1107 replies to this topic

[Chavette]

No sane man wouldnt change to doubles if he isnt packing alot of sinks, they are simply better for a little more cbills.
No sane man wouldnt change to doubles if he is packing alot of sinks, they are better from the boost they get from the double 2.0-s, and the ammount of singles you'd need to contest them its beyond stupid. 10*2.0+1.4*2 engine sinks in average=22.8, thats ~13 tons+slots of singles and you havent placed a single double on your mech yet.

To sum it up: YES REMOVE SINGLES FROM GAME, OR CHANGE IT TO 1.1 or 1.15.

[Thirdstar]

Shumabot, on 27 March 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

That dragon was still better than 95% of trial mechs.

I don't know if that says more about the stock mechs than it does about the Dragon or vice versa

[Shumabot]

Thirdstar, on 27 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

I don't know if that says more about the stock mechs than it does about the Dragon or vice versa

It's not the worst build, it's meant for a specific range bracket and style of play and it functions well in it. The giant dragon nose makes the XL somewhat safe from enemy fire and it can handle its heat load well enough. It's certainly better than the single ac-2 +lrm10 dragon that was the trial when I started *shudder*.

Whatever they do with trial mechs, they need to stop offering dragons with AC2s.

Edited by Shumabot, 27 March 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[Tesunie]

Shumabot, on 27 March 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

No, you really, truly, fundamentally, can't comprehend the people you're talking to. Any of them. I figured this out already, why I tried to talk to you again I don't know. I'm not even going to explain it. I explained it in the post you just quoted and you still couldn't understand. I've explained it to you like five seperate times, but it's always "im lazy, I just want SHS gone, I just want to get free stuff, etc".

I hate DHS because it's a bad system. It's a straight upgrade in a competitive multiplayer game that doesn't base matchmaking off of the quality of mechs. No upgrade is good in this game. They are all bad for the games health. 100% of them. DHS is by far the worst offender, but the problem is that this isn't mechwarrior 5, this is mechwarrior online. Mech quality progression when you don't matchmake based on mech quality breeds and encourages imbalance and brutally punishes new players and people who don't understand the mechlabs systems but would otherwise be skilled.

It's a terrible system, I couldn't care less about the final cost in time or money except insofar as they're what reinforces it as a bad system. If you don't understand what I am saying here, after the sixth time I've now explained it to you, I'm going to believe that you have brain damage (like a certain other party).

You have a lot of good points here. I can understand this. Now, without removing single and double sinks, what might be done to make them separate systems with reasonable advantages and disadvantages to each? What could be done to give DHS a benefit over SHS to make them still worth the price?

I'm thinking if singles gave a larger heat cap, but doubles a faster cooling rate, each would have advantages, yet DHS would still be a preference upgrade worth its cost.

What are your ideas?

Kdogg788, on 27 March 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Ok, so you want prices dropped way down because it's a system of haves vs. have nots or so you say. You would like all mechs to be stock loadouts because "No upgrade is good in this game. They are all bad for the games health. 100% of them." So therefore you want the matchmaker overhauled as well.

So unroll for us your plan to re-balance the game including detailed statistical analysis for how single and double heat sinks or one of the two will theoretically function in such a system. All I've see so far are cries of "Take out SHS because DHS will always be a direct upgrade" and dismissive threats aimed at anyone who disagrees with you. Let's have some of your detailed analysis.

-k

He's asking for a reason to even have SHS in the game and be useful. I have to agree that DHS are almost a must in this game as an upgrade. I don't think every mech needs them to work, but to get the most out of your build, you normally need them.

You bring up good points yourself, but what are ways you can think of to help? help If you had to come up with a plan, what would you suggest? Take it and go wild. If you could do anything to the game to fix this perceived problem, what might you change, if anything?

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Hey Joe, KDogg,

Was thinking about starting a new poll in GenDis:

"REMOVE PLAYERS WHO CAN'T MANAGE THEIR HEAT WITH SINGLE HEATSINKS FROM THE GAME"
--- I'm tired of being forced to drop with sub optimal, "leet" forum warriors who are big men with smurfy, but can't handle heat management, in the game. Their need for ezmode DHS nannying is detracting from my games, as they tend to "accidentally" disco when they get sub optimal maps for their smurfy dreambuilds. And they set a bad precedent for new players, who instead of learning to manage heat, will instead expect the mechlab to do it for them, and actually believe alpha builds are great, thus affecting the OTHER 15 guys in the pug drop with their lacking actual pilot skills.

Since, obviously, it's "hyperbole" , no one should get their panties in a bunch over it, right?

I mean, it's essentially just following the format of the OP, so shouldn't be remotely considered inflammatory or objectionable.

Sarcasm aside, that basically what is being argued here. It's a good point. There are good points on each side, I just don't agree with removing SHS really. Changing them? Make a proposition on what to change and let's start debating that instead.

Magicbullet141, on 27 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

at this point, 3050, according to the lore, double heak sinks are almost unheard of.

Kinda my point and I'd love to see them less often in game, however do keep in mind that this is a game and fun is the idea. If they made DHS less desirable some how, it could balance out better. I think each side needs to realize this is a game made for fun as much as it is to follow the lore of BT and be a simulator. Also realize that we don't have a full game yet and more features are on the way (CW).

[Shumabot]

Quote

You have a lot of good points here. I can understand this. Now, without removing single and double sinks, what might be done to make them separate systems with reasonable advantages and disadvantages to each? What could be done to give DHS a benefit over SHS to make them still worth the price?

I'm thinking if singles gave a larger heat cap, but doubles a faster cooling rate, each would have advantages, yet DHS would still be a preference upgrade worth its cost.

What are your ideas?

In order of ease:

1. Make double heat sinks 1.0 in engine, 2.0 outside, making so that space was actually a meaningful consideration. I haven't done any testing with these numbers, and that could be too onerous to DHS, you run out of space pretty damn fast with dubs. These are spread sheet numbers. PGI could hotfix this with like two hours behind them. This would seriously shift the metagame away from energy boats, which at the moment would be great considering the sheer dominance of the ppc. It would probably hurt non ppc laserboats too badly, but then again those values can be fixed via a hotfix too. These aren't hard to change.

2. Alter heat scaling so that capacity across the board is lowered but cooldown is greatly increased. Right now heat management is a joke. It's a system of containment, not of management. Most of the games powerbuilds can kill most of the others before overheating or function in a way that makes heat pointless (poptarts for instance). This is because heat is capacity first and recovery second, if a mech can take 80 heat and it takes 60 heat to kill something then there is no heat control system. If that same mech suddenly only had 40 heat capacity, but his guage emptied twice as fast it would force him to actually space out his shots (part of that alphastrike metagame people keep complaining about). With this change I would make it so that doubles would have twice the capacity but identical cooldown. A DHS mech would be able to fire bigger alphas longer, but wouldn't be able to sustain as well. This would be a much more major overhaul of the system.

I've thought of a few others, but they're mostly just permutations of these two. I honestly don't understand why they ended up with 2.0 1.4 for DHS numbers. Those are idiotic, anyone could see (and many did see) that they would lead to exactly what is happening now. A 1.5 mil tax on new mechs. I actually suspect it's an intentional tax meant to prolong the grind, but if it is it's a terribly thought out one that severely damages new players experiences with the game and punishes casual habituation.

Edited by Shumabot, 27 March 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Thirdstar

It's actually not far from the Flame build I ran on my other account. The Flame had far better hardpoint dispersal, but it's still viable. I managed about a 1.7 KDr pugging in it. That was before the Gauss seemed to get even more fragile a few patches ago, so IDK how that aspect will work. Having it in the arm should shield the XL some, though.

@Sifright

Whether or not the Devs deliver, is indeed the Rub. Most of the best info was wiped when they axed the Beta Forums, and while abgoodly amount can be found in the ask thebdevs posts and ngng podcasts, it's mostly 1 line here, a subject there. Until we see what phase 1 rolls out (IF it actually arrives in May), I will continue to act under the premise it will, than to throw everything in the fire and assume the worst.regardless of the vitriol many seem to have toward thebdevs, since January, the progress has been more good than bad (even considering I loathe the consumables concept, and the LRM nonsense is beyond old), I will wait and see, instead of activiley advocating to dumb the game down even further. If I want MW for Dummies, I can go play PoptartWarrior 4.

I still have a small modicum of hope for this and Tactics. As I have stated since nearly my first post on this threadnaught, if THIS, the current game we see, is all there is, then by all means, remove any economic model, and open everything up wide open. That IS the way to run a pure Multiplayer tdm. And PGI will deserve to go out of business. But I can't hate on them too hard for maybe being too ambitious and optimistic about the project. Time will tell, which, if any perspective is correct.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Tesunie

Would love to, but admit, I have trouble looking atbheatsinks or any feature "on an island" as there are usually many factors at play. SHS are inferior to DHS, and are supposed to be. In the original model, after the introduction of doubles, they basically were the "economy" choice. Since we really don't have an economy per se, and no guarantee to one in CW, that makes them something of an orphan. And no economy model makes sense from an instaplay casual multiplayer perspective.

So how to mod them without breaking things further, or nerfing DHS in the process?
Efficiency would be one good model, potentially. I actually think the idea of singles having a better heat cap, while doubles disperse faster, might have merit. Or even the other way around, with doubles just allowing one a higher heat ceiling, but dispersal being the same, meaning that at shutdown a SHS mech would actually cool off and restart a lot faster from max load, but the DHS mrch could push much longer before running into shutdown/override scenarios, essentially. Something along either would actually give each a slightly differing level of viability, making each distinctly more viable for certain loadouts and playstyles.

Also the engine HS idea from Shumabot has some merit, though possibly I'd look at it a little differently. I agree its silly tye both take up the same amount of engine space, but different in the mech itself. Maybe whereas you can fit 1 SHS per 25 engine rating, make DHS occupy double the room in the engine, and allow 1 DHS per 50 pts of engine rating?

Then their space hogging WOULD be more consistent and make the space vs weight argument more viable. I also think it would severly curtail boating, because it would hurt the heat hogs, a lot. It might wreck some cannon builds, like the 9M awesome, but it's pretty much unplayable as a sustainable damage build anyhow, currently. But it might also allow all DHS to be used at true 2.0 efficiency, also. Someone with better modeling skills than I would have to confirm that, though.

But, it would also open up a clear upgrade for clan tech DHS, by allowing them to fit the normal 1 DHS per 25 pts of engine, and their smaller crit footprint, in mech, which would still allow mechs like the Warhawk to be actually viable, instead of AlphaBombs.

What say you? These are just a few ideas based off this proposed, so certainly not saying they are perfect, but options for debate, if that can indeed be accomplished.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shumabot, on 27 March 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

I propose that anyone who doesn't complain have their account transferred to mechwarrior tactics because that's what they actually want to play.

There's complaining and then there is critiquing. Just complaining gets nothing done.

Quote

You wouldn't have 9000 posts of troll if you didn't enjoy it. I can't destroy you in game because elo and I can't make you unhappy because you love being ignorant. I'm aware that I can't make you unhappy directly. Hopefully, in the end, the devs can see that you're probably the worst kind of customer they can have (the kind that wants the game to fail through ignorance) and makes you unhappy by making this game better.

You keep showing some kind of problem that I have 8 hours to post while I work. They could blank the number of posts I have and would not care. But it seems to bug you. *shrug* As to being the worst kind of customer...One who spends money on their Product? One that knows what he likes and doesn't? One that accepts that there is more than one way to play their game? Making the game better is... Subjective cause better for you may not be better for me. I have been playing pretty much everything for this Genre since 86. spent 10s of thousands of dollars on the games of the BattleTech Universe. Yeah, I'm a terribad player and member of the community... cause I disagree with you on one subject. I can live with that.

Quote

If the game dies? I don't have to talk to you (yay!)

If they make the game better? You quit and I don't have to talk to you (yay!)

If the Game dies you are right you won't have to deal with me, If the game succeeds, I intend to be here at least til Khan Osis's head rolls.

Quote

I think I just want to get out of stagnancy.

This we agree on. We need to have more content in the game. Right now we have a lull, has been about the game game since closed Beta. The best part of this whole discussion is We are both entitled to our opinions. And I at least accept that though we don't see eye to eye, You are allowed to disagree without being insulted. We both want Sinks to be improved, we just don't agree on the means to do so. So why so much hate?

[Thirdstar]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

@Thirdstar

It's actually not far from the Flame build I ran on my other account. The Flame had far better hardpoint dispersal, but it's still viable. I managed about a 1.7 KDr pugging in it. That was before the Gauss seemed to get even more fragile a few patches ago, so IDK how that aspect will work. Having it in the arm should shield the XL some, though.

That's not the point though. The stated intent of the contest was to build a Trial mech yes? What's the primary purpose of that? To teach newbies how to play.

Now no one can argue in good faith that the Dragon is a newbie friendly mech. It just isn't. Contest fails because Devs allow the Goons (and their pet Dev) to run rampant.

[Tesunie]

Chavette, on 27 March 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

No sane man wouldnt change to doubles if he isnt packing alot of sinks, they are simply better for a little more cbills.
No sane man wouldnt change to doubles if he is packing alot of sinks, they are better from the boost they get from the double 2.0-s, and the ammount of singles you'd need to contest them its beyond stupid. 10*2.0+1.4*2 engine sinks in average=22.8, thats ~13 tons+slots of singles and you havent placed a single double on your mech yet.

To sum it up: YES REMOVE SINGLES FROM GAME, OR CHANGE IT TO 1.1 or 1.15.

Why should they be removed exactly? Many people have fairly efficient customs with standard. Could they be better with doubles? Probably. Does that mean singles should be removed? No. Could heat sinks be changed so singles do something doubles don't? A more likely solution I suspect. And, how would your proposed change make single sinks any more choice over doubles than current implementation? Doubles would still be vastly better than singles making singles still obsolete.

Shumabot, on 27 March 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

If it were 2% yeah, that'd be nothing. But it's not. It usually accounts for a 60-80% increase in efficiency OR a significant drop in the tonnage required to handle SHS allowing more weapons and much larger engines. I mentioned an awesome variety earlier. It needs 27 SHS to function, and it can shave off 14 tons by switching to DHS and then getting the largest possible standard engine then filling with DHS. This allows it to put in heavier weapons and max armor. That is a huge difference in power.

For my Stalker it was only 3% increase to heat, a 2kph to speed, an increase to armor on the legs, and more ammo. Sure other builds could be made with the extra tons made, but overall it didn't change it so dramatically to be must have or die. Could/would it improve the mech? Sure. But it runs fine as is. That's the point. I think it improved my mech buy, what 8 tons? That can be an improvement, yes. 8 tons is a lot. But I don't have the c-bills to change it, and I'm going to just go with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality on this one. (If it makes you feel better, better the rest of my mechs have doubles on them.)

[Bishop Steiner]

@ Thirdstar

Well, because I have to agree with some of the earlier posts that it's a darn sight better balanced than most of the stock trials. I have managed to make most stock ones work ( though some, like a stock 1C, are just bad), but this is much more usable to a new player than most.

I think it is actually a moderately good design for a training mech, Goons or no, even if almost all the finalist designs were garbage. And here is why:
The Dragon is generally acknowledged to be a tough mech, and its comparatively compact profile plus good armor help survivability, even with the XL.
It has good speed even if it doesn't have great speed. This allows players to learn maneuverability better than in a slow as heck Assault, or the whiplash newbie's get when they try out a Jenner. It also helps keep it alive over slower, heavier mechs.
Most new players have problems understanding minimum range and lockons for LRMs. The 100meter real world range for SRMs is often an issue with lots of wasted shots, and no reliance on Streaks, so not mounting missiles, imo, is a good thing.
The armament it does have is easily broken up into tue 3 fire groups most people with non gaming mouse's have. A weapon per button on a standard mouse, or the lasers on one, gauss on another and alpha strike on the third. Simple firnsettingnfire groups for the new guy.
The weapons chosen allow easy learning curve and do well at almost any range.
They can sustain fire for decent dos, or give a decent alpha.
No ammo explosion potential, and the gauss, being in the arm is relatively isolated in case it blows up.
All the weapons have very large fire arcs, being arm mounted. If the players don't armlock. On a decent mobility mech, this is very useful, as I often use my dragons to circle assaults to death.
All are pretty easy Los weapons to master.

So while no goon fan and in full agreement, it isn't the perfect mech, I think it IS a viable trial mech, for the reasons above.

[QuantumButler]

100% agreed, SHS are a waste of space, both in the ingame inventory and in however many bytes it takes for them to exist on a computer.

They are redundant and have no place or use in this game,

Edited by QuantumButler, 27 March 2013 - 01:42 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

QuantumButler, on 27 March 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

100% agreed, SHS are a waste of space, both in the ingame inventory and in however many bytes it takes for them to exist on a computer.

They are redundant and have no place or use in this game,

So if I get this right. SRM2s should be gone cause SSRM2 are better, AC5 should be removed also cause UAC5 delivers more damage also. Is that the angle you are taking Quantum?

[Chavette]

Tesunie, on 27 March 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Why should they be removed exactly? Many people have fairly efficient customs with standard. Could they be better with doubles? Probably. Does that mean singles should be removed? No. Could heat sinks be changed so singles do something doubles don't? A more likely solution I suspect. And, how would your proposed change make single sinks any more choice over doubles than current implementation? Doubles would still be vastly better than singles making singles still obsolete.

It would still suck, but it would suck less. I'm not gonna re-design this part of the game, I'll leave it to the devs this time. But is it useless in its current state? Yes. Is it getting acknowladged? No. Is that a problem? Yes.

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

So if I get this right. SRM2s should be gone cause SSRM2 are better, AC5 should be removed also cause UAC5 delivers more damage also. Is that the angle you are taking Quantum?

Ultra5 and AC5 are different weapons with different stats. Ssrm2 cant be fired in some places, srm2 can. Way to draw a strawman, lol.

[QuantumButler]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

So if I get this right. SRM2s should be gone cause SSRM2 are better, AC5 should be removed also cause UAC5 delivers more damage also. Is that the angle you are taking Quantum?

AC5s have a niche, srm2s are pointless though, yes, by all means, remove all the redundant crap no one uses, why keep it? For fluff reasons? That's a poor justification for it to exist.

Now if they added functionality to these things to justify their presence, say making it so only srm2s could load inferno missiles? By all means, then keep them.

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

So if I get this right. SRM2s should be gone cause SSRM2 are better, AC5 should be removed also cause UAC5 delivers more damage also. Is that the angle you are taking Quantum?

No i'm pretty sure that SSRM2's weight more than SRM2's

See there is a trade off.

No such thing with DHS and SHS.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sifright, on 27 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

No i'm pretty sure that SSRM2's weight more than SRM2's

See there is a trade off.

No such thing with DHS and SHS.

Ok fair point!

QuantumButler, on 27 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Now if they added functionality to these things to justify their presence, say making it so only srm2s could load inferno missiles? By all means, then keep them.

Oooooo Infernos! Now who is to say those will not be coming down the pike?

Chavette, on 27 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

It would still suck, but it would suck less. I'm not gonna re-design this part of the game, I'll leave it to the devs this time. But is it useless in its current state? Yes. Is it getting acknowladged? No. Is that a problem? Yes.


Ultra5 and AC5 are different weapons with different stats. Ssrm2 cant be fired in some places, srm2 can. Way to draw a strawman, lol.

Asking a question not making an assertion, and Quantum answered quite well.

[Thirdstar]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

Oooooo Infernos! Now who is to say those will not be coming down the pike?

Confirmed, MC only Infernos but you can also spend 50,000 GXP to unlock the same thing with C-Bills

[Chavette]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

Asking a question not making an assertion, and Quantum answered quite well.

What are you on? I'm not talking to quantum at all.

[Joseph Mallan]

Chavette, on 27 March 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

What are you on? I'm not talking to quantum at all.

I was talking to Quantum. You interrupted.
And I am on a chair.

Thirdstar, on 27 March 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Confirmed, MC only Infernos but you can also spend 50,000 GXP to unlock the same thing with C-Bills

Sounds about right