1107 replies to this topic

[Just wanna play]

i wouldnt say negative tonnage, then if there are 2 exactly the same mechs, and one also has one of the things you listed, it would be counted as a worse mech and get easier opponents, abusing the system

[FupDup]

Just wanna play, on 28 March 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

i wouldnt say negative tonnage, then if there are 2 exactly the same mechs, and one also has one of the things you listed, it would be counted as a worse mech and get easier opponents, abusing the system

Quad-MG Spiders need opponents just as crappy as themselves to not get devoured.


Also, the whole dang system is abusable. Look at Just wanna play's post above mine:

Just wanna play, on 28 March 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

wouldn't that kind of system get abused by certain set-ups?? i mean, dual guasses vs, what, trials??? people would start using stuff that affected their rating the least to help them play against inferior mechs, and then hot and heavy weapons like pulses would get an even bigger disadvantage, because it has to have doubles, and use other methods to save weight

how would they rate the mechs, anyway? seems like a pretty hard thing to do

also, things like 6 ppcs stalker with std hs and no weigh savings upgrades would be able to go against some poor new guy in a trial

All it does is try to give a crappy excuse for making some items suck eggs. "Do your Flamers suck? No problem, you'll just get a slightly lower BV/tonnage! It's totally solved now, trust me!"

Edited by FupDup, 28 March 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[TehSBGX]

Just wanna play, on 28 March 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

Nothing, and i mean NOTHING, in this world is all cons and no pros, and vice versa

Even getting kicked in the nuts for no reason?

[Just wanna play]

why not make those weapons count as 0 tonnage, then spiders with those items would only face each other
and..
What?

TehSBGX, on 28 March 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Even getting kicked in the nuts for no reason?

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and you give people something to laugh at

[FupDup]

Just wanna play, on 28 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

why not make those weapons count as 0 tonnage, then spiders with those items would only face each other
and..
What?

You can't put an MG Spider against a competitive-grade Raven 3L for more than a few seconds before it gets eradicated from this plane of existence. A 3L is worth at least 2 or 3 of the things. If you really want to leave a number of items pooptastic, then people using crap items should only face other mechs using crap items or else they get murdered. Painfully.

Oops, misread it. What's the bolded "what" for?

Edited by FupDup, 28 March 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[Atheus]

Tesunie, on 28 March 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

True, but then you have some mechs like my Stalker which was made when I (not knowing yet and reading misinformation on the forums and being short on c-bills) thought that engine sinks for double where 1.4, did the math, and thought endo would save me more weight and save more c-bills. Now, I have a mech that still runs great with SHS, and really isn't worth they cost to remove endo, convert to DHS, buy the extra sinks not in the engine, etc. Personally, I love my a Stalker build as is and don't intend to change it at this time.

Which is indeed one of the reasons heat sinks need to be changed. People do not understand how they work - even people who have tried to research them often wind up with misinformation and make bad decisions as a result. Within this very forum person after person has come in posting a SHS build they think is just great, only to have someone build it with DHS even better. Presently SHS add nothing of value to the game, and detract much - especially for new players. in my mind, the simple answer is just get rid of SHS completely, or make DHS the standard so the uninformed do not get screwed over by their own ignorance.

There are certainly other options I would accept which involve trying to adjust how SHS and/or DHS work to make them into an interesting design choice with pros and cons on either side, but, to be perfectly frank, I do not think this kind of re-balancing is within the capability of PGI at this stage of the game. Not only because creating and testing an interesting balance is semi-difficult given the vast assortment of weapons and mechs available, but there would also be shockwaves within the player base, and yet another era of confusion over how the heck this game even works which would extend far into the future.

[Just wanna play]

i meant 0 tonnage for the items themselves so it wouldn't lower the sum of all the other items you have on the mech, if someone puts all mgs on their spider, it will just end up with other really low end mechs

if you meant negative tonnage for a mech with only mgs and not let anything less have such a low rating, then yeah, but not have the mg itself lower the rating of what would be basically the same mech

FupDup, on 28 March 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

You can't put an MG Spider against a competitive-grade Raven 3L for more than a few seconds before it gets eradicated from this plane of existence. A 3L is worth at least 2 or 3 of the things. If you really want to leave a number of items pooptastic, then people using crap items should only face other mechs using crap items or else they get murdered. Painfully.

Oops, misread it. What's the bolded "what" for?

lol trying to figure out why you said Look at Just wanna play's post above mine. All it does is try to give a crappy excuse for making some items suck eggs. "Do your Flamers suck? No problem, you'll just get a slightly lower BV/tonnage!"

[Bishop Steiner]

@Altheus,

While I can understand your skepticism, ifPGI is this incompetent, as some are promoting, does it really matter the state of heatsinks, or anything else for that matter?

Its rather akin to debating what color to repaint the Titanic..... After it hit the iceberg.

[FupDup]

Just wanna play, on 28 March 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

lol trying to figure out why you said Look at Just wanna play's post above mine.

Oh...wait a minute. My first reply was directed at John Norad, then you came in and I mistook you for Norad in that reply...lol. Your names both start with a "J."

Edited by FupDup, 28 March 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Fupdup

Unfortunately true. Though odd, for such a "sub-optimal" build to be able to skew things so harshly, ain't it?

Sad truth though, is the system that can't be gamed hasn't been made yet. I suppose one fail safe would be to have heat efficiency one of the weighted metrics for BV? Then it matters less the tech, than the overall efficiency?

*shrugs*

Might help. One thing I think we all agree on is that the current system is anything BUT optimal.

[Atheus]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

@Altheus,

While I can understand your skepticism, ifPGI is this incompetent, as some are promoting, does it really matter the state of heatsinks, or anything else for that matter?

Its rather akin to debating what color to repaint the Titanic..... After it hit the iceberg.

Nah, I'm just suggesting a change of course to warmer waters where the dolphins play.

[Bishop Steiner]

Oddly enough, that's where I am.... Barely playing the game right now, cuz 1)my laptop sucks compared to my desktop (47 inch monitor might have me spoiled), but more importantly, 2) is why play videogames when I am living like a beach um, scuba diving all day near Puerto Vallarta. Usually on the forums during my decompression breaks.

Makes all the forum drama seem pretty laughable, tbh.

But I do agree with many of your posts on the matter, most importantly the need to do SOMETHING to make SHS more attractive as a viable option, with the current meta taking cost economy out of the picture. My favorite idea so far is a modified version of Shumabots fat engine heat sink idea.

I think since DHS are 3x bulkier than SHS, it doesn't make sense they can fit the same number internally on the engine. While cutting it in 3rds seems drastic, how about in half? Thus instead of 1 engine sink per 25pts of engine rating, as per SHS, make it fit 1 internal DHS per 50pts of engine rating. It would limit the total number, but still leave DHS viable, while really I believe, hitting boating mechs pretty hard, both in space and heat cap. So, now, SHS become more viable without changing actual specs and physics of either. Maybe allow 2 extra freebies in XLs, since XLs are much bulier than standard engines, which also makes choosing engine type more of q decision, too.

Not perfect, but what do you think?

[Allekatrase]

Wow!! I read to almost page 30 and then realized it was way past my bedtime and wondered how far this thing went and skipped to the end. I was only about halfway there! This late I'm not likely to add much so I'm going to perform some necromancy.

Mackman, on 25 March 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

You really think that, at this late date, they're going to so fundamentally change the way weapons work? You really think they're going to unbalance the entire game by so drastically altering heat, firing rates, and damage of weapons? If you think the game is unbalanced now, you would lose your crap when you saw how unbalanced it would be if they tried that right now.

They're not going to do that. They're just not. It would require rooting up an absurd amount of work they've already done, and would require an absurd amount of work to bring it close to balanced again.

This response states that they would unbalance the entire game to completely rework heat and damage mechanics. The problem with that is that it assumes the game is balanced, which it clearly isn't. Even this late the best thing the developers could do is exactly that. The heat system needs a drastic overhaul and the sooner they do it the better.

Sadly, he is quite likely right that they are not going to do it.

More on topic, aside from the fact that there are cases where DHS is only marginally better than SHS the fact remains that it is a clear upgrade in pretty much all cases. Aside from that being bad design for reasons that have already been pointed out it is also against the stated design goals. It was always their stated intention for SHS to still be the better option in some circumstances. While you may argue that they are still useful, as in they can be used without you being in a completely crappy mech, there is practically no instance where they are preferable. This goes directly against their stated goals at the time they implemented DHS and against good game design as it does not offer a meaningful choice as Mustrum would say.

Obviously, the solution is not to remove SHS. If it came down to eliminating a pointless choice it would make far more sense to remove DHS but that's obviously not a viable solution either. There have been several suggestions of ways to make SHS more viable by various combinations of buffing SHS and/or nerfing DHS. I personally favor the options that allow SHS to give a higher heat threshold while DHS gives better dissipation.

There's been way too much insulting and people accusing people of whining on this thread. I don't understand the people say that it's just people wanting things for free or wanting instant gratification. The choice has no meaning. It's just a resource and time sink that is only confusing to players who don't understand how the mechanics work. The fact that most players don't understand the mechanics is a problem all by itself.

Bishop, I have nothing against you personally but I have issues with your stances. I kind of group you with Joseph Mallan. It feels like you make your arguments based on some idealized version of this game that has shown no evidence of ever materializing. One of the last comments from Joseph I read in this thread for his justification for wanting to use SHS was he wanted to fight the clans. What a wonderfully idealistic lore reason. Completely impractical and illogical though. It's a beautiful sentiment to want to be immersed in the lore and universe and have everything fit. Everything the game has developed into so far flies in the face of that dream though and it's not a good basis for design or balance at this point.

The simple fact is idealistic views of what you envision for the game and making others work are not good principles on which to balance a game. If you want balance you have to look at the min/maxers and everyone arguing that "I get along fine with SHS" is irrelevant. As are anecdotes of highly skilled players winning with stock mechs that everyone can agree are gimped. If you want to handicap yourself for increased challenge, that's fine but you don't make balance decisions based on that.

The same is true for Mercules BV suggestions. R&R is not a bad design. The way it was implemented was terrible. If you want things to be expensive to repair then don't do repairs for free. That's what broke that system more than anything. If you want cost to be a factor then that's what you have to do. If your mech is destroyed I guess you're not using it again until you can afford to fix it. If they're not willing to go that route and have it possible to actually lose money in a match then any kind of economic balancing becomes irrelevant in the long run as it's just a factor of how long you've played and only serves to disadvantage new players more.

The longer this goes on the more I'm convinced that the developers have no idea how to balance it and no clear direction on where they're taking it. As others pointed out, when clan tech hits it's going to have the same problems but worse. The theory of balancing out "better" equipment by having increased cost apparently died when they threw out R&R. Unless they bring that back in some form or bring in some sort of BV system into matchmaking, which is probably more appropriate and more likely to get screwed up, then these kinds of problems are just going to get worse.

Okay, that's enough of a rant for now.

Edited by Allekatrase, 28 March 2013 - 08:05 PM.

[Atheus]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 March 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Oddly enough, that's where I am.... Barely playing the game right now, cuz 1)my laptop sucks compared to my desktop (47 inch monitor might have me spoiled), but more importantly, 2) is why play videogames when I am living like a beach um, scuba diving all day near Puerto Vallarta. Usually on the forums during my decompression breaks.

Makes all the forum drama seem pretty laughable, tbh.

But I do agree with many of your posts on the matter, most importantly the need to do SOMETHING to make SHS more attractive as a viable option, with the current meta taking cost economy out of the picture. My favorite idea so far is a modified version of Shumabots fat engine heat sink idea.

I think since DHS are 3x bulkier than SHS, it doesn't make sense they can fit the same number internally on the engine. While cutting it in 3rds seems drastic, how about in half? Thus instead of 1 engine sink per 25pts of engine rating, as per SHS, make it fit 1 internal DHS per 50pts of engine rating. It would limit the total number, but still leave DHS viable, while really I believe, hitting boating mechs pretty hard, both in space and heat cap. So, now, SHS become more viable without changing actual specs and physics of either. Maybe allow 2 extra freebies in XLs, since XLs are much bulier than standard engines, which also makes choosing engine type more of q decision, too.

Not perfect, but what do you think?

While I don't hate it, the first obstacle - the one that makes the difference between a 53 page useless threadnaught and a silent spring - is getting PGI to recognize the status quo is doing harm to their game and that a change is necessary. This is why I'm primarily focused on trial mechs, the undesirable obscurity and complexity of the current options, and the other various negatives. Overcoming that inertia is the real struggle. If PGI begins to take action, then I'd be happy to discuss what sort of schemes would be interesting, but for now it's sufficient for me to say that SHS are a newbie trap, do harm, and add nothing, so get rid of them. If PGI can recognize them as a problem, but is unwilling to get rid of them, they will look for alternatives. I'll take it from there when that time comes.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Shumabot, on 28 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

If your arguments weren't childish nonsense people wouldn't constantly mock you for them. That you think you're some sort of white night of civility is laughable.

not to butt in, but I think you just proved the other guys point. We won't mention that this is also the vibe I got from reading the few pages of this hunk of a monster thread. I would still say keep single heat sinks in as it gives players a choice for their mechs, but make the trial mechs customized like what they have been doing for the last few batches. Also in lore mech pilots would of bought a mech with singles then (if they had the money) pay for it to be upgraded with doubles. As I had also stated before, it will become very important if they reintroduce repair and refit. Also think of the outcry if they did away with singles and made everything doubles ("Oh! But I had to pay x amount on that upgrade and want it all back NOW" kinda people).

Also I think you meant White Knight, as I don't think there is anything known as a white night, and why is it that people always call the one asking for civil conversation compared to ranting and throwing a tantrum a white knight like its an insult? Don't they know its a complement?

Now on to a thought that i had earlier about a mech that might use singles over doubles (key word MIGHT). CENT-AL. I have it set up with 4 medium lasers, 2 lrm5s, 2-3 tons ammo, case, and the rest double heat sinks with a standard 200 (stock) engine. Was thinking if it would work better with endo/ferro upgrades and single heat sinks. Maybe also an XL engine to put in the extra heatsinks, as now I would have crit room for the XL.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

It looks like the real solution would be to put R&R back in the game and give people a reason to take the lower grade stuff in. Cheaper to repair = more money in pocket. Singles would balance out along with not taking endo and ferro upgrades, or even Artemas. I know I would never pilot my poor raven again as it is way to expensive (ok, only when i really just want to zoom around the field and kill lights...) and would instead pilot my centurions which have next to no upgrades.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Allekatrase,

You are entitled to your opinion. I would say that you takenanfallacious approach anytime you admit to only reading PART of something, then forming an opinion based on only partial information. If, when you are awake, you read the conversation in it's entirety, you still feel that way, then we simply fail to remotely see eye to eye. That is hardly the end of the world.

As for my "idealized" stance, I counter what in print information is there to counter it, or prove the stance of my opposing number? Picking a pic based off our opinion is equally fallacious EITHER way. The difference is that since this games inception, the Devs have expounded on some deep community warfare model. While flawed, and easily taken advantage of, factions, and R&R were clear indications of that approach to a meta.

Exactly why and how things have been changed in the grand plan, I dare say no one seems to know. As of now, we have an extremely limited option beta, which leaves some current game options seemingly pointless. That said, what little info we get still points more toward a persistent economy game, with biddable contracts and assignments, as opposed to this pointless multiplayer teamdeathmatch that the counter argument keeps alluding too with their reasoning.

If that is idealistic, so be it. Better that than to assume the ship is already sunk, and argue pointless over epeen details that would be moot anyhow if MWO is as far off track, and doomed as chicken little would have us believe.

[Protection]

I'm really not sold that RnR is a good solution. It just means that the gap between high level players - who now have hundreds of millions of C-Bills and care nothing for costs of any kind - and low level players is even wider.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Nathan

*sigh*

I can hear the cries already..... Econo.ybis a horrible way to balance a game!!

Yet, oddly no one actually posts by numbers, facts or studies to back this stance. And even with people gaming the 75% rearm, I sure remember a lot less boating and maxtech builds floating around. We all had some, but tended to save them for special occasions. The obvious fix, of course would simply he to remove the auto 75%, and balance it so while doesn't get insta-rich, one also only lostnmoneynon egregiously max teched out boats, which is how it should be.

But you will never get the progamer brigade to believe it. Even if they have never actually pulled out any sort of proof it is automatic fail.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

That's what the elo system is for. Also that would be a matter for the matchmaking system to be changed to deal with (if you are one of those people who don't like elo or think its not working...), not necessarily a problem with the gear at that point. Also think of it from the more lore end. Would a mechwarrior just starting out have the best mech in the universe? most times they started in something that barely worked. the laser was off kilter, the arm only swayed so far, and the jump jets sometimes would just fart out useless fuel instead of propelling you into the air.

Put it in more of a real world issue. When you bought your first car (yes, you buying, not parents) was it a brand new Ferrari or was it the old beat up rust bucket that you could afford at the time? As in the real world you need to work for the better stuff and not have it handed to you on a silver platter.