94 replies to this topic

[Xerxys]

ICEFANG13, on 27 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Nope, you want the same thing. You want a 100% upgrade to double the cooling of heatsinks, I want a 100% upgrade to double the damage of the A/C-20. Why is this so hard to grasp why balance is key to designing a competitive game, as PGI said they wanted to in ATDs.

I guess I will have to address this, so here we go:

ONE: You would throw off the weapon balance of every other weapon system.

TWO: Double Heat Sinks are available to everyone because c-bills are available to everyone.

try to keep up.

THREE: Every game has to have a way to UPGRADE certain things about the game. FPS' for instance allow you to upgrade your weapons, body armor, ammo, etc... Even the weapons that you can buy with real money have something close to competitive with it.

FOUR: You idea would make the game pay to win.

I don't have an issue with balance, but what you're suggesting is trying to take an UPGRADE and turn it into a simple option. Do you have to pay 1.5 million credits and sacrifice 3 critical slots for each of your standard heat sinks? The counter balance is already installed just by making the change.

Edited by Xerxys, 27 March 2013 - 09:40 PM.

[focuspark]

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Not true at all. In EVERY FPS or even FPCS that I have every played, you upgrade things such as armor, weapons, ammo, etc...

This is an upgrade, plain and simple. Can you still function for your team? Yes. Can you still help your team out? Yes, but you need to listen up and keep with the plan. Are you going to be able to keep up with or top the damage charts like the people that have fully upgraded their mechs? Nope, but you're not useless and given some time you'll be able to upgrade your mech just as they have.

PVP MMO - don't care much about FPS. PVP MMO need to have balance and trade offs for every choice made, or the choice shouldn't exist.

[ICEFANG13]

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

I guess I will have to address this, so here we go:

ONE: You would throw off the weapon balance of every other weapon system.

TWO: Double Heat Sinks are available to everyone because c-bills are available to everyone.

try to keep up.

THREE: Every game has to have a way to UPGRADE certain things about the game. FPS' for instance allow you to upgrade your weapons, body armor, ammo, etc... Even the weapons that you can buy with real money have something close to competitive with it.

FOUR: You idea would make the game pay to win.

I don't have an issue with balance, but what you're suggesting is trying to take an UPGRADE and turn it into a simple option. Do you have to pay 1.5 million credits and sacrifice 3 critical slots for each of your standard heat sinks? The counter balance is already installed just by making the change.

Yeah I was kidding about the MC part, that aside, it seems like you really agree with Super A/C-20s, as long as you can get them with C-bills right?

Weapon balance? That's what we are talking about, cooling balance?

I may not have room for each double, but the amount of singles to equal the 10 in the engine that almost everyone has, there is a reason almost no one uses single heatsinks.

[Xerxys]

focuspark, on 27 March 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

PVP MMO - don't care much about FPS. PVP MMO need to have balance and trade offs for every choice made, or the choice shouldn't exist.

Here's you precious trade off. I have to pay 1.5M c-bills to upgrade to DHS and then I have to pay double the price of a SHS and then the DHS takes up 3 critical slots. There is where the balance comes. And just so you know, most FPS shooters are PVP too. Battlefield 3 is just one of such and you can upgrade all sorts of crap in that, but nothing is going to absolutely break game balance. It makes it tougher until you get the upgrade yourself, but you will get the upgrade eventually(if you choose it once it's available)

[ICEFANG13]

Ok Mr balance, show me a build that is better done with single heatsinks and I will change that build and make it overall better.

[Xerxys]

ICEFANG13, on 27 March 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Yeah I was kidding about the MC part, that aside, it seems like you really agree with Super A/C-20s, as long as you can get them with C-bills right?

Weapon balance? That's what we are talking about, cooling balance?

I may not have room for each double, but the amount of singles to equal the 10 in the engine that almost everyone has, there is a reason almost no one uses single heatsinks.

You're absolutely right, but everyone has the opportunity to save up and purchase the upgrades. Are you able to field the same number as SHS? Nope, but once you get the upgrade you're on an even playing field as everyone else. If you can't afford to pay the critical slots to get equal heat dissipation as you would using the number of DHSs that you can actually fit in you mech then you've found the point that SHS would overtake the DHS and have an advantage there.

ICEFANG13, on 27 March 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

Ok Mr balance, show me a build that is better done with single heatsinks and I will change that build and make it overall better.

I can't think of a single one, but then again the person that UPGRADED to DHS has an advantage until you also purchase them. It doesn't take very long to save up for it, but it takes long enough that you'll truly appreciate them. What you're doing is taking what is clearly an upgrade and making it a side-grade that costs more money and critical space. Where's the balance in that?

[ICEFANG13]

Having it be a true upgrade means it is not balanced. Saying that you can't make the 3 crit slots is completely irreverent when you can't make a SHS build in the first place. 1.5 million c-bills is nothing. The cost of each? Also nothing. There is no reason to use SHS, why is that balanced?

DHS>SHS?
That is not balance, clearly.

DHS=SHS
Of course we don't want the same thing, but we want the DHS to be better at something, and SHS to be better at something, OR make DHS worth the 3 slots that make them, but not overworth. Currently, your engine will easily overtake the SHS usually alone.

[focuspark]

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Here's you precious trade off. I have to pay 1.5M c-bills to upgrade to DHS and then I have to pay double the price of a SHS and then the DHS takes up 3 critical slots. There is where the balance comes. And just so you know, most FPS shooters are PVP too. Battlefield 3 is just one of such and you can upgrade all sorts of crap in that, but nothing is going to absolutely break game balance. It makes it tougher until you get the upgrade yourself, but you will get the upgrade eventually(if you choose it once it's available)

1.5 million c-bills is what 5-7 matches? That's not a trade off.

[Xerxys]

ICEFANG13, on 27 March 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

Having it be a true upgrade means it is not balanced. Saying that you can't make the 3 crit slots is completely irreverent when you can't make a SHS build in the first place. 1.5 million c-bills is nothing. The cost of each? Also nothing. There is no reason to use SHS, why is that balanced?

DHS>SHS?
That is not balance, clearly.

DHS=SHS
Of course we don't want the same thing, but we want the DHS to be better at something, and SHS to be better at something, OR make DHS worth the 3 slots that make them, but not overworth. Currently, your engine will easily overtake the SHS usually alone.

Their are already single heat sink builds. What your man-gina is hurting over is the fact that your SHS are only 1/3 as effective as they should be. This is because PGI utterly destroyed it by increasing RoF, mech armor, and doing nothing with heat dissipation. Your SHS is only dissipating 10 heat every ten seconds, but you're effectively firing(thereby increasing heat) three times faster than the 10 second standard that PGI used coming from TT values. It really doesn't matter what you do to heat sinks, it's not going to change what you're experiencing right now.

It is balanced because you can only field so many of the damned things b/c of space limitations and the fact that you too can go and buy them and install them in your mech. Never should DHS=SHS, but just because they're not equal does this mean that their isn't a balance to it. What about UPGRADE aren't you understanding?

[Xerxys]

focuspark, on 27 March 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

1.5 million c-bills is what 5-7 matches? That's not a trade off.

Are you bothering to read the whole thing? 1.5M c-bills, 5-7 matches, to be able to field them doesn't make for a fair trade off. I suppose that's buy they decided make DHS take up 3 critical slots and cost you 1.5M c-bills. Are you incapable of buying DHS? Do they magically work for everyone but you? Their is a trade-off to running them and everyone is able to.

[focuspark]

No point in attempting to have a discussion with Xerxys. It'll just turn into insult slinging contest as demonstrated by the post above and Xerxys has demonstrated s/he's not open to any ideas except his/er own.

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

Are you bothering to read the whole thing? 1.5M c-bills, 5-7 matches, to be able to field them doesn't make for a fair trade off. I suppose that's buy they decided make DHS take up 3 critical slots and cost you 1.5M c-bills. Are you incapable of buying DHS? Do they magically work for everyone but you? Their is a trade-off to running them and everyone is able to.

1.5 million doubles the effectiveness of the engine heat sinks effectively adding 10 free SHS to the mech at no tonage or space costs. This is the unbalanced part.

[ICEFANG13]

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Their are already single heat sink builds. What your man-gina is hurting over is the fact that your SHS are only 1/3 as effective as they should be. This is because PGI utterly destroyed it by increasing RoF, mech armor, and doing nothing with heat dissipation. Your SHS is only dissipating 10 heat every ten seconds, but you're effectively firing(thereby increasing heat) three times faster than the 10 second standard that PGI used coming from TT values. It really doesn't matter what you do to heat sinks, it's not going to change what you're experiencing right now.

It is balanced because you can only field so many of the damned things b/c of space limitations and the fact that you too can go and buy them and install them in your mech. Never should DHS=SHS, but just because they're not equal does this mean that their isn't a balance to it. What about UPGRADE aren't you understanding?

Someone who starts tossing insults generally has run out of arguments. DHS>-<SHS has no effect on me. I play just fine. I'm not going to start calling you names or making fun of you, because that's unhelpful and unnecessary.

SHS are only 1/3 as good as they should be, so are DHS (duh?). Then you said, they are not equal, but there is a balance? Equal doesn't mean 100% the same, it means that we want them both to be comparable for different things? That is balance.

Its like a 'balance'. If you were to put 10 1lb rocks on one side, and 1 10lb rock on the other, that's balance, that's equal, but the amount of rocks are different. See that's what we want.



An upgrade is not balanced. I think it should be changed. Why in the world do you want to hurt new players with lololterrible trial mechs? DHS are mandatory on all competitive mechs. Can't find space? The fact that you can't make a build that is great with SHS over DHS is clear that space is not an issue.

[Xerxys]

focuspark, on 27 March 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

No point in attempting to have a discussion with Xerxys. It'll just turn into insult slinging contest as demonstrated by the post above and Xerxys has demonstrated s/he's not open to any ideas except his/er own.


1.5 million doubles the effectiveness of the engine heat sinks effectively adding 10 free SHS to the mech at no tonage or space costs. This is the unbalanced part.

I gave considerable thought to what you're talking about in this post and your lack of ability to articulate exactly what parts of the DHS system off is not my fault. The engine bit you brought up, I happen to agree with, but if PGI had followed canon it would be a non issue because I'm fairly certain that the only engines able to field the DHS in TT was the XL engine. The increased engine size and added frailty to the mech would be the significant trade off here.

My argument hasn't changed, I haven't run out of anything so say. I am tired of repeating myself though.

Sorry about the insults, but I have little patience for ignorance and none for stupidity.

ICEFANG13, on 27 March 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

Someone who starts tossing insults generally has run out of arguments. DHS>-<SHS has no effect on me. I play just fine. I'm not going to start calling you names or making fun of you, because that's unhelpful and unnecessary.

SHS are only 1/3 as good as they should be, so are DHS (duh?). Then you said, they are not equal, but there is a balance? Equal doesn't mean 100% the same, it means that we want them both to be comparable for different things? That is balance.

Its like a 'balance'. If you were to put 10 1lb rocks on one side, and 1 10lb rock on the other, that's balance, that's equal, but the amount of rocks are different. See that's what we want.



An upgrade is not balanced. I think it should be changed. Why in the world do you want to hurt new players with lololterrible trial mechs? DHS are mandatory on all competitive mechs. Can't find space? The fact that you can't make a build that is great with SHS over DHS is clear that space is not an issue.

Or their tired of only particular parts of their arguments being spat back at them with no indications that the person fouling up what they're typing has even been read.

Balance does not mean equal to, it means that the their are negative side effects to employing something that works better in another way. By your strict definition of the word balance, how do you balance checking book, or write a balanced paper given two different options?

Edited by Xerxys, 27 March 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

I guess you must be a troll. I thought maybe you were legit. I just thought we could have a civil conversation, clearly I was wrong.

Its 'they're' by the way. Not 'their'.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 28 March 2013 - 12:17 AM.

[Lyteros]

I would change the heat system a little, thus vastly improving balance, improving skillcurves, nerfing poptarting and creating a better game experience. I'd prefer a system that goes away form alphastriking and with it only aiming once every 4-5 seconds.

Here is how:


Get the heat thereshold away from heatsinks, give the thereshold to mechs depending on role and size (e.g.: awesome is energy boat, so give it 25, catapult as LRM heavy mech only 15, but the k2 as ppc variant gets 20...).
Then get the heatsinks dissiapating a lot more then now, maybe back to their true value from the TT. So people would have to stagger shot which requires a lot more skill now. High heat weapons would also be less crappy then they are now, because the ratio of heatsinks vs ammo for more salvos will not be as bad as it is now. The math right now is roughly 3 times the heat you produce as heatsinks to get neutral (which is not even neccessary, but still means you need 3 times the amount of HS you're supposed to).

Lets compare this on two weapons which are very close to each other... damage bracket and range. But one is ballistic with low heat and one is high heat energy.
PPC: 10 damage 9 heat, you end up with roughly 27 heatsinks. weapon tonnage is 7. => total 34.
AC10: 10 damage 3 heat, you need 12 tons for the ac, lets say 2 tons for ammo (30 rounds). Now we're up to 23 total tonnage.

As stated, you don't need to get heat neutral, so how about cutting 1/3 of heatsinks each? Makes 18 vs 6. Still 12 tons difference. Cutting more? Enjoy getting hit by the AC10 during your shutdown. Even if you consider projectile speed etc... it's still not worth ~10 tons difference.

As long as this basic mechanic remains like this, the weapons can hardly be balanced.

Lets look at this from TT perspective
7 tons 10 dmg 10 heat => 17 tons
12 tons 10 dmg 3 heat (+2 tons ammo) => 17 tons

uh-oh... who would have thought about that?

TT balance was far from perfect, but it was a lot better then this here is. Especially if you only consider weapons its a lot better then what we have. I just bring it up as example. They could also go and drop all weapons to 66% or even 50% of the current heat... who cares if the heat values are fractional - display a dps counter on the weapon info in the mechlab, the conputer can calculate it ingame just as well as natural numbers.

This would also get us away from poptarting, which favours firing and cooling down for a long time - poptarting that is disliked and even hated by a lot of people. But with the balance of the game right now its one of the few viable options.

The overheat on the scale could then cause effects like slower movement, worse aiming (the aiming circle expands and hits somewhere in the circle, which grows bigger with more overheat), shutdowns, chance to ammo explosions and internal damage etc.

Edited by Lyteros, 27 March 2013 - 10:57 PM.