1107 replies to this topic

[Protection]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 March 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Personally there isn't a reason to remove single sinks. Reducing the time it takes to cycle heat would solve the Trail Mech issue. 5 seconds would be perfect.

But that doesn't change the fact that for 99.99% of mech designs, DHS is a direct, mandatory, 100% upgrade, superior in every way.

[Kdogg788]

I think we can all agree on the following points:

1. This thread has digressed into a sea of hateful remarks and commentary because writers are so afraid to be proven wrong.
2. This game is not tabletop Battletech. It was just the starting point as that is where this game universe originated. I am consistently baffled by how many posters want to quote obscure Battletech rules as to why things should be implemented in a certain way. I haven't played TT BT since I was like 10 or 11 years old and we're talking like 1988/1989 here. After that it was just browsing scenario books for stories about Kurita.
3. SHS are not going anywhere. Whether they change the heat system or not is up for debate. The changes players are proposing are enormous. Cut the firing rate in half? Double all mechs heat dissipation to make it "easier" on new players?
4. The incorrect argument that it is heat rules that drive new players away. Wrong. It is things like ECM, non functioning ELO, getting stomped by premade teams, no clear game instruction, controls defaulted to an all alpha strike in most cases, no clear way of grouping together unless you can speak in TS outside the game. A complete newb dropping in this game is not going to know to come here, find a unit and TS.

-k

[AndyHill]

Regulus1990, on 25 March 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Okay. Stalker 3F for example double heat sinks reduce my heat efficiency, so I use single heat sinks (due to not enough slots to put in a decent number of double sinks.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...44cb0a2f6707002

Wrong. And it's faster and has more ammo: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...838ec6d9e0dc8ed

[Protection]

Thontor, on 25 March 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I think the trial mech issue is better solved by something PGI is already doing... Making customized trial mechs... I don't know of any rules saying trial mechs need to be stock variants... They can give new players a taste of what kind of potential a variant has, and then they can use, that rather than the less than ideal stock loadouts which might not represent the variants true potential.

Then they can make a more informed decision purchasing a variant... And they should have plenty of cadet bonus left over to customize it with all the bells and whistles in no time.



And I don't see anything wrong with that.

It's better than stock mechs, I agree.

But this is my problem - the solution for trial mechs is to let players build their own custom ones - with double heatsinks and endo steel, to be properly optimized -- that's good.

But what are single heatsinks even in the game for, then. Since Trial Mechs will no longer be using them, thanks to players that aren't complete idiots when it comes to optimization, the only time SHS will come up (aside from the aforementioned joke builds) is when you buy a new mech. If that's the case, then why not add 1.5 million to the cost of each new mech and have them all come with double heatsinks.

[Joseph Mallan]

Thontor, on 25 March 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I think the trial mech issue is better solved by something PGI is already doing... Making customized trial mechs... I don't know of any rules saying trial mechs need to be stock variants...

They can give new players a taste of what kind of potential a variant has, and then they can use that, rather than the less than ideal stock loadouts which might not represent the variants true potential, to make a decision on what to buy.

And they should have plenty of cadet bonus left over to customize it with all the bells and whistles in no time.



And I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't know about better, but I do like the premise.

@Protection,
There are players who will want to grind with 3025 tech. Specially if I know my player base as well I think I do. there are folks who want to play 3025, 3049, Clan invasion, WoB Jihad.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 March 2013 - 08:46 AM.

[Protection]

I feel like that is poor game design, and that there is an opportunity to do more interesting things than linear upgrades. The game is PvP, not PvE: strict upgrades don't belong. Sidegrades and player choices are a better option, and the removal of extraneous features that are there to increase grind. It'd be like having to level up PPCs and Autocannons before they did their full damage.

[Kdogg788]

Protection, on 25 March 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

It's better than stock mechs, I agree.

But this is my problem - the solution for trial mechs is to let players build their own custom ones - with double heatsinks and endo steel, to be properly optimized -- that's good.

But what are single heatsinks even in the game for, then. Since Trial Mechs will no longer be using them, thanks to players that aren't complete idiots when it comes to optimization, the only time SHS will come up (aside from the aforementioned joke builds) is when you buy a new mech. If that's the case, then why not add 1.5 million to the cost of each new mech and have them all come with double heatsinks.

It's still a decision of when. Besides there are many players who buy chassis for leveling knowing full well that they will never keep a mech and will only retain their favorite of a given class. If someone is to for example buy a Raven 2X or 4X to get the skills up to use a 3L, they would not want to be forced to pay 1.5 million for an upgrade that they will not really get use from. It's a choice for some players whether or not they want to fully kit out the mechs they don't play as much and when they want to do it. For myself, I waited for a while to upgrade my Stalker 4N to doubles and ran singles on the rare occasion I used it because I had more pressing needs to invest to. If I wasn't going to keep it, I would have never upgraded, and that 1.5 million, which I would have had to pay up front would not have been worth half that to me in the resale cost.

-k

Thontor, on 25 March 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I'm not saying trial mechs should be customizable by the player, but that they should come already customized by PGI.

Making them customizable by the player removes a big incentive for buying your own mech.

As for the second queation,
Already answered...

You forget to mention that if they come customized as trials, while they may be a decent build, the player would not be able to manipulate anything on the mech to their liking, and would not earn XP on it.

-k

[Protection]

Kdogg788, on 25 March 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

It's still a decision of when. Besides there are many players who buy chassis for leveling knowing full well that they will never keep a mech and will only retain their favorite of a given class. If someone is to for example buy a Raven 2X or 4X to get the skills up to use a 3L, they would not want to be forced to pay 1.5 million for an upgrade that they will not really get use from. It's a choice for some players whether or not they want to fully kit out the mechs they don't play as much and when they want to do it. For myself, I waited for a while to upgrade my Stalker 4N to doubles and ran singles on the rare occasion I used it because I had more pressing needs to invest to. If I wasn't going to keep it, I would have never upgraded, and that 1.5 million, which I would have had to pay up front would not have been worth half that to me in the resale cost.

-k

Except that 1.5 million is trivial. I have over 50 million unspent, and there are players approaching the one billion mark.

SHS right now are a wasted feature. They make trial mechs far worse than they have to be, and add a pointless surcharge onto the purchase of any new mech. It doesn't feel like an upgrade or progression, it feels like sales tax.

[Kdogg788]

Protection, on 25 March 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

Except that 1.5 million is trivial. I have over 50 million unspent, and there are players approaching the one billion mark.

SHS right now are a wasted feature. They make trial mechs far worse than they have to be, and add a pointless surcharge onto the purchase of any new mech. It doesn't feel like an upgrade or progression, it feels like sales tax.

For us 1.5 million isn't hard to obtain. I'm guessing that like me, you've been running premium from the start with no intention in the near future to stop. For a non premium user who can't invest an insane amount of time into the game, 1.5 million is a sizeable amount to save. No offense to the guys who have it, but how long and how many matches does it take to account for 1 billion in unspent Cbills? If you figure a conservative average of 150k per match given wins and losses, and non Prems will be much lower, I arrive at 6,666 matches! I don't know of anyone who has realistically played that many games.

-k

[Protection]

Most of the competitive players have 2000 - 6000 (or more) games played.

And again, cost is a terrible mechanic for PvP gameplay balance. Having a weaker design because of time spent playing only punishes the guy who has played less further.

[Joseph Mallan]

Protection, on 25 March 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

But that doesn't change the fact that for 99.99% of mech designs, DHS is a direct, mandatory, 100% upgrade, superior in every way.

mandatory is such a subjective word.

[Protection]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 March 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

mandatory is such a subjective word.

Okay, mandatory if you want to remain optimized and at the best possible competitive level. (as you might expect from a PvP game)

The "But I want to run a terrible mech" argument is great - but you can still make all the terrible mechs you want with single heatsinks gone.

Edited by Protection, 25 March 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[Kdogg788]

Protection, on 25 March 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Most of the competitive players have 2000 - 6000 (or more) games played.

And again, cost is a terrible mechanic for PvP gameplay balance. Having a weaker design because of time spent playing only punishes the guy who has played less further.

Of course, competitive meaning the upper echelon of the player base. I've been playing as much as I can and since OB hit I have just shy of 1500 games. A Non-Prem, Non-Founder may have much much less than that. You want things to be immediately available and immediately nearly equivalent, but DHS are just one more thing to work towards. Easily obtainable on the first mech with cadet bonus, but a hard save for someone like me who has almost 20.

The logic doesn't make sense though. It's like telling players in Battlefield who are level 50 that they can't use their unlocks such as high end weapons, sights, and magnum ammo because I don't have that equipment available to me at level 1 and die extremely fast to them.

If you think cost is bad now, just wait until clan tech comes in and everything clan as a base cost 3 to 5 times greater than IS tech and all those uber players with hundreds of millions of cbills go and port their riches into clan tech.

-k

[Mercules]

Shumabot, on 25 March 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

You are creating a bad, random, and unfun game purely because you want to keep the math the same as a tabletop game. That is patently ridiculous. Cone of fire lasers? Mechs unloading into eachother while not moving for 45 seconds until one wins? Goody goody gumdrops, this is really transferring well.

Ever hear of games like Borderlands, CoD, Battlefield, Planetside? All these use that Cone of Fire mechanic that expands from recoil and movement. Why do they do this? Because all of those game designers understand that continuous fire on a single point is difficult, unrealistic, and creates gameplay issues.

Obviously Lasers would have a low Cone of Fire. Possibly even PPCs. However some weapons would have recoil that bumps up the Cone of Fire for all weapon fire for a bit. Baring that we could have non-arm weapons not converge making it difficult to dump tons of weapons into one spot.

I deal with the slight randomness of shots in other games and it works well. Weapons are additionally balanced by that... but that is all off topic.

The heat issue could be resolved as I stated with still retaining the flavor of Mechwarrior/Battletech.

[Shifty Eyes]

When my engine requires at least one external heat sink and my mech runs cool without any extra heat sinks, I'd rather it take up 1 slot than 3.

[Henchman 24]

1. some of the trial mechs are absolutely viable, the Treb 7M comes to mind with 1.25 heat eff(although the narc is still useless for the most part)

2. single sinks fit where doubles don't on space restricted mechs and can be life savers.


So you witnessed a few greenhorns die in the bad trials and come to the conclusion that normal heatsinks are gaffed? Stunning logic.

[Mercules]

Protection, on 25 March 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Most of the competitive players have 2000 - 6000 (or more) games played.

And again, cost is a terrible mechanic for PvP gameplay balance. Having a weaker design because of time spent playing only punishes the guy who has played less further.

But that is still happening and still going to happen if you have ANY progression in the game what-so-ever. Is it fun hopping on a FPS the year after it came out when everyone is using a gun that can kill you in one 3 round burst and it takes 2-3 bursts from your gun to kill them? No... but for some reason we believe we need to have the progression or people won't play. It happens in every online game. Even RPG MMOs where people trade items to their lower level characters giving them upgrades not accessible to starting players.

At least with Repair and Reload some things were a Side-Grade like Artemis if you had Repair and Reload. It would earn you more money by coring mechs faster but cost more to reload.

[Protection]

Henchman 24, on 25 March 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

2. single sinks fit where doubles don't on space restricted mechs and can be life savers.

Please share some of these builds.

Use smurfy if you need a program: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab

Shifty Eyes, on 25 March 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

When my engine requires at least one external heat sink and my mech runs cool without any extra heat sinks, I'd rather it take up 1 slot than 3.

Again - why? If you suffer a critical hit - you want the heatsink to be the thing that takes the hit. Losing a heatsink is greatly preferable to losing a weapon or ammunition. Taking up fewer slots does nothing to reduce the chance of a critical hit, it just changes the probability of where that hit is going to go -- and remember, empty spaces, endo steel, and ferro fibrous are rerolled until something tangible is hit by the critical.

Edited by Protection, 25 March 2013 - 09:24 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Protection, on 25 March 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Okay, mandatory if you want to remain optimized and at the best possible competitive level. (as you might expect from a PvP game)

The "But I want to run a terrible mech" argument is great - but you can still make all the terrible mechs you want with single heatsinks gone.

Yes but you are thinking only of the people who want a 3050+ era MechWarrior game. Maybe with CW those who want a simpler game will be able to find a planet to battle over.

Believe me every Mech in this Game is terribad by my standards! Even the Mechs I use are awful compared to how I normally design my builds. and it is the heat cycle that renders them that way. I love dubs, but single sinks have a place and should stay.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 March 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[Kdogg788]

I had a Stalker 4N that functioned fine with singles.

Was it runnable with singles? Yes

Is it better with doubles? Of course

Are doubles better than singles? Yes

Can players make a usable build that they can go out and have fun with and run singles? Yes

Are singles an investment and a choice as to which of their mechs should run them dependent on your budget and final intentions with that particular mech? Yes

Is the argument that competitive builds need doubles irrelevant? Yes

Is every player going to be a tourney running multi-thousand match accumulating super killer? No

Are singles so ridonkulously borked that they should be removed entirely? No

-k