38 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

Solis Obscuri, on 18 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

So he's saying my 1 LRM-20 + 1 SRM-6 + 5 MLas HBK-4J is bad?

And my 1 AC/10 + 5MLas HBK-4H?

And my AC/20 + 2MPLas +1 MLas HBK-4G?

And my 1 PPC + 1 AC/10 +3 MLas Cataphract?

He'd probably say bad things about my 1 Gauss + 1 AC/5 + 2 LRM-15 + 2 MLas Atlas, too...

No, what he's saying is that PGI has created a landscape where playing like Battletech was designed is detrimental. Why carry weapons of varying ranges so that you're effective at all ranges when you can simply carry 1 or 2 types of weapons, specialize in a specific type of combat, and hope that the rest of your team fills the void that you created with your design. The SplatCat is a good example of this: 6 SRM6s does nothing to help you beyond 270m so you're completely dependent upon the 7 other members of your team to soften up targets as you approach.

Now, mechs like the Commando and the Raven were given several short ranged weapons. BUT, they were also given a Large Laser. This was done because they were designed to be scouts, and thus operate at advanced positions or behind enemy lines, but the intent of the Large Laser was to also provide them with ranged support when they linked up back with the primary forces. Scouts aren't brawlers and they definitely aren't circle strafing ****** designs. They're highly prized and very expensive designs that scout, scoot, and shoot.

Ashnod, on 18 January 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Another good example on supplementation is the centurion and trebuchet, mechs were designed with lance composition in mind, like the fire support medium heavy

1 centurion
2 trebuchet
1 archer

Together their weapons are
2 LRM 20's
4 LRM 15's
1 LRM 10
12 Medium Lasers
1 A/C 10

I don't know about you but that configuration is quite scary at all ranges..

Exactly.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 18 January 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[Sug]

BerryChunks, on 18 January 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

The paradigm doesn't work in MWO. MWO is not really mechwarrior. It's something else.

All i can think of when I read your name.

[Tarman]

Trauglodyte, on 18 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

No, what he's saying is that PGI has created a landscape where playing like Battletech was designed is detrimental. Why carry weapons of varying ranges so that you're effective at all ranges when you can simply carry 1 or 2 types of weapons, specialize in a specific type of combat, and hope that the rest of your team fills the void that you created with your design. The SplatCat is a good example of this: 6 SRM6s does nothing to help you beyond 270m so you're completely dependent upon the 7 other members of your team to soften up targets as you approach.

Now, mechs like the Commando and the Raven were given several short ranged weapons. BUT, they were also given a Large Laser. This was done because they were designed to be scouts, and thus operate at advanced positions or behind enemy lines, but the intent of the Large Laser was to also provide them with ranged support when they linked up back with the primary forces. Scouts aren't brawlers and they definitely aren't circle strafing ****** designs. They're highly prized and very expensive designs that scout, scoot, and shoot.



Exactly.

The problem with this viewpoint is that this game is not played like Battletech was designed. It is played like MechWarriorOnline was designed. It's a different paradigm that is based on the same IP. Some people don't run generalized builds precisely because they can team up and rely on someone to fill that niche they're not covering. That makes teamplay more fun imo, as you can match strengths and weaknesses and put together a team that can do some cool things that are just not possible if everyone brings a GP-designed mech. I personally tend to build mechs that cover more than one trick, but that's my preference. I tend not to overspecialize in any game.

You have a nice discussion on the merits and disadvantages of specialized loadouts vs generalized loadouts but it doesn't change the fact that using tactics and plans for the last war NEVER help you win the next war. You'd be better served figuring out the current game than trying to use setups and concepts built for a completely different combat paradigm.

[BerryChunks]

And I was trying to point out that the paradigm is in fact different. The problem with this shift is that the Original Battletech paradigm was where lasers were balanced, and this shift has made them far less appealing than some SRM or AC boat (barring the laserback, for obvious reasons).

[Trauglodyte]

Tarman, on 18 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

The problem with this viewpoint is that this game is not played like Battletech was designed. It is played like MechWarriorOnline was designed. It's a different paradigm that is based on the same IP. Some people don't run generalized builds precisely because they can team up and rely on someone to fill that niche they're not covering. That makes teamplay more fun imo, as you can match strengths and weaknesses and put together a team that can do some cool things that are just not possible if everyone brings a GP-designed mech. I personally tend to build mechs that cover more than one trick, but that's my preference. I tend not to overspecialize in any game.

You have a nice discussion on the merits and disadvantages of specialized loadouts vs generalized loadouts but it doesn't change the fact that using tactics and plans for the last war NEVER help you win the next war. You'd be better served figuring out the current game than trying to use setups and concepts built for a completely different combat paradigm.

You're absolutely right. This isn't Battletech TT, its MWO. But where balance existed in TT, you're seeing issues where it isn't existant here. For example, current maps are 2000m x 2000m which means that the corner to corner is 2828m. So, look at the time from edge to center:

45kph: 80s
65kph: 55s
85kph: 42s
105kph: 34s
125kph: 29s
145kph: 25s

That is just the speed from 0-1000m and doesn't take into account weapon ranges. Now, the Medium Laser has a range of 270m or a max range of 540m. That means that it'll take a Light Mech roughly 12.5s to go from the base edge to within striking range with a Medium Laser on a target at the dead center of the map. And, of course, as long as you have an LRM rack, you can strike a target at center the second the game starts. With that in mind, you don't NEED to have various weapons for various ranges because, while not maximizing damage firing at extended ranges, you can get into the fight and engage with medium ranged weapons before the game even gets warmed up.

IF maps were 3x the size that we currently have, engines were restricted as they were in TT (with some leeway for fun), and extended ranges were halved (ie +50% for energy and +100% for ballistic), then you could actually see the mentality shifting back towards how FASA originally designed the game.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 18 January 2013 - 08:02 PM.

[CrashieJ]

look, having multiple weapon systems are GREAT... if you're running in a mass operation with a lot of units and have the fortitude to do it

but as long as maps are small and battles are 8 vs 8, then boating will be a viable tactic until the cows come home because of its SIMPLICITY... I can laserboat until the sun falls from the sky by hitting 1 or 2 buttons, but having a mixed loadout can take from 1-6-9 buttons for special fire modes and other happy horse sh|t. and the fact that I can team up with someone with the weapons that I can cover for and they can, for me. then I'll do it

we'll all boat it: because it WORKS.

[Trauglodyte]

That's the point we're making, Gav. Boating works because the current environment supports it. How long do you think that Splat Cat would last on a 6k x 6k map based on an open plain? Or the various Hunchbacks or any other amalgamation of short range specialization mechs? The point is that they currently have no down sides when you're playing in a sand box. The end.

[Tarman]

BerryChunks, on 18 January 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

And I was trying to point out that the paradigm is in fact different. The problem with this shift is that the Original Battletech paradigm was where lasers were balanced, and this shift has made them far less appealing than some SRM or AC boat (barring the laserback, for obvious reasons).

The paradigm has shifted, but generally your thrust is that this has made the game not-Battletech. You mentioned yourself that you thought the other games were fun; they were also not representative of the source game in hard rules. If this is a discussion about the current game and its problems then you have perfectly valid points that can be brought up. It's when you claim that it doesn't represent the oldschool hard enough that causes its failings that I truly disagree with you. This game is as much BT as some, and much more than others. Whether the devs are doing the right thing for THIS game is in fact an important issue, but it's not correlated to their amount of adherence to the past.

[Joseph Mallan]

BerryChunks, on 18 January 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

The reason mechs had 1 PPC (2 if they were really big mechs)
The reason mechs had 1 Large laser (Im looking at you, Raven, and 2 or ever 3 if they were really big mechs)
The reason mechs had 2 medium lasers (or 3-4 if they were really big mechs)
The reason mechs had 1 SRM pack, and 1 LRM rack(again, 2 or more if they were really big mechs)

is because these weapons were supposed to be powerful enough on their own in small numbers.

I want anyone to try to score top kills with limited weapon platforms that are tonned out .

The paradigm doesn't work in MWO. MWO is not really mechwarrior. It's something else.


I've heard tales that they wanted heat to be more punishing, but that only means more boating and flash mobbing, and less tactical play.

1 Gauss
1 ER Large Laser
3 SRM6(Art4)

500-1300 damage. Does that fit your requirements?

[Rokuzachi]

Boating is just too effective not to do in a lot of cases, I feel.

Even further, two people boating the same/similar weaponry and coordinating gives you a result greater than the sum of its parts. 3F LL boat for example - each one can alpha twice for 56 damage a pop out to 450m. 112 damage for a combined alpha from each one - that's plenty of damage to kill a lot of mechs outright, and then they have their second volley. Some targets don't even get to react. They get spotted and a few seconds later explode.

I don't think teamwork is OP as the saying goes, I just think that boats are a little too good and that stacking boats is a little too rewarding in pub/4man queues.

[BerryChunks]

Rokuzachi, on 18 January 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Boating is just too effective not to do in a lot of cases, I feel.

Even further, two people boating the same/similar weaponry and coordinating gives you a result greater than the sum of its parts. 3F LL boat for example - each one can alpha twice for 56 damage a pop out to 450m. 112 damage for a combined alpha from each one - that's plenty of damage to kill a lot of mechs outright, and then they have their second volley. Some targets don't even get to react. They get spotted and a few seconds later explode.

I don't think teamwork is OP as the saying goes, I just think that boats are a little too good and that stacking boats is a little too rewarding in pub/4man queues.

This guy gets it.

Tarman, do you think that by hacking up the original game system, they have improved the game, or made it worse? Do you think they should've tried to maintain a level of Battletech Core to gather the interest of the already long established BT consumer base, or say "we're going to clone the mechs and the other visuals, and change a lot of other things that made BT great"? I still maintain that they alienated a LARGE potential customer group.


Here's my take on it:
Stock variants = Chess.
Mass Boats = Checkers.

The devs themselves tried to limit boating by messing with heat. But that didn't solve the core issue of boating, and it encouraged boating because you want to just alpha someone for big damage before shutting down. OR you want to pick your shots with masses of weapons rather than plink away with 1 or 2 Large lasers and overheat anyway.

I love customization, and Im all for it, as long as it retains a "Chess-like" feel, rather than the game devolving into checkers. If anyone wants to look up the history of Chromehounds and what killed it, basically everyone used the same mechs and weapons, which meant it was Checkers online with mechs.

A similar thing happened in armored core. Due to the speed you could go (lagshield armor), and the way weapon/jet energy/mech turn efficicencies worked, the big mechs that relied on physical armor just couldnt compete. If you took a heavy mech into a match you were torn apart. Unfortunately, the problem of how to balance it was compounded by the fact that all mechs could use all parts, as long as you had the weight and energy for it. Ever see those egg heads doing a mile long formula on a chalkboard just to fire a rocket? Yeah, thats what balancing AC would look like.

A game like Mechwarrior Online can be much simpler, because it's easy to create restrictions via hardpoints. The centurion is a good example of MWO restrictions. So is the Dragon.

Edited by BerryChunks, 19 January 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Ashnod]

This is why I've always wanted a stock variant only game mode option. And maybe double heatsinks could have there normal dissipation in it as well

Edited by Ashnod, 19 January 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[TheForce]

BerryChunks, on 18 January 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

MWO is not really mechwarrior. It's something else.

It's MinmaxWarrior Online until we can fight stock mech battles.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Thontor, on 19 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

I think you are confusing Battletech and Mechwarrior.... this is how every Mechwarrior game since Mechwarrior 2 has been. It really is mechwarrior.. mechwarrior has always been about min/max builds and boating. The difference is, in MWO it's actually less common because the mech lab is much more restrictive with hardpoints.

That doesn't mean that it was right. In previous games, mainly there bigger was better. PGI has got a lot right but i think that they got lost in "simple" solutions as quick fixes that didn't. Unfortunately they seem to think that the game should be a CQ scrum. Netcode and other problems seem to be a reason why the maps are so small as the engine should be capable of using much larger maps. Maybe they think that people don't have the patience for more than 10 seconds after game start to fighting.
We play the game as it is, doesn't mean we can't suggest other possibilities and approaches, even if it is months before they could try them out. It is a "Beta" after all.

[BerryChunks]

Thontor, on 19 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

I think you are confusing Battletech and Mechwarrior.... this is how every Mechwarrior game since Mechwarrior 2 has been. It really is mechwarrior.. mechwarrior has always been about min/max builds and boating. The difference is, in MWO it's actually less common because the mech lab is much more restrictive with hardpoints.

"mechwarrior" series has always been a "sim of battletech". Battletech = mechwarrior. MWO does not = Battletech, therefore it doesn't really equal Mechwarrior.

http://en.wikipedia....28video_game%29
Developer(s) Dynamix Publisher(s) Activision Platform(s) MS-DOS, Sharp X68000 Release date(s) 1989 Genre(s) Vehicular combat game Mode(s) Single player Media/distribution Floppy Disk

Quote

MechWarrior is the first in line BattleTech video game of the same name. MechWarrior was the first video game to offer the player a chance to pretend to pilot a BattleMech from the view of a pilot (a MechWarrior).

Combat Simulation

1989's Mechwarrior was the first Battletech simulator that placed the user within an actual battlemech to pilot in first person.

A stock only option doesnt seem like a good long term solution, however, a temporary stock only server would help reduce variables when considering what weapons are Op or UP in comparison. Getting the fundamental structure right first should be priority, with modding weapons being the last resort.

Edited by BerryChunks, 19 January 2013 - 10:25 AM.

[Adridos]

Solis Obscuri, on 18 January 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

Please tell me more about all the totally awesome canon 'mech designs that only carried two medium lasers.

Or one PPC.

Or one SRM and one LRM.

I'll tell you this: Awesome is Awesome in Btech... and it's crap here. Reductio ad absurdum right there.

Altough I've downloaded the first MW for fun's sake and seeing Jenner evaporate in seconds under Shadow Hawk's fire (AC/5, SRM2, LRM 5 and an ML, definitely a crap loadout for this tech level and game) made me realise why do the weapons need to be crap, altough it means we'll never pilot the true Awesome.

[Ngamok]

Well, like it was pointed out, let's hope PGi makes some maps that are 3x the size and see what happenes. Because I know lots of people won't go in running with their streak cats when the run takes 2 minutes to do as their teammates jocky for positions to get LRM fire on.

[Merky Merc]

If this isn't mechwarrior because boating, then why were so many mechs in earlier mechwarrior games configured for boating?

It would be interesting if longer battles over larger distances became a thing though, make resupply bases a point of contention or something.

[BerryChunks]

I'm not even arguing that change is bad. There were still some minor flaws in balance and gameplay in Battletech Core, that I think could be improved. I'm only against change that is detrimental to current and future sims of MW/BT, and could ruin the game, or at least make it only fun for the ***** and giggles crowd to blow money on until they get bored.

A Company should have a vested interest in making a game as fair and as "deeply intricate" (not Inception overly complex) as possible. That creates a large and happy customer base that keeps coming back. Now, I know there are many companies that will produce something as fast as possible, take the money and run, but Im hoping that PGI isn't one of those.

Edited by BerryChunks, 19 January 2013 - 01:26 PM.