another place. I've explained this time and time again. Neither you nor anything else has refuted, nor even attempted to, the explanation given. Perfect convergence is not a problem at all, because no human pilot aims perfectly. No one. You're not going to hit what you want to hit all the time, probably not even 75%. And that's IF, as you say, you are being methodical and picking your shots. To do better than that you're going to have to waste a lot of time waiting for stationary targets at an easy distance.


It should be easier to hit an Atlas than a Commando. It's over 4 times the size. That's so obvious I'm not sure why you'd even bother bringing it up.

TT came before the lore did, and the purpose of the random spread dice mechanic is to represent pilot error, not mech error. The latter was almost certainly concocted in books after the fact by some moron who didn't bother to think any of it through properly.

Quote

You have stated that i am not being objective. i am. if CBT didn't exist before MWO i would agree with everything you have stated. but CBT does exist and significantly influences MWO. leaving out damage spread is a problem that a non TT player cant see. a cone of fire can be tuned such that at short range all weapons can hit the same location. at extreme ranges under the current system all damage can hit the same location. with a COF the damage gets spread a bit. a targeting computer or c3 system can reduce the COF converting a long range spread into a tight short range spread. if your running full tilt the cof increases by 10% and is 0% if your standing still.

This is not CBT. This is a first-person-shooter. It's not going to play the same and random weapon spread across the board do not help it.

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

oh he runs dragons? probably runs a thunder clap

and those two stalkers builds you posted. pretty much yeah looks pretty close to how i run my k2 and the other one is basically the standard ppc stalker build

My dragons run 2x LLas, 2x MLas, 1x SRM6. Not sure what you mean by a thunder clap. I tried a 4x LLas build and it was less effective than what I run now.

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

oh really? then i must be in part of a mass hallucination with about half the people who read this forum and everyone in my clan

alpha builds are a problem. you need to take off your blinders and accept this

So far exactly 89 people have "liked" the OP in this thread. I'm pretty sure there's a good deal more than 178 people who read this forum.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 28 February 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[urmamasllama]

i agree with you that the OP's idea is flawed but so is your arguement that things are fine as is. for one you greatly underestimate human ability. i honestly think the reason you and many others don't see the problem is because it's masked behind double armor. if we were to take that away you would see complaints of alpha builds rampant on the forums. double armor is not a fix, it's a cover up

Edited by urmamasllama, 28 February 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

urmamasllama, on 28 February 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

i agree with you that the OP's idea is flawed but so is your arguement that things are fine as is. for one you greatly underestimate human ability. i honestly think the reason you and many others don't see the problem is because it's masked behind double armor. if we were to take that away you would see complaints of alpha builds rampant on the forums. double armor is not a fix, it's a cover up

No, you greatly overestimate human ability. You're using the top 1% or fewer pilots as your example, and claiming that represents the playerbase at whole.

Better players SHOULD be able to be more effective. That's the whole point of a skill-based game. As I said from the very beginning, any of this crap being suggested does nothing but remove a large degree of player skill from the equation. It's nothing more than an attempt to remove pilot shooting skill and normalize things so that the only skills that matter are things like positioning, tactics, and teamwork. Those elements are also important in a shooter, but the primary skill in a shooter should always be the player's skill to actually shoot.

But this game is a SHOOTER, not a pure mech sim. It never will be a pure mech sim because it is built around SHOOTING.

If your idea of a mech SIM is a game where the mech does the shooting for you, then unfortunately you were deceived by PGI when they told you this game would be a sim. That does not change the fact that this game is a SHOOTER (not really a sim) and the mech does not do the shooting for you.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 28 February 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[Sug]

This thread needs to bite down on it's suicide tooth.

[Mimic]

this thread reminds me of