Jump to content

Updates To Energy Draw Pts 12-Sep-2016


125 replies to this topic

#121 MadC4t

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 108 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationGermany

Posted 15 September 2016 - 04:52 AM

View PostSupersmacky, on 13 September 2016 - 05:29 AM, said:

I guess what bothers me is this seems like such a reversal of what PGI did in the previous PTS iterations of ED. Not just small things. Not just changes to one or two things, but a sweeping reversal. It makes it look like they have lost sight of what they were wanting to do with ED. It is sort of like corporate initiatives I see so much in my job.

"This will be so much better"

"Everyone will benefit"

"People are excited about it"

It fails and then, six months to a year later, the whole thing is scrapped...quietly and unceremoniously.

PGI needs a clear outline of what they want to do here and what it should look like when it goes live. Their testing doesn't seem to reflect the focus of implementing ED, but tweaking everything because, reasons. Yes, I realize they have testing data to look at which will impact future iterations, but these recent changes are so broad and sweeping it doesn't even really look like ED anymore. ED has become almost an afterthought instead of the core of this effort.

Now, for my specific suggestions:
Gauss - get rid of the charge mechanic. Have the Gauss continually draw power so that the overall "energy pool" is lower if you have a Gauss. Do that and increase the cool down of the weapon. Yes, there will be snap shots and the associated salt flowing, but these two things will keep their 'god mode' comparable to current levels.

Heat Sinks - Stop fiddling with this. Make a baseline for SHS, then double it for DHS. PERIOD. I am speaking more to dissipation than capacity. Sure, make SHS and DHS have the same capacity, but make dissipation the point of different and again: SHS x 1, DHS x 2. Simple.

Splash Mechanic - Again, get rid of it. Fiddle with cool down, heat, and/or power draw, but stop with silly mechanics to address perceived issues. Clan lasers have longer durations and generate more heat to balance their increase damage, so why aren't you doing the same thing when it comes to the cERPPC?

Missile Spread - Seriously? What does this have to do with ED?!? You want to adjust the cool down, heat generation and power draw, then fine. But missile spread should not even be a part of the testing.

UACs - I like that you are distinguishing the jam clearing time for each size UAC. Now, if you would just make the jam chance a sliding scale based on how many 'double-taps' you are doing rather than some arbitrary percentage that would be a step in the right direction. Or, another idea, have the jam chance go up with each UAC you are boating (attribute it to ammo feed issues or whatever). But, all in all, you are working on ED so why not use that mechanic to limit the double-taps? For instance, have the jam chance be relatively small unless you are exceeding your available power at which point it does up considerable (for instance, a flat 10%, but it goes up to 25% is a player is over-drawing power).

I have other ideas, but this is already a long post and I don't think much of what gets suggested by myself or the rest of the user base will be seriously considered anyway. And so it goes...

I'm not saying my ideas are great. I just really feel that PGI is missing the boat on this opportunity and taking a step backwards in their current testing parameters. I am really concerned that what we will end up with in the end is a badly implemented system that is a bastardization of what ED was supposed to do/be. This will lead to even more band-aid fixes, more salt and smaller player base.

Upvote, make it to top!Posted Image

PGI and especially Russ looks like they dont know what to do to handle the Gameplay. They just evolve ideas at a whiteboard. Maybe they discuss it (dont think so) and after that they make every effort to implement these. Doesn't matter if the idea is stupid or not.

MAKE MWO GREAT AGAINPosted Image Posted Image

#122 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 15 September 2016 - 10:38 AM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 14 September 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

is their a source for that?

Also it could be the case that the MM can't pull enough light's into that match because the total number of games that are required their is an uneven number.

I know it doesn't apply to the group que.


This was the case as soon as the shared tonnage system went into effect.

How the heck could you enforce a system when you could actually run 4 heavies at the same time or 3 Assaults w/o a penalty?

The queues dictate the "effective" ratio of the weight classes, so inevitably it will be uneven more often than not in class distribution.

While the solo queue doesn't suffer from this necessarily, the queue ratios usually are reflective of the actual ratios (give or take some level of difference like 5% going either way)

It's straight math, unless you're actually a secret member of PGI who doesn't understand the basics.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 September 2016 - 10:39 AM.


#123 SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 879 posts
  • LocationNiemalsland

Posted 15 September 2016 - 11:00 AM

View PostTheLuc, on 12 September 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

Guys, what ever we might say its Russ`s game not ours and happens it has the Battletech name attach to it, he also told many years ago that the game will not have a final version but more as a on going beta that will never end. Just like he told that the new Mechs would pop up monthly ( cash cow ) so what ever we say or do in the game, we are stuck with his vision of the franchise and pleasing the true fans from 84 till now just forget bout that, balance, lore, well everything Battletech.

Dont worry there is HBS Battletech coming out ( sorry clanners, but might be for later tho )and Heavy Gear Assault as a beta already offers more than MWO which is playable now for 20 bucks.

so now options are popping out better than Hawken or MWO, just a matter of time.

then see you there, just go ahead.... i will... follow soon....

#124 TheLuc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 746 posts

Posted 15 September 2016 - 10:00 PM

in case some don't know here is what so far HBS came up with for the Battletech turn based game



on the StompyBot side here is some footage for Heavy Gear Assault



Edited by TheLuc, 15 September 2016 - 10:00 PM.


#125 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,642 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 16 September 2016 - 02:44 PM

Can we get some plain terrain like that? Not all terrain has to be as busy as what PGI has dished out so far.

#126 burning wisky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 106 posts
  • LocationHannover Germany

Posted 26 September 2016 - 01:27 PM

@PGI you konw there is a capacity of 30/ 40 + in the mech engine , if you have engine- 10 in. heatsinks ???
Do you see, that both systems have the same problems ???Posted Image
Befor you buff /nerf weapons and waste lots of time, fix the ghost heatsink capacity and you have a good basis to bring a new era.Posted Image

p.s. don't forget the 2 points back on the doubleheatsink Posted Image and befor you go to bed, a good book " I can highly recommend " TechManual ( Battletech ) good stuff and you know how it works.Posted Image





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users