1063 replies to this topic

[Pht]

aniviron, on 09 April 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

Given that this is the case, I'd like to imagine that a thousand years from now, when humanity is capable of faster than light travel and instantaneous communication across the galaxy, we'd have computers advanced enough to not need pilots that struggle to hit gigantic, slow moving targets with any precision.

Battletech was not meant to be a "future timeline" of our reality.

It was meant as a fiction... so trying to extrapolate our capabilities into the BT fiction is not correct.

Quote

All your arguments should center around "is it fun," not "is it realistic."

... and fun is defined as ... ?

For some of us, "fun" is the idea of having the 'mechs perform like they do in the lore.

[TheForce]

this is the best thread ever.

all of you people bitching about balance should read this and understand that if nothing is done about group fire and pinpoint accuracy, THIS GAME WILL NEVER BE BALANCED!!!

QQ

[MrPenguin]

[Jess Hazen]

A horrible solution to dumb down skill in a skill based game.

[Pht]

Jess Hazen, on 17 April 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

A horrible solution to dumb down skill in a skill based game.

There are ways to make the 'Mechs behave like 'mechs that don't remove human skill from the equation: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

[Gogopher]

still the best post out there on what is wrong with this game...and what can be done to fix it...if i could like this again i would...

[Kyzar Kon]

I think if they add a cone of fire for fire groups. The number and size effect the size of the cone. Single weapon fire group no cone. That way it deters Alpha builds and promotes builds that manage firing groups. Even make chain fire reduce cone size, a longer duration of fire decrease pinpint accuracy. Alphas would become point blank desperation shotgun blasts.

[Pater Mors]

Any one who says that the OP's measures will remove skill from the game has not fully considered or understood the OP's proposals.

A game based on the implementation of the measures he has written down will require MORE, much more, skill to be good at.

Right now it's simple to chuck a whole bunch of weapons on a chassis and Alpha Strike your way to victory via pinpoint accuracy. That is not skill, no matter how good you are at getting headshots. The only skill involved here is making sure your pinpoint accurate alpha hits the pin point that you're aiming at. That's basically it. Aim, fire, cool down. Aim, fire, cool down.

Real skill is weighing up all factors; heat, movement, armour, single weapon vs. grouped, position etc and using all that information to decide what weapon or weapons to shoot, where to aim it and when to fire it for maximum effect. Implementing a COF effect, while it might seem like RNG, will require much more skill to master.

At present there is never a time when you need to decide which weapons to fire, aside from checking range. If your ML's are in range, fire 'em all! With the OP's proposal you need to consider more than just range. Is the enemy Mech damaged? Will a pinpoint strike be better than grouped fire in this situation? What's my heat like? How fast am I moving?

Edited by Pater Mors, 23 April 2013 - 07:52 PM.

[mekabuser]

blah blah blah/// fifty pages of nerd rage.

[Appogee]

Jetfire, on 07 January 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

...Only fully articulated arms can have adjustable to target convergence. Torso and Up/Down only arms should fire at a fixed convergence of the weapons maximum effective distance. The reason being that these items are not all mounted on individual articulated gimbals. This makes where you mount weapons important as it will affect the spread. Center of mass weapons on the torso like the Centurions lasers have no convergence issues as they are mounted dead center on the reticules.

This makes uncommon sense. Sign me up. It's a better solution than cone of fire.

Don't add random variation though. It's the 31st century. Weapon alignment is a refined science. Adding convergence for weapons on gimbles, and no convergence for fixed weapons, is realistic and enough.

[Cervantes88]

OP's solution makes sense.

If you have a weapon mounted on each side torso, a fixed weapon, you can only fire one at a time with perfect on-reticle accuracy (say the mech's HUD auto-corrects the reticle automatically), if you fire both of them at the same time, you would need two reticles ! It shouldn't hit the exact same point. Only arms-mounted weapons should be able to do that, and even, only arms that can move sideways (i.e not the Stalker's arms).

This would nerf pinpoint accurate group-fired alphas, make splash weapons somewhat more viable at close range because they would be less-dependant on pinpoint accuracy, and overall force people to have more balanced weapon setups to adapt to different situations instead of just boating one type of weapon and one-click people.

To people saying that this would "nerf skill", i'll be perfectly honnest with you. Whatever weapon you use, this game requires very little actual "skill", as in FPS-shooting skill. With the recent netcode fixes it's basically a point-and-click shooter, even fast mechs move relatively slowly and in easy-to-predict patterns compared to let's say Quake or Unreal Tournament where people jump everywhere at lightspeed. Some weapons like SRMs at mid range or ACs require some leading and are more "skilled" than others. Some are completely deprived of any form of "skill" like autohit Streaks, or lock-fire-and-pray LRMs. The "Mechwarrior skill" is made of map and game knowledge + teamwork. The "aiming" part is minimal once you reach a decent level (not talking about people discovering the game and trying to spray on ppl like in CoD).

Adding an actual weapon convergence mechanic would actually INCREASE the skill required to use some weapons, because it would add another variable to adapt to when firing a weapon. And not just ONE CLICK ALPHA 9 ML/5LL/4PPC TO YOUR CT !!11!1!1

[Zyllos]

I am still waiting for PGI to acknowledge this is an issue.

If PGI never acknowledges this, then this idea is dead in the water.

Look at the Reddit questions and answers regarding jump sniping and PPC boating. PGI said they are happy with the current outcome that players have developed. How can you convinced PGI that there is a major issue when that very issue is leading to PGI being happy with the outcome?

Also, I was originally a huge proponent of having no convergence in individual weapons but having arms converge. But, even with this implementation, the Stalker PPC and Jagermech AC/20 builds would 100% be not effected by this change. The Stalker PPCs are all in the arms, thus still allowing for pin-point convergence as the same for the Jagermech AC/20s.

This only leads to a cone-of-fire implementation, which it seems the community and PGI is deeply against, down to their very bones. But, if you could convince PGI and the community that a cone-of-fire is needed, you could actually do some really interesting things.

[C E Dwyer]

OP has alot of valid points, I'm not acusing the OP of being a TT purist as I think he has the intelligence, to realise this game won't be that, and his expectations are not to make this game TT like but balanced and not the weapon grouping fest its becomming, but I don't think coning is the way to go.

I think TT purists that want a digitised game where they don't have to dust off the figures, and get the hex map out, and those that want to completely disreguard everything that was ever written, and just boat to victory are doing this game a big diservice, and I hope PGI don't pander to either view and take the middle ground.

The AC20 in table top was the most feared weapon it was the only weapon that could one shot a mech, because hits were achieved by tables with random hits with modifers the rare head shot boom, for this you were plenalised on internal critic, and if it got knocked out you had nothing.

He is completely correct in that this once feared weapon( until clans came along) is now an also ran, because as he has pointed out 4 ML with heat sinks are much better than the AC20 in the games loadout, with no chance of an ammo explosion, and as they can be spread about if you lose one or two of them you are still effective, the AC20's lower heat generation isn't a good enough reason to keep it, only reason I run the ac20 is I like the noise and some mech 'should' have it to feel right, so I gimp my ride .

I think heat penalties are the way to go

quick example you have 6 medium lasers, you fire one at a time, it does 5 dam 4 heat.

You group 2 ML's and you fire them as one block 10 damage 8 heat, and 1 extra to fire them as a block, add a third this generates another extra point so if 6 are fired together your generating 5 extra heat, weapons generating more damage, longer ranger generating heat on a 1.5 scale and possibly 2.

This way won't stop grouping but it will provide a system where it is far less attractive, and in protracted fights a liability over well aimed single or paired shots, as the extra heat only become a noticable problem with groups of 4 or more (in the case of the med lasers)

[C E Dwyer]

aniviron, on 09 April 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

You can argue balance one way or another for why this should or shouldn't be done, but I'm tired of the "reality" argument. The US Navy already makes lasers that can track and shoot down aircraft at ranges of multiple kilometers while the vehicle is in flight and maneuvering.

Given that this is the case, I'd like to imagine that a thousand years from now, when humanity is capable of faster than light travel and instantaneous communication across the galaxy, we'd have computers advanced enough to not need pilots that struggle to hit gigantic, slow moving targets with any precision.

So ask yourself: why do we have to aim and pilot our mechs, instead of just letting the hyper-advanced computers do it for us? Because, it's more fun this way. The only reason that this or anything else in Battletech makes sense is because it is a system designed for us to have fun. All your arguments should center around "is it fun," not "is it realistic." If you can come up with a future as implausible as Battletech's and have people believe it, then you can fudge the smaller details like weapons convergence too.

Because there are massive inconstancies in the Mech warrior universe targeting was the reason why long range missiles only have a one kilometer range, yet in sword and dagger mechs had sensors that could detect life forms inside mountain hide outs.

The far future was supposed to be scavenger tech, mechs were being sent into battle with one arm missing and biscuit tins for armour, because there just were not the parts and the limited ability to manufacture new mechs were limited to a handfull of industrial places in the entire sphere, and only the chosen few of the 'royal' regiments could espect semi regular replacements.

Best analogy I can come up with is 10th/11/12th century europe, add stompy mechs instead of knights, star ships instead of Longboats, comstar instead of the Pope. the clans are the mongols. the star league as the holy roman empire.

Horse shoes were lucky back then not because of some mystic gypsy voodoo, but because the value of the iron in the shoe could feed the average family for an entire year, much like the fictional farmer finding an atlas leg burried under his carrot crop, he's rich.

Mech warriors are the elite of the elite, you might have to put icepacks in your cooling vest, because your system is shot, you only have one light laser left, and your jenner limps, but your a future knight feared for its destructive power, and hated because of it, and the fact you go to war on something that has more value than a small towns annual wealth.

You have lasers that can burn a small hole on a moon if provided with enough energy, but you aim it buy throwing grass seed out your cockpit, to see which way the wind blows..thats what mech warrior is about..

Not being able to hit an ant with a nuke at 5 miles..

Closest the mech titles have got to a mech universe is mech comander, this is what most true fans of the genre want, not whats being presented in this game, its nice but its not true to the original ideals

If the mechwarrior universe devs really want to provide its fans with a good game, drop all the others keep this going as a stop gap and give us a proper mech game ,not some browser crap you play for five minutes on your iphone while having a **** at work

Hmm seem that its ok to sit on the toilet and have a crap at work, but I can't have a s**t

sensorship got crazy

Edited by Cathy, 24 April 2013 - 07:55 AM.

[Dr Hobo]

Jess Hazen, on 17 April 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

A horrible solution to dumb down skill in a skill based game.

So skill is boating up with a absolute crapton of lasers,PPCS,and then poptarting your way to victory? Yeah,lots of skills boating and popatarting when all it is,is timing your JJ shot and your cooldown.

And if you read,OP isnt ask for it to be removed,a COF(mind you,thats in every freaking game now from Call of Duty to Gears of War etc) has it. You have to plan your shots. In the current game,being shot,shaken around,movement,doesnt do anything. That breaks immersion. I want to feel like Im driving a 30 ton Mech at 84.1kph and feel like Im bouncing around inside laughing like a madman. Not like Im in CallofBattlefield 88 "NOW IN GIANT ROBOTS!". He's not asking for TT rules or anything. He just wants to make alpha striking and poptarting less desirable to do constantly then it is now. His ideas are sound and they work.

Also,werent Alpha strikes a last ditch effort to kill something? As well as being a point blank shotgun vs a long range beam of death?

[dyndragon]

Just coming here to bump this thread because this thread contains many good ideas for possible solutions (aside from heat penalties) to the current metagame problems.

[3rdworld]

Dr Hobo, on 24 April 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

So skill is boating up with a absolute crapton of lasers,PPCS,and then poptarting your way to victory? Yeah,lots of skills boating and popatarting when all it is,is timing your JJ shot and your cooldown.

And if you read,OP isnt ask for it to be removed,a COF(mind you,thats in every freaking game now from Call of Duty to Gears of War etc) has it. You have to plan your shots. In the current game,being shot,shaken around,movement,doesnt do anything. That breaks immersion. I want to feel like Im driving a 30 ton Mech at 84.1kph and feel like Im bouncing around inside laughing like a madman. Not like Im in CallofBattlefield 88 "NOW IN GIANT ROBOTS!". He's not asking for TT rules or anything. He just wants to make alpha striking and poptarting less desirable to do constantly then it is now. His ideas are sound and they work.

Also,werent Alpha strikes a last ditch effort to kill something? As well as being a point blank shotgun vs a long range beam of death?

What is funny about this: Call of Duty only has cone of fire when you are shooting from the hip ie. not aiming. it has recoil when aiming but not Cone of Fire.

Also the purpose of Cone of Fire is to represent the inability of a human to mange the recoil or keep the gun on target while moving. Something a giant stompy robit wouldn't have an issue with. Its like asking for the reticle to move while sniping to represent the snipers breathing. It is irrelevant.

Edited by 3rdworld, 24 April 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Zyllos, on 24 April 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

I am still waiting for PGI to acknowledge this is an issue.

If PGI never acknowledges this, then this idea is dead in the water.

Look at the Reddit questions and answers regarding jump sniping and PPC boating. PGI said they are happy with the current outcome that players have developed. How can you convinced PGI that there is a major issue when that very issue is leading to PGI being happy with the outcome?

Also, I was originally a huge proponent of having no convergence in individual weapons but having arms converge. But, even with this implementation, the Stalker PPC and Jagermech AC/20 builds would 100% be not effected by this change. The Stalker PPCs are all in the arms, thus still allowing for pin-point convergence as the same for the Jagermech AC/20s.

This only leads to a cone-of-fire implementation, which it seems the community and PGI is deeply against, down to their very bones. But, if you could convince PGI and the community that a cone-of-fire is needed, you could actually do some really interesting things.

PGI is happy with game balance and has compared this game with Counter strike.

What we see today is what the game will remain to be, just with consumables added.
all that's happening is a reboot of MW4 multi player.

I for one have lost all faith in this game. Just admit it the game has been released and beta ended last February

[Pht]

Zyllos, on 24 April 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

I am still waiting for PGI to acknowledge this is an issue.

If PGI never acknowledges this, then this idea is dead in the water.

Maybe they're just not accustomed to the fact that ideas have necessaryconsequences?

Cone of fire is not necessary to fix the problem.

Having the 'mechs perform like ... mechs perform in the novels and the rest of the source would fix the problem.

But it seems that the developers don't care that their "mech" game doesn't have things that act like 'mechs from the lore. Which I find to be EXTREMELY odd.

[Critical Fumble]

Niko Snow, on 28 April 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Finally going to speak up in this thread which I've been watching grow for months now and try to ask a question without hurting the sensitivities of anyone involved.... am I the only one here reading the title in the voice of Invader Zim?

I don't but I can't get through some of the posts without reading them in a Jane Cobb or Project Toaster voice.