85 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

There we are again...

• Its the PPC some said
  
• No, the PPC is fine its the Heat
  
• No, others said...its the boating
  
• No, its the boating of PPCs on specifc Mechs
  
• No, its the boating of PPCs on jump capable Mechs
  
• No, its high Alpha Strike damage
  
• No, its convergence
  
• No, its the lacking of MechLab limitation for loadouts

I'm not sure if I got all those ideas....

Lets make a break - just for a minute - think about...what could MWO look like...when all those people would have used instead of a NO - Yes, and additional.....

[Soulscour]

Karl Streiger, on 24 April 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

There we are again...

• Its the PPC some said
  
• No, the PPC is fine its the Heat
  
• No, others said...its the boating
  
• No, its the boating of PPCs on specifc Mechs
  
• No, its the boating of PPCs on jump capable Mechs
  
• No, its high Alpha Strike damage
  
• No, its convergence
  
• No, its the lacking of MechLab limitation for loadouts

I'm not sure if I got all those ideas....


Lets make a break - just for a minute - think about...what could MWO look like...when all those people would have used instead of a NO - Yes, and additional.....

The only thing that has changed in the game that made PPC usage so prevalent was the heat decrease. I think if they reverted PPC heat back to its previous levels , people would play PPC less but more than prior to the buff. AC 20 builds and Large laser boating would then be the next thing people constantly complain about. Its a endless cycle.

[Denno]

We need all those ppc's to leg the immortal Cents we encounter.

[MustrumRidcully]

Rhent, on 23 April 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Seeing as the General forum is dead, lets talk about Mechs boating PPC's?

How about the PRO's and CON's of allowing 60 Alpha Strikes to certain Mechs (Stalker but not the but not Atlas) other Mechs?

Pro - you only need 3 alpha strikes to core an Atlas. (And good aim). No need to worry about heat efficiency.
Con- you only need 3 alpha strikes to core an Atlas.

Pro - It shows the culmination of flaws of MW:O adaptation of the table top rules - convergence + heat mechanics
Con - We actually have to live through the flaws

[Karl Streiger]

Soulscour, on 24 April 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

The only thing that has changed in the game that made PPC usage so prevalent was the heat decrease. I think if they reverted PPC heat back to its previous levels , people would play PPC less but more than prior to the buff. AC 20 builds and Large laser boating would then be the next thing people constantly complain about. Its a endless cycle.

Well the Large Laser Stalker will follow its presuccessor the PPC Stalker.
The JumpSniper will got some heat issues...that will hardly be more worse as they are for the PPC Stalker now
As you said it there will be just other kind of weapons that used in masses and Alpha Strikes will cause "abnormal" combat experience

[MajorLeeHung]

Ill take my 2xLL ac20 3xSRM6+art D-DC over 6 ppc's any day of the week

[MustrumRidcully]

Soulscour, on 24 April 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

The only thing that has changed in the game that made PPC usage so prevalent was the heat decrease. I think if they reverted PPC heat back to its previous levels , people would play PPC less but more than prior to the buff. AC 20 builds and Large laser boating would then be the next thing people constantly complain about. Its a endless cycle.

Are you sure that was the only change? I remember:
People tried 6 PPC Stalkers before the change, after the change, and it only recently gained popularity, after a severe missile nerf that removed the alternative long-range weapon platform from the game, and severely hurt brawler offensive abilities as well.

I also would point out that those Hexa-Stalkers and what not are not heat efficient at all. They overheat basically on the second salvo. How much will raising the heat really change things here? Will it add another second a PPC Sniper has to stay in cover before popping off another alpha?

I remember people complaining aobut the Splatapult (90 damage alpha) and the Whackapult and Dual AC/20 Jagermechs (40 damage alphas) and even further back, in Closed Beta, the Gaussapult (30 damage alphas)

Isn't the problem perhaps acutally that the alpha potential in this game is too high, which is aided by convergence and the heat system. The heat system only punishes sustainability of firepower, but does nothing to stop alphas. You have a giant heat capacity. but the heat system is not the only thing to blame. Ballistic weapons will never have the type of heat issues that PPCs have. But give me an assault that can carry 3 Gauss Rifles (or even just 2 AC/20s and some additional weaponry), and you'll see people complain about it.

The problem is this game does have mechanics in play that makes alpha strikes a good idea, and almost none that provide drawbacks to alpha strikes. Convergence means our alphas hit the same spot. Heat capacity means energy-heavy loads are best off front-loading all their damage - kill the enemy before you shutdown and if necessary, wait for 10 seconds between shots.

---

I wish PGI could go back to the drawing board and think some of these aspects through.

Here's my new guideline on how to adapt table top stats to a real time game with mouse aiming and convergence
1) Any converted weapon can deal no more damage per shot than the critical slots it occupies.
2) Table Top Damage and Heat Values are used as a basis for all damage and heat values of a mech, but adjusted in accordance to the rate of fire. So if the PPC fires every 5 seconds, it would need to deal 5 damage and 5 heat per shot.
3) The rate of fire is now selected so that rule 1 is observed
Results after the first 3 steps:
Small Laser: 1 damage and 0.3 heat every 3.33 seconds
Medium Laser: 1 damage and 0.6 heat every 2 seconds
Large Laser: 2 damage and heat every 2.5 seconds
PPC: 3 damage and 3 heat every 3.33 seconds
Clan ER PPC: 2 damage and 2 heat every 1.33 seconds
AC/2: 1 damage and 0.5 heat every 5 seconds
AC/5: 5 damage and 1 heat every 10 seconds
AC/10: 7 damage and 2.1 heat every 7 seconds
AC/20: 10 damage and 4 heat every 5 seconds
Gauss Rifle: 7 damage and 0.47 heat every 4.66 seconds
Clan Gauss Rifle: 6 damage and 0.4 every 4 seconds

4) now adjust to taste. Some weapon might not be worth their weight anymore in a game with convergence and mouse aiming, some weapons were never good to begin with. You might also want to put weapons on more standardized recycle rates, and avoid recycle rates longer than 5.
(...)
Next steps would be adjusting the heat capacity of mechs (and any heat penalties you want to add) based on the typical heat load of mechs. For example, if most recycle times are below 5 seconds, it would serve well to lower the max heat cap down from 30 to 15.


This ensures that no mech can exceed a certain "ceiling" in terms of alpha damage output, and there is less point in building an alpha-strike boat. The maximum number of weapon-useable slot is less than 50, but if you keep hard points in play, this wil never be reacheable. A 6 PPC mech would now have only an 18 damage alpha. You don't even need double armour to deal with this.

It also has other gameplay effects - a fast striker that sweeps in and out like a Jenner could still have a sizeable alpha strike ability utilizing many smaller, light weight weapons, but he'd lose in a sustained engagement. That would probably help a lot in balancing the weight classes.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 April 2013 - 01:04 AM.

[Voidcrafter]

Soulscour, on 24 April 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

The only thing that has changed in the game that made PPC usage so prevalent was the heat decrease. I think if they reverted PPC heat back to its previous levels , people would play PPC less but more than prior to the buff. AC 20 builds and Large laser boating would then be the next thing people constantly complain about. Its a endless cycle.

Well yea...certainly making a weapon useless again would make the game feel better you know...
That's why I pointed the flaw in the hardpoint system(the one that allows you to carry 3+ PPCs or 3+LL or more than 1 AC20 or Gauss, or 3+SRMs without applying some penality), cause ending that would probably end the cycle you're talking about.
Even if they make the "BIG" guys useless people would mount mechs that can go boating with small weapons - hunchback 4P, the stalkers, AWESOME 9Q, etc. and this would og on and on and on.
Me?
I personaly like to pilot my Cataphract 3-D with 2xUAC5s and 4xMeds the best.
Or my 3xPPC 3xMed. Laser AWESOME.
Or my 2xSRM6 4xMed. Laser Hunchback 4SP.
Or my 2xSRM6, 2xMed. Laser, 2xUAC5s Jagermech.
I don't find them overpowered, I would like to use another word for them(well probably if you exclude the 4SP) - VERSATILE.
Fun. Ballanced.
I think the game should push you toward making such builds, so you can have a competitive gameplay while facing someone else who's not went boating cause that's the most logical path in the game itself.
But that's just me you know...

[Soulscour]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 April 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

Are you sure that was the only change? I remember:
People tried 6 PPC Stalkers before the change, after the change, and it only recently gained popularity, after a severe missile nerf that removed the alternative long-range weapon platform from the game, and severely hurt brawler offensive abilities as well.

I also would point out that those Hexa-Stalkers and what not are not heat efficient at all. They overheat basically on the second salvo. How much will raising the heat really change things here? Will it add another second a PPC Sniper has to stay in cover before popping off another alpha?

I remember people complaining aobut the Splatapult (90 damage alpha) and the Whackapult and Dual AC/20 Jagermechs (40 damage alphas) and even further back, in Closed Beta, the Gaussapult (30 damage alphas)

Isn't the problem perhaps acutally that the alpha potential in this game is too high, which is aided by convergence and the heat system. The heat system only punishes sustainability of firepower, but does nothing to stop alphas. You have a giant heat capacity. but the heat system is not the only thing to blame. Ballistic weapons will never have the type of heat issues that PPCs have. But give me an assault that can carry 3 Gauss Rifles (or even just 2 AC/20s and some additional weaponry), and you'll see people complain about it.

The problem is this game does have mechanics in play that makes alpha strikes a good idea, and almost none that provide drawbacks to alpha strikes. Convergence means our alphas hit the same spot. Heat capacity means energy-heavy loads are best off front-loading all their damage - kill the enemy before you shutdown and if necessary, wait for 10 seconds between shots.

---

I wish PGI could go back to the drawing board and think some of these aspects through.

Next steps would be adjusting the heat capacity of mechs (and any heat penalties you want to add) based on the typical heat load of mechs. For example, if most recycle times are below 5 seconds, it would serve well to lower the max heat cap down from 30 to 15.


This ensures that no mech can exceed a certain "ceiling" in terms of alpha damage output, and there is less point in building an alpha-strike boat. The maximum number of weapon-useable slot is less than 50, but if you keep hard points in play, this wil never be reacheable. A 6 PPC mech would now have only an 18 damage alpha. You don't even need double armour to deal with this.

It also has other gameplay effects - a fast striker that sweeps in and out like a Jenner could still have a sizeable alpha strike ability utilizing many smaller, light weight weapons, but he'd lose in a sustained engagement. That would probably help a lot in balancing the weight classes.

That is a long post but let me address some of what you've just said from what I've experienced in gameplay. There is a big difference between firing 6 PPC and overheating immediately out in the open to firing them and being able to then duck behind cover to cool off (add in dual coolshot for a second shot). Then there is the added time that you wait to cool off that is a big strategic difference when as a sniper your goal is to do as much damage before they can close the distance. Firing one or two less shots would critically change the sniper metagame. As for your plan I'm not going to go over all your numbers and how you think they can convert tabletop rules and would much rather focus discussion on the current system that is being used. I'm certain there will not be that drastic change as you have suggested and do not see the problem as bad that everything needs to be overhauled.

[MustrumRidcully]

Soulscour, on 24 April 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

That is a long post but let me address some of what you've just said from what I've experienced in gameplay. There is a big difference between firing 6 PPC and overheating immediately out in the open to firing them and being able to then duck behind cover to cool off (add in dual coolshot for a second shot). Then there is the added time that you wait to cool off that is a big strategic difference when as a sniper your goal is to do as much damage before they can close the distance. Firing one or two less shots would critically change the sniper metagame.

But not all of t hose snipers are using 6 PPCs. That's the big boogeyman. But the first famous poptarter was the Cataphract, and it uses only 2 PPCs and 1 Gauss Rifle*. The Highlander is also best suited for a Gauss Rifle + PPC combination.

The 6 PPC guy might lose a bit. But these other builds? Not really.

And if we ever get some assault that can carry 2 Gauss and 1-2 PPCs? How much heat do you want to add to the PPC to compensate for that? (Or how much would you need to add to the Gauss)

*) Or am I misremembering and it's 2 Gauss, 1 PPC?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 April 2013 - 02:16 AM.

[Relic1701]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 April 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

Words

I was with you up until the 'PGI should go back to the drawing board' section.

On the whole, I think weapon balance is roughly in the area it should be at the moment, and they should really stay there until some other issues are addressed first...i.e. Heat penalties, convergence, ECM etc.

Once those few issues have been sorted, then we can move back to weapons for a quick once over, no point in changing weapons, only to change them again after other things are changed.

[Karl Streiger]

Relic1701, on 24 April 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

I was with you up until the 'PGI should go back to the drawing board' section.

On the whole, I think weapon balance is roughly in the area it should be at the moment, and they should really stay there until some other issues are addressed first...i.e. Heat penalties, convergence, ECM etc.

Once those few issues have been sorted, then we can move back to weapons for a quick once over, no point in changing weapons, only to change them again after other things are changed.

Naaaahhh.... the problem is that the HRS alone is a big balancing issue. Even when you move back to the beginning of MWO weapon balancing, the conclusion of how weapons have to work will be a complete different one.

The question is: is it the weapon or is it the enviroment.
However i would also look at the enviroment istead of moving only few figures.
Alternative is a complete reset of weapon stats - restart balancing again

[MustrumRidcully]

Relic1701, on 24 April 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

I was with you up until the 'PGI should go back to the drawing board' section.

I am not saying they should. I wish, but I believe it's unfeasible at this point. The challenge is finding other solutions. And maybe the other challenge is convincing them that there are even problems to solve in the first place. It took them long enough for the Machine Gun, it can't always be a struggle of those proportions!

Quote

The question is: is it the weapon or is it the enviroment.
However i would also look at the enviroment istead of moving only few figures.
Alternative is a complete reset of weapon stats - restart balancing again

My vote is more the environment, but part of that environment is very fundamental. It's a boogeyman for now, that 3-4 (Clan?) Gauss Rifle Assault mech, but if you hope to only ever avoid this by never putting out a mech that could pull it off... I think we'll have to find a way to deal with 60 damage alphas without neutering weapons left and right.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 April 2013 - 02:31 AM.

[Voidcrafter]

Karl Streiger, on 24 April 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Naaaahhh.... the problem is that the HRS alone is a big balancing issue. Even when you move back to the beginning of MWO weapon balancing, the conclusion of how weapons have to work will be a complete different one.

The question is: is it the weapon or is it the enviroment.
However i would also look at the enviroment istead of moving only few figures.
Alternative is a complete reset of weapon stats - restart balancing again

I have a better idea everyone!!!
Why don't they add tons of other weapons, so the players get alot more confused of what is good(or the best) choice and what is just O.K.
I think this "misguided" people would bring very interesting ideas for building up mechs and would make the game tons of times more colorful.
Yea - I know - it's a twisted way to look at the word "ballance" but the more variety actually does that.
And I've seen it work this way countless of times.
In this game too - way back when it went "open beta" - people were doing exactly that, putting some things you can clearly call "weird" on their mechs, making their mech a situational effective one - which does not sacrifice the kills that much and still is fun.
Now all the players are getting use to the mechanics of the game, developing a feel for what's good and what bad, adapting, making it more and more of the same built mechs on the battlefield.
10 more weapons would totally wack the crap outto this boating issue

[Karl Streiger]

Voidcrafter, on 24 April 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

I have a better idea everyone!!!
Why don't they add tons of other weapons, so the players get alot more confused of what is good(or the best) choice and what is just O.K.
I think this "misguided" people would bring very interesting ideas for building up mechs and would make the game tons of times more colorful.
Yea - I know - it's a twisted way to look at the word "ballance" but the more variety actually does that.
And I've seen it work this way countless of times.
In this game too - way back when it went "open beta" - people were doing exactly that, putting some things you can clearly call "weird" on their mechs, making their mech a situational effective one - which does not sacrifice the kills that much and still is fun.
Now all the players are getting use to the mechanics of the game, developing a feel for what's good and what bad, adapting, making it more and more of the same built mechs on the battlefield.
10 more weapons would totally wack the crap outto this boating issue

No problem with this: you can turn each weapon available into 3 weapons of that kind....(ok MG and Small Laser would be difficult) ...1 that is smaller and more fragile while dealing less damage and another kind that is larger and bigger dealing more damage.
PLUS you can add a slider were people can choose between RoF vs Damage...higher RoF = smaller Damage per Shot.
That will result in 93 weapons each individuell configurable

[Voidcrafter]

Karl Streiger, on 24 April 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

No problem with this: you can turn each weapon available into 3 weapons of that kind....(ok MG and Small Laser would be difficult) ...1 that is smaller and more fragile while dealing less damage and another kind that is larger and bigger dealing more damage.
PLUS you can add a slider were people can choose between RoF vs Damage...higher RoF = smaller Damage per Shot.
That will result in 93 weapons each individuell configurable

On the minus side of our idea...
You know... the game is kinda enough confusing already for people who are just starting it without any mech knowledge at all
I myself could count as one few months back - if you cut the "Mechcommander" games I've played...
Mech upgrades, weapon weights, armor adjustments, modules, hardpoints, pilot trees, weight classes, XL-engines, DHS and HS, putting the ammo at the right places... putting "optimal" amount of ammo at the first place... not being terribly heat ineffitient, meeting all the cheesy builds while passing the test with all the above mentioned...
I forgot few major or minor ones(like long explanation about BEAGLE, ECM, ranges, trajectory and all sort of stuff) - but that's *some* of the stuff a new(or not) player to this universe, franchize(more like fran*CHEESE* at the moment he he) encounters, when he thinks for the first time "DAAAM... FINALY I'LL BUY MY OWN MECH AND I'LL OWN A BOUGHT MECH... THE HELL IS OVER!!"...
Nope... you've just stared at Hell for so long that now...
Hell stares back at you

Edited by Voidcrafter, 24 April 2013 - 02:55 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Voidcrafter, on 24 April 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

On the minus side of our idea...
You know... the game is kinda enough confusing already for people who are just starting it without any mech knowledge at all
...
Nope... you've just stared at Hell for so long that now...
Hell stares back at you

They could just keep the Standard Rated...equipment....and are still competetive
Anything else is just personal taste...
to have a heavy grade Medium Autocanon that can deal more damage....is not better as a Standard Grade Medium Autocannon...You pay with weight and crit for that extra damage.

Wait one...have a example table for ballistic weapons (PLEASE Replace in the column GUN the 20 with Very Heavy, 10 with Heavy, 5 with Medium and 2 with Light) Additional the Heat and damage values are increased over actual standard values

[Joseph Mallan]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 23 April 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

I have to agree with OP.
Yesterday I played my 6 PPC Stalker for 2 games and I got 2 wins and 5 kills with over 350 dmg each...then I switched back to my brawler HGN bcuz it was like cheating .

This statement confuses me. Defeating your enemies in a quick decisive contest feels like ... Cheating?

Reminds me of a discussion I had with a Martial Art instructor once.
He was demonstrating a choke maneuver.

ME: Why doesn't he just break your Elbow? It is vulnerable.

INSTRUCTOR:He will lose points or be disqualified.

ME: But He'll be able to get up off the bar floor unharmed.

Cheating would be using something that allows you to defeat the physics of the game. Building a legal platform of destruction isn't cheating, it's just effective.

[MadCat02]

Rhent, on 23 April 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Seeing as the General forum is dead, lets talk about Mechs boating PPC's?

How about the PRO's and CON's of allowing 60 Alpha Strikes to certain Mechs (Stalker but not the but not Atlas) other Mechs?

There are many troll builds which handicap you . How is this any different from 4x uac, double ac20 , 6 srmsx3 or 5 lasers + 5 steaks ?

[Voidcrafter]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 April 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

This statement confuses me. Defeating your enemies in a quick decisive contest feels like ... Cheating?

*Some other deep, but not completely related stuff*

The DEVs pointed few times, that this game is aiming toward the strategic thinking and thus the doubled armor and etc.
So the mechs aint supose to go down that fast you know?
The problem is that when there's a build that can two-shot anything from about 70-700m people fail to see a reason to play anything else.
And I, regretably, get them
But that results in a large number of exactly the same two-shotting everything builds, which pushes the game toward a faster-paced(and for obvious reasons - flamed for inballanced) game which is noted to not be inteded by it's creators.

I mean... If I was deeper in the TT and BattleTech(which I am not, but the rest of the sentance is still an issue for me), AND developer of this game it would never come to mind to me, that people will go nuts about boating and loading 3+ PPCs on a mech, or the fact that poptarding would be such of an issue...
I get that.
But still this does not make it neither inteded nor fun

Edited by Voidcrafter, 24 April 2013 - 05:48 AM.