210 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 29 April 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

Here are 2 from the first page, that my criticisms are accurate for. If you would explain how you would see it implemented, I will address yours directly.

I might be able to agree with you on the actual ability to balance weapons if you have the standpoint that PGI is incapable of it. But balancing weapons that have different characteristics has been done before, and it is not impossible. You can certainly get it close enough that the choice between weapon x and weapon y is a choice in preference.

I shoot MLs pretty pinpoint. If you cannot, that doesn't make it impossible, just your accuracy needs work. I also never said they were pin point. You added that.

I never played TT, and I am more inclined to think that a less restrictive gives more choices. I only commented on the 8Q because he said "from TT" on something that is totally false.

I am also not going to talk about what teams did. I have recordings of what teams actually did, and have been recording competitive matches for several months. I don't need a false lesson on what you thought they did, I have plenty of experience in it.

I like the game quite a bit actually. I did develop one of the first theory crafting tools for MWO in CB, and I still support it to this day. I just think it could be improved, mostly by weapon balance and heat caps to buff DPS. The last thing I want is TT online or BT online.

I am trying to determine what above statements was pointed at my comment.

I am going to assume the comment about the AWS-8Q.

Regarding the less restrictions leads to more choices, this is fallacy. If you removed all hardpoint restrictions, which of the 50t mechs would you play? I would be inclined to say either the Centurion or Trebuchet would win out due to zombying or jump jets. The Hunchback would fall behind due to silhouette (large torso sections).

The same could be infered to weapons. Without any hardpoint restrictions, you would see 12 Small Laser Jenners running around at 152kph.

The argument is that when there is an increase in choices, more builds become invalid due to more fine tuning of engine/heatsink/armor/weapon damage ratio can be found. As choices become restricted, some builds that were once invalid becomes valid due to the invalidating build in the unlimited choice becomes impossible to actually equip.

[3rdworld]

DeadlyNerd, on 29 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

So during the weekend you DON'T have the time to defend your view but during the weekdays you DO even though a normal human being would be too busy working/education and then relaxing to bother with some forum troll that is telling you you're wrong.

By logic you either hate relaxing, OR you're not working or educating yourself.

Different jobs. And robits aren't important enough for me to get off you mother long enough to respond.

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 29 April 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Not a super fan of 1 weapon and such. I just would rather there be a reason to want to not run a boat, than being forced to by a more restrictive hardpoint system. Specifically when you can just subvert the system by using a natural boat. With correct balance factors I believe I could promote varied (meaning not just stacking a single range or weapon), without stricter hardpoints.

That is a good counter argument against the suggestion.

But isn't the "natural" boat generally at some disadvantage because of physical size?

So far, all the "natural" boats are actually oversized in their section that boats.

The AWS-8Q is large in size, all around, for an 80t mech.

The HBK-4P has an oversized RT.

The Catapult's ears are extremely easy to hit.

That trend could easily continue for any other boats coming forward.

Working along that same arugment, if weapons were balanced without any new hardpoint restrictions, how do you balance the HBK-4P and AWS-8Q when comparing the HBK-4H and Stalker, respectively?

I guess you could do the "chassis" qirks that PGI is curently implementing. That helps in a pinch but isn't not enough of a restriction to have a large meaning in overall gameplay unless it's a huge difference (STK-3F vs. all other Stalkers).

The Stalker could be balanced to the Awesome if tonnage was implemented. Which, again, I think PGI is doing with the lobby system by allowing 4 mechs to be readied but only allows 200t. So 2 Atlai or 4 50t mechs or any other combination inbetween. Again, I am not sure if that is enough of a gameplay difference.

Edited by Zyllos, 29 April 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[3rdworld]

Zyllos, on 29 April 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

I am trying to determine what above statements was pointed at my comment.

I am going to assume the comment about the AWS-8Q.

Regarding the less restrictions leads to more choices, this is fallacy. If you removed all hardpoint restrictions, which of the 50t mechs would you play? I would be inclined to say either the Centurion or Trebuchet would win out due to zombying or jump jets. The Hunchback would fall behind due to silhouette (large torso sections).

The same could be infered to weapons. Without any hardpoint restrictions, you would see 12 Small Laser Jenners running around at 152kph.

The argument is that when there is an increase in choices, more builds become invalid due to more fine tuning of engine/heatsink/armor/weapon damage ratio can be found. As choices become restricted, some builds that were once invalid becomes valid due to the invalidating build in the unlimited choice becomes impossible to actually equip.

Hunchback hitboxes are garbage, you will get no disagreement from me. With an unlimited hardpoint system, I would assume the JJs would also be unlimited. At which point it would be preference, but min/maxing would eventually find the one with the most advantageous silhouette.

But we don't have an unlimited system. So the choice is actually: Are more restrictions good? Looking at the fact that 9/10 new mechs are obsolete due to hardpoints or engine restrictions, you can see my hesitance.

And would a 12 small laser jenner be much worse than the 6ML jenner? It is already too hot to do much, and the 12SL would be worse.

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 April 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 29 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Hunchback hitboxes are garbage, you will get no disagreement from me. With an unlimited hardpoint system, I would assume the JJs would also be unlimited. At which point it would be preference, but min/maxing would eventually find the one with the most advantageous silhouette.

But we don't have an unlimited system. So the choice is actually: Are more restrictions good? Looking at the fact that 9/10 new mechs are obsolete due to hardpoints or engine restrictions, you can see my hesitance.

And would a 12 small laser jenner but much worse than the 6ML jenner? It is already too hot to do much, and the 12SL would be worse.

But that is in the current system is where the issue is stiming from for the reason why some mechs are obsolete, not because of the proposed system of more restrictions.

And the 12 small laser Jenner is more heat efficient while dealing more damage over a shorter amount of time:

Medium Laser:
6 x 5.0 damage = 30 damage
6 x 4.0 heat = 24 heat
@ 4.0s = 7.5 DPS / 6.0 HPS

Small Laser:
12 x 3.0 damage = 36 damage
12 x 2.0 heat = 24 heat
@ 3.0s = 12.0 DPS / 8.0 HPS

The only drawback is 1/3 the range but people already fight at that range on Light fighting so that their angular velocity to too high for heavier target's and smaller engined light's torso twist speeds.

Edited by Zyllos, 29 April 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[3rdworld]

Zyllos, on 29 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

But that is in the current system is where the issue is stiming from for the reason why some mechs are obsolete, not because of the proposed system of more restrictions.

I don't follow how some restrictions hurt variation but more restrictions help variation. In a no customization scenario there would be very few viable options. The stock mech would need DHS, decent weapons,decent armor, decent engine, decent hitboxes, etc, very few of these actually exist.

On a scale of no customization to unlimited customization, the # of choices flows from very few to many, as with unlimited customization preference is the only determining factor (assuming a balanced system).

You are trying to make it out to be some form of a curve were stock = less and full customization = less, while many restrictions = more and our current system is somewhere over the hump leaning to full. I don't see it that way.

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 April 2013 - 12:01 PM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

It says in the quote "but instead of 1 MG you could not mount an AC/10." So it is a hardpoint limitation based on the crits of the stock equipment. I doubt you actually read it, or maybe just skimmed.

I didn't read it. I presumed no one would say anything as ridiculous as what you interpreted. It appears that I was correct.

Quote

Last time I played an FPS they allow you to have a back-up weapon.

And MWO doesn't since it not only allows, but forces you to use all of your weapons simultaneously or else you lose match damage and dps.

Quote

Not a super fan of 1 weapon and such. I just would rather there be a reason to want to not run a boat, than being forced to by a more restrictive hardpoint system. Specifically when you can just subvert the system by using a natural boat. With correct balance factors I believe I could promote varied (meaning not just stacking a single range or weapon), without stricter hardpoints.

I have yet to see a single suggestion that is remotely feasible or healthy for the game that prevents boating outside of hardpoint restrictions. Do you have a suggestion?

Quote

I would say it is different enough. Regardless of the map the player using the submachine gun had a role as did the player using the LMG. The entire goal is to kill the enemy, so making sure the different ways to do that are viable is the most variation you can ask for.

Both LMGs and ARs in CoD function around midrange pull and pop fire cycles and don't allow for down rail aiming in surprise scenarios forcing you to spray and pray. The larger DPS of the LMG is counteracted by its larger spray and both end up being functionally identical in how they're actually played. Ergo the "variety" brought by having two weapon groups is insubstantial. It's visible but not experiential variety. That's pretty much what MWO has now.

Quote

How did I dodge your question? I said CoD had meaningful variation, perhaps not at the MLG level (which MWO will never achieve), but for the general population, it is quite a bit.

CoD is a very minimally customize able game compared to MWO, doesn't use multi weapon systems, has kill streaks, is purely based off of respawn and 1 shot kill gameplay, and is thoroughly dissimilar to MWO in almost every regard outside of its camera angle. If that's the closest you could think of then your point that "other games balance this fine" is nonsense since you have no examples of any similar game doing it well. The very fact that we're talking about simultaneous multi weapon balance and your only example doesn't have that is telling.

Quote

So you don't have any actual idea what teams were doing or when. But I bet internet forum warrior Shumabot, could have saved this game from the cretins.

I'll do you one better! I don't CARE what a minuscule fraction of the games community was doing. They're not representative of anything outside of their own comped 8v8 environment. You don't use a tiny outliar to gauge the health of the community and you apparently haven't been engaging with the community at large. Which one of us is less representative of the community? The guy that hides in his token sync drops or the one that doesn't?

Quote

Na, I will just keep responding to you. I would miss you to much.

I'm adorable.

Edited by Shumabot, 29 April 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I have yet to see a single suggestion that is remotely feasible or healthy for the game that prevents boating outside of hardpoint restrictions. Do you have a suggestion?

ya. put in a Heat Hard cap and double dissipation(would need testing for actual numbers).

example. 40 base heat cap .25DHS dissipation

4 ppc stalker can fire 1 alpha of (32) heat and will dissipate 12 heat before the cooldown ends. Assuming it is standing still it now has 20 heat. Another alpha and it overheats or it can continue to fire 2 ppcs until it reaches 24 heat ( around 4 more 2 ppc shots) at which point it will overheat.

Using 5 PPCs would immediately cause shutdown.

Using 3 ppcs & 15 or so heatsinks would overheat you once you reached 16 heat about 40%ish and you will overheat after the 5th or so alpha, not a whole lot different than what we have currently, but instituting JJ heat that always increases the level instead of just takes it to a certain % could be used to keep tarts either staggering or shutting down faster.

The stalker using just 3 ppcs would either have LRMs or SRMs back ups, as it won't be insta killing brawlers closing and it would need to do something with the tonnage.

Thus High heat alpha is checked, and with correct weapon balance changes you can give people an incentive to carry a more traditional BT loadout.

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 April 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

ya. put in a Heat Hard cap and double dissipation(would need testing for actual numbers).

Materially damages the use of ANY weapons used together, not just boated weapons. This would basically remove pulse weapons from the game entirely and to even remotely work would require every heat causing weapon in the game to be rescaled.

That said, I actually do advocate what you're suggesting. One of the larger issues with the metagame is heat capacitance allows most small mechs to be killed before the heavier mechs overheat. The problem there is that it's a broad brush that hurts small mechs much larger than big ones and disproportionately buffs SRM/ballistic boating while artificially tamping down laser and LRM usage.

Quote

Using 5 PPCs would immediately cause shutdown.

Using 5 PPCs is already a bad idea, the best stalker uses 4 and the best highlander 3 with a gauss rifle. You're math stops overuse of PPCs but increases their incidental sustained alpha damage in platforms that can boat enough capacitance.

Quote

Using 3 ppcs & 15 or so heatsinks would overheat you once you reached 16 heat about 40%ish and you will overheat after the 5th or so alpha, not a whole lot different than what we have currently, but instituting JJ heat that always increases the level instead of just takes it to a certain % could be used to keep tarts either staggering or shutting down faster.

Then they just boat PPC+gauss.

Quote

The stalker using just 3 ppcs would either have LRMs or SRMs back ups, as it won't be insta killing brawlers closing and it would need to do something with the tonnage.

LRMs have a very high heat per second and you'll just see more sinks rather than the SRMs because the SRMs are dead weight when the PPCs are use correctly, and more sinks means more PPC dps (the core of boating).

Quote

Thus High heat alpha is checked, and with correct weapon balance changes you can give people an incentive to carry a more traditional BT loadout.

You just proposed 3 largescale changes, one to jump jets, one to heatsinks (ignoring double heatsinks), and one to weapon scaling. To be even remotely viable this would require rescaling the heat of every weapon in the game, dramatically changing how double heat sinks work, and writing new code adjusting how jump jets interact with the rest of the game. I'm not actually against this change, but all it does is marginally damage PPC boating and LRM60.

Lets see how it shakes out:

PPC boating: somewhat lowered first strike alpha dps, greatly increased dps past 10 seconds
SRM boating: more powerful
ac20 boating: more powerful
LRM baoting: LRMs vanish since they're useless unless boated
laser boating: non viable
mixed loadouts: still bad

You didn't fix the core issues, you're just tamping down on PPCs, and this is with a change I actually advocate (and think is really needed). You didn't address what makes boating good and you're never going to because you're endlessly dancing around the actual reasons because you either fundamentally don't understand them or because you really truly believe something else can be done. Either way you're off base, the boat mechs are still the best mechs, and 3/4ths of the games mechs are materially worse than the rest because they can't use identical weapons in multiplicity.

Anyway, you're strawmanning and ignoring most of my posts. Anyone else have anything interesting to comment on from my posts? Right now it just seems like 3rd vs the world.

Edited by Shumabot, 29 April 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

So. Still the best balance idea out there.

[tenderloving]

Here's what I've gathered on the different possibilities, from least restrictive to most restrictive. I'll use a PPC-sized hardpoint as an example.

1. MW4 style system: Hardpoints with a maximum weapon SIZE but no maximum weapon COUNT. Our hardpoint could carry 1 PPC, 1 Large Laser and a Medium Laser, or 3 Medium Lasers/Small Lasers.
-My opinion is that this system is not restrictive enough and will just lead to the boating of small weapons.

2. Hardpoints within hardpoints. There will be a maximum sized weapon (PPC) that can be placed, as well as a number of mini-hardpoints within that can be used. If there are 3 total slots and 2 hardpoints, you could take a PPC on this hardpoint, or 2 Medium Lasers, or a Large Laser and a Medium Laser
-This system blunts the boating of small weapons, and also restricts the boating of large weapons. My opinion is that it's too complicated.

3. Hardpoints with maximum sizes but no minimum sizes. You can have ONE PPC or ONE Large Laser or ONE Medium Laser on this hardpoint. You can always go down in size but never up.
-This is my favorite because It's simple and effective at stopping exploits from either side of the spectrum.

4. Hardpoints with maximum AND minimum sizes. I've only seen a handful of people who have proposed this one, but it is often used by opponents of the idea as a poor argument to debunk the entire concept. In this case we could have a PPC or a Large Laser but nothing smaller.
-This method overly limits customization and doesn't really make sense. There's nothing technically wrong with it but I don't think it's necessary to prevent people from picking up some secondary weapons when the # of hardpoints limits small weapon boating.

2 and 3 are the most popular, but inevitably 1 and 4 are what opponents of the idea try to argue against (this thread is an example) because they either don't do enough or do too much.

Edited by tenderloving, 29 April 2013 - 05:41 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

...

Nice...
thanks for the summary.

I think variant a mix of 2-3 has the most potential.
But I would add four additional types of hardpoints:

• electronic warfare (AMS, TAG, NARC, ECM, BAP)
  
• Anti Infantry (Flammer/Machine Gun - or any AntiInfantry weapon possible (SRM 2, Recoilless Rifle, Support PPCs)
  
• Mixed Type (Ballistic/Energy)
  
• Jump Jets

The Mixed Type would allow some unique Mechs like the 8S Stalker or the Striker (Awesome)
EW Slot will allow the A1 to become a more specific Mech with Hardpoint restricitons - because in all other terms the C4 will be the better Mech.

Hm... I think we should think about what modification should be permited- wich modifications should vanish?

[Lefteye Falconeer]

I think this is the way to go. In fact, I am surprised they didn't use this since the get go. I guess it's because the team was too small to care about it and with so little mech when beta started they wanted people to be able to play with the mechlab as much as they could. But now things are different. As pointed out the no-size system is making 'mechs all the same. There's no real variety, or not enough, and actually even building 'mech is kind of dull since there aren't enough parameters to play with.

Hardpoint sizes not only would help PGI balancing the game and some builds better than now, but more importantly it would make all 'mechs different and unique. The way things are now, it doesn't matter how many 'mechs they are gonna add in the future, they will all be very very similar to each other. We need more "quirks", and hardpoint sizes would be a great one.

[MustrumRidcully]

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Materially damages the use of ANY weapons used together, not just boated weapons. This would basically remove pulse weapons from the game entirely and to even remotely work would require every heat causing weapon in the game to be rescaled.

Why does it remove pulse weapons?


One thing this game should get off as fast as possible is the high desirability of firing all weapons together. I get why everyone wants to do it. It's advantagous. Aim once, hit with n weapons. THat's great. But it's killing mixed weapon loadouts completely. Why use an ER Large Laser and a PPC together? Yeah, they have the same range, but the PPC fires as a projectile, the ER LL is a hit-scan beam with duration. You can't fire them together. So 2 PPCs or 2 ER Large Lasers it is, never a mix.
And if you deliver 40 damage in one shot as a sniper, if the enemy is surprised, that's 40 damage he didn't see coming and could't react to if. If you deal 40 damage in 3 shots as a sniper, at least the 2nd and 3rd shot is something the defender can react to - maybe not outrun it, but at least twist his torso so the 2nd and 3rd go somewhere else.

A low heat capacity achieves that very few weapons - if any - can be fired together anymore. It doesn't per se encourage people to run mixed weapon and versatile loadouts, but at least if you want to, you've got less drawbacks. (Essentially, the only remaining might be that the timing between weapons is inconsistent, and that you need to account for different weapon properties like range and projectile speed or beam duration and not mix up things.)

[Chief 117]

The game needs this so desperately I can't even describe it

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Materially damages the use of ANY weapons used together, not just boated weapons. This would basically remove pulse weapons from the game entirely and to even remotely work would require every heat causing weapon in the game to be rescaled.

The entire idea of the system is to reduce weapons fired together. It is designed to reign in alpha warrior online, a play style that will never lead to varied builds.

Heat would not be as effected as you think. With a 40 cap, .25 DHS dissipation, most builds would remain unaffected with pretty similar overheat times. The trip ppc gauss would overheat on the third PPC alpha. Which is nearly identical to how it plays today. Lighter mechs would actually be running quite a bit cooler, and could likely drop a DHS or 2 for more weapons.

I am not sure how you figure pulses will somehow be worse. They are already unused wasted assets. They don't have enough bonus over their standard less weight, less heat variants. This is totally not on topic but IMO if you want to make pulses good, drop the duration to .25secs or less.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

That said, I actually do advocate what you're suggesting. One of the larger issues with the metagame is heat capacitance allows most small mechs to be killed before the heavier mechs overheat. The problem there is that it's a broad brush that hurts small mechs much larger than big ones and disproportionately buffs SRM/ballistic boating while artificially tamping down laser and LRM usage.

Without actual figures it is difficult to say how much or how little it hurts lights. A Jenner D with 4 Mlas & 2 Streaks would need around 8 alphas to overheat. That is probably more than it takes at the moment, and is considerably more than it would really need. This would let lighter mechs drop HS to increase weapons or engines. Were heavier mechs would now desire to use more HSs and could not alpha as much. That certainly sounds like a trade off that favors lighter mechs.

Buffing ballistics isn't a bad thing. There are no mechs that can really boat that many of them to be an issue. The best mech for it (jager or CTF-4x) I doubt are on anyone's list as OP. Buffing brawlers (srm users) is also not a bad thing. Lasers are debatable. Lasers generate their heat over time, not instantly like ballistics and missiles. A large laser for example has a 1 second beam duration, which for this system is an additional 1 second of dissipation, that effectively lowers the impact lasers have on your limited capacity.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Using 5 PPCs is already a bad idea, the best stalker uses 4 and the best highlander 3 with a gauss rifle. You're math stops overuse of PPCs but increases their incidental sustained alpha damage in platforms that can boat enough capacitance.

what do you mean by sustained alpha? 3 ppcs will overheat around 3-4 alphas, about what it does now. Anything under that level of heat generation would be receiving a buff. In a hard cap system the cap would not change per heatsink or per mech. More heatsinks only allows you to generate more Heat Per Second, but the limited cap keeps you from doing that in an alpha strike fashion.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

LRMs have a very high heat per second and you'll just see more sinks rather than the SRMs because the SRMs are dead weight when the PPCs are use correctly, and more sinks means more PPC dps (the core of boating).

you cannot run enough heat sinks to alpha more than twice in this system. If the PPC stalker wants to stand out in the open, shoot 2 wait a second and shoot 2 more. I would consider that a vast improvement over hill pop-alpha boats. Additionally, any pressure on the PPC boat is likely deadly because it is so easy to overheat. 4 ppcs will become what 6 are today. a pub stomper that anyone who knows how to kill, are unafraid of.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

You just proposed 3 largescale changes, one to jump jets, one to heatsinks (ignoring double heatsinks), and one to weapon scaling. To be even remotely viable this would require rescaling the heat of every weapon in the game, dramatically changing how double heat sinks work, and writing new code adjusting how jump jets interact with the rest of the game. I'm not actually against this change, but all it does is marginally damage PPC boating and LRM60.

The JJ was just a thought experiment. I would like to just see a heat cap put in and Dissipation buffed and see the outcome before I started worrying about poptarts. I think the system might make them a little to hot to be used in anything but the 2 regular ppc and gauss combo. with brawlers having much less heat issues, they might be obsolete in any match where they are not supported by their team, or carrying some form of back up brawling weapon(s).

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Lets see how it shakes out:

PPC boating: somewhat lowered first strike alpha dps, greatly increased dps past 10 seconds
SRM boating: more powerful
ac20 boating: more powerful
LRM baoting: LRMs vanish since they're useless unless boated
laser boating: non viable
mixed loadouts: still bad

1: not addressed by hardpoint caps
2: not addressed by hardpoint caps
3: impossible with hardpoint caps
4: LRMs create very little heat per second and are excellent back up weapons in this scenerio. Them sucking hard, and being wasted tonnage is not the purpose of the change, also not addressed by hardpoint caps
5: incorrect, allowed by hardpoint caps, but still not viable (I thought you wanted to stop boating?)
6: not addressed by hardpoint caps.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

You didn't fix the core issues, you're just tamping down on PPCs, and this is with a change I actually advocate (and think is really needed). You didn't address what makes boating good and you're never going to because you're endlessly dancing around the actual reasons because you either fundamentally don't understand them or because you really truly believe something else can be done. Either way you're off base, the boat mechs are still the best mechs, and 3/4ths of the games mechs are materially worse than the rest because they can't use identical weapons in multiplicity.

Anyway, you're strawmanning and ignoring most of my posts. Anyone else have anything interesting to comment on from my posts? Right now it just seems like 3rd vs the world.

Its cool that none of that will change with hardpoint caps. With stock mechs that boat, you are never going to address the issue with hardpoint caps. Pretending it will is foolish.

If you want to stop boating, give people an incentive to not boat, forcing them to do it on certain mechs, will just make them use those mechs. Though the heat change in question is not designed to get people to carry an LRM 10 back up for instance.

How am I straw manning? You asked for a system and I was under the impression we are talking about stalkers boating ppcs. I have given you a system that reigns in alphas, and makes boating many high heat weapons difficult.

It has been me vs the world in this thread for quite some time.

MustrumRidcully, on 30 April 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

It doesn't per se encourage people to run mixed weapon and versatile loadouts, but at least if you want to, you've got less drawbacks.

That is actually an excellent point. If you shift the meta towards more DPS orientated, you are going to see engagement window's increase.

That will buff the chance of LRMs making it to the target, or increase their ability as area denial.

Edited by 3rdworld, 30 April 2013 - 06:01 AM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

The entire idea of the system is to reduce weapons fired together. It is designed to reign in alpha warrior online, a play style that will never lead to varied builds.

Heat would not be as effected as you think. With a 40 cap, .25 DHS dissipation, most builds would remain unaffected with pretty similar overheat times. The trip ppc gauss would overheat on the third PPC alpha. Which is nearly identical to how it plays today. Lighter mechs would actually be running quite a bit cooler, and could likely drop a DHS or 2 for more weapons.

I am not sure how you figure pulses will somehow be worse. They are already unused wasted assets. They don't have enough bonus over their standard less weight, less heat variants. This is totally not on topic but IMO if you want to make pulses good, drop the duration to .25secs or less.

I agree that it would reduce weapons firing together at their maximal, but you're doing this math for PPC boating alone and increasing the power of every other non pulse boated build in the game (outside of lrm60) through much greater sustained damage. Reducing a stalkers alpha from 40 to 30 but increasing its ability to fire continuously (one less ppc two more dubs and better heat recovery) just shifts the problem. Players will just find the optimal alpha to dissipation rate and will have increased dps with lower incidental first shot alphas. It helps with ridgewarrior and poptarting to a marginal degree (well, it doesn't really effect poptarts since 3ppc+goose has plenty of time to cool down), but doesn't really help with how quickly fights end or how ranged alpha builds are still going to be dominant.

I'd have to see the gameplay effect for lasers, they're alphad more than PPCs because by their nature and range they need to maximize their dps as fast as possible rather than lazily sniping when opportunity arises. I'd wait to see how ACs play out before saying whether a heat buff to them is meaningfull. It only really effects the ac2.

Quote

Without actual figures it is difficult to say how much or how little it hurts lights. A Jenner D with 4 Mlas & 2 Streaks would need around 8 alphas to overheat. That is probably more than it takes at the moment, and is considerably more than it would really need. This would let lighter mechs drop HS to increase weapons or engines. Were heavier mechs would now desire to use more HSs and could not alpha as much. That certainly sounds like a trade off that favors lighter mechs.

I'd be more concerned for 6ml jenners, LL spider builds, or whatever the flea ends up being. The Jenner D benefits from having half of its weight in low heat missiles, but most can't do that.

Quote

The JJ was just a thought experiment. I would like to just see a heat cap put in and Dissipation buffed and see the outcome before I started worrying about poptarts. I think the system might make them a little to hot to be used in anything but the 2 regular ppc and gauss combo. with brawlers having much less heat issues, they might be obsolete in any match where they are not supported by their team, or carrying some form of back up brawling weapon(s).

Without the JJ heat change your scaling change doesn't materially damage 3ppc+gauss highlanders who tend to have longish cooldown times between firing anyway. It tamps down on ppc and LL stalkers, certainly. Keep in mind I'm actually for your change. I've advocated that exact thing plenty of times in the past. I think it's needed.

Quote

1: not addressed by hardpoint caps
2: not addressed by hardpoint caps
3: impossible with hardpoint caps
4: LRMs create very little heat per second and are excellent back up weapons in this scenerio. Them sucking hard, and being wasted tonnage is not the purpose of the change, also not addressed by hardpoint caps
5: incorrect, allowed by hardpoint caps, but still not viable (I thought you wanted to stop boating?)
6: not addressed by hardpoint caps.

I have yet to see an actual hardpoint size system that doesn't automatically address hex srm6, lrm60, quad-hex ppc, and non jager ac40. Stop using the worst possible hardpoint system that you clearly misinterpreted to represent the whole.

Quote

Its cool that none of that will change with hardpoint caps. With stock mechs that boat, you are never going to address the issue with hardpoint caps. Pretending it will is foolish.

Where the hell are you getting the idea that none of that change with a hardpoint size scale? The one poster that you keep strawmanning? Stop it. You're arguing in bad faith again and it's obnoxious. At a very basic level hardpoint size scaling is arbitrary and totally at the discretion of the games developers, there is no conceivable way that it can't address these issues and by it's intended existence would do that as a default.

Quote

If you want to stop boating, give people an incentive to not boat, forcing them to do it on certain mechs, will just make them use those mechs. Though the heat change in question is not designed to get people to carry an LRM 10 back up for instance.

I don't think you understand what opportunity costs even are anymore. You've clearly never addressed any of the actual causes of boating and I don't think you're even capable of doing so now.

Quote

How am I straw manning? You asked for a system and I was under the impression we are talking about stalkers boating ppcs. I have given you a system that reigns in alphas, and makes boating many high heat weapons difficult.

Your system to fix stalker PPC boating makes every other form of boating in the game better and doesn't address poptart boating. You are strawmanning a non existent hardpoint limitation system no one proposed and just repeating ad nauseum that weapon balance fixes boating when inter-weapon balance and boating HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER. You aren't engaging the people who disagree with you and you're just framing their arguments to suit yourself. Stop it.

Quote

It has been me vs the world in this thread for quite some time.

Well at least you're making it easier on yourself by being disingenuous with your arguments and making up other peoples.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

I agree that it would reduce weapons firing together at their maximal, but you're doing this math for PPC boating alone and increasing the power of every other non pulse boated build in the game (outside of lrm60) through much greater sustained damage. Reducing a stalkers alpha from 40 to 30 but increasing its ability to fire continuously (one less ppc two more dubs and better heat recovery) just shifts the problem. Players will just find the optimal alpha to dissipation rate and will have increased dps with lower incidental first shot alphas. It helps with ridgewarrior and poptarting to a marginal degree (well, it doesn't really effect poptarts since 3ppc+goose has plenty of time to cool down), but doesn't really help with how quickly fights end or how ranged alpha builds are still going to be dominant.

Sustained damage is spread damage. Spreading damage increases fight times. You really have an issue with a 30 damage alpha from a 85 ton mech?

Pushing a high heat alpha mech is likely a dead alpha mech. They don't kill you in 1-2 shots (assuming they are not chilling at zero heat), and they are dead. It butchers the ability for these mechs to be used for anything other than a niche sniper.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

I'd be more concerned for 6ml jenners, LL spider builds, or whatever the flea ends up being. The Jenner D benefits from having half of its weight in low heat missiles, but most can't do that.

LL spiders? are you kidding me? using doubles I doubt it would ever overheat. And it is a complete waste of a mech, using a bad build. Not my greatest concern.

The 6ML jenner could alpha 3 times if it shot on CD. waiting ~2/3s of a second bumps that to 4, plenty for a light with a 30 damage alpha.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Without the JJ heat change your scaling change doesn't materially damage 3ppc+gauss highlanders who tend to have longish cooldown times between firing anyway. It tamps down on ppc and LL stalkers, certainly. Keep in mind I'm actually for your change. I've advocated that exact thing plenty of times in the past. I think it's needed.

It doesn't stop them from tarting, just makes them much more vulnerable to closing.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

I have yet to see an actual hardpoint size system that doesn't automatically address hex srm6, lrm60, quad-hex ppc, and non jager ac40. Stop using the worst possible hardpoint system that you clearly misinterpreted to represent the whole.

And I have yet to see you post a proposal. And I did not misrepresent it, you have no reading comprehension. He said pretty clearly 7 Mgs can fit in an AC/10 slot, but 1 AC/10 cannot fit in a MG slot. Meaning that stock weapons size sets a crit limit for the hardpoint, any number of weapons can fit in that hardpoint as long as they don't exceed the crit limit.

You still don't fix SRM boating sure you cannot run 5(assuming you are basing your limit on # of weapons and size) but there are tons that can run 4, allow 3 ppc boating that without additional changes becomes the best build, and AC/40 jagers are a joke.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Where the hell are you getting the idea that none of that change with a hardpoint size scale? The one poster that you keep strawmanning? Stop it. You're arguing in bad faith again and it's obnoxious. At a very basic level hardpoint size scaling is arbitrary and totally at the discretion of the games developers, there is no conceivable way that it can't address these issues and by it's intended existence would do that as a default.

Hey man, want me to argue against your version of Hardpoints. Grow some balls and post your proposal, I have asked you before, but I guess a paragraph on how you think it should be done is too much to ask.

What is actually arbitrary are basing available loadouts to stock mechs, when the entire point of the game is not running stock mechs. It is cute you think hardpoint caps stop boats. It doesn't, might lower severity of them, but I doubt that will be enough for you.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

I don't think you understand what opportunity costs even are anymore. You've clearly never addressed any of the actual causes of boating and I don't think you're even capable of doing so now.

The entire point of lower heat caps is opportunity cost and forcing a trade between alpha and dps.

I never addressed stopping boating because I don't think its an issue, but the system will certainly force boats to either stagger their fire, or overheat. Which increases viable loadouts through dps being a better stat than it is currently and high alpha boats being worse. Which is exactly what it is intended to do. Numbers and such would need to be tested to find exactly where it should be of course.

It also pre-nerfs the huge heat energy boat alpha clan mechs, coming soon.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Your system to fix stalker PPC boating makes every other form of boating in the game better and doesn't address poptart boating. You are strawmanning a non existent hardpoint limitation system no one proposed and just repeating ad nauseum that weapon balance fixes boating when inter-weapon balance and boating HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER. You aren't engaging the people who disagree with you and you're just framing their arguments to suit yourself. Stop it.

The 6 srm A1 could alpha 3 times before it overheat. Anything boating anything would need to stagger its fire, and lower its alpha in order to be effective at all. Shifting towards DPS makes varied non alpha builds better.

Weapon balance has everything to do with boating. Why do people not run 4 ERppcs? it isn't because they don't want the range.

As I have said, I will engage your ideal solution directly when you post it. Until then I will have to use others.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Well at least you're making it easier on yourself by being disingenuous with your arguments and making up other peoples.

Hey, post yours and I will address it directly. Until then.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Sustained damage is spread damage. Spreading damage increases fight times. You really have an issue with a 30 damage alpha from a 85 ton mech?

Pushing a high heat alpha mech is likely a dead alpha mech. They don't kill you in 1-2 shots (assuming they are not chilling at zero heat), and they are dead. It butchers the ability for these mechs to be used for anything other than a niche sniper.

Considering how, in real terms, little this actually does, no. It doesn't "butcher" anything outside of the dude ridgehumping with 5 PPCs. The head spread isn't much of an answer to the alpha meta when it only reasonably nerfs one good build (4ppc stalker) and leaves the majority of highlanders and 3Ds alone while only materially redistributing the stalkers damage, not really even reducing its DPS.

Quote

LL spiders? are you kidding me? using doubles I doubt it would ever overheat. And it is a complete waste of a mech, using a bad build. Not my greatest concern.

The 6ML jenner could alpha 3 times if it shot on CD. waiting ~2/3s of a second bumps that to 4, plenty for a light with a 30 damage alpha.

So we're only materially considering the impact of the system on a single light mech now (the D) in order to push a system that only materially partially nerfs one single popular build and we're saying its ok across everything? Also, this doesn't do anything to boating (still).

Quote

It doesn't stop them from tarting, just makes them much more vulnerable to closing.

How..? You lose a small measure of capacitance but the moment your heat cooling becomes equivalent to one round of alpha your damage actually increases. Losing a single ppc shot to avoid overheat once and then having your damage spread increase past 10 seconds isn't really going to hurt them very much.

Quote

And I have yet to see you post a proposal. And I did not misrepresent it, you have no reading comprehension. He said pretty clearly 7 Mgs can fit in an AC/10 slot, but 1 AC/10 cannot fit in a MG slot. Meaning that stock weapons size sets a crit limit for the hardpoint, any number of weapons can fit in that hardpoint as long as they don't exceed the crit limit.

Lets go over all the ways you're being an *****. Firstly, how about that 10 ML awesome you pulled out of thin air. If we assume a conversion rate of 7MGs to 1 ac10 that's a conversion rate of ~.5/2 tons. Ergo a "large laser slot" could hold ~1.25 medium lasers, this allows an awesome at its maximal capacity to hold ~8.75 mediums. But what if it had an ac20? Can that slot then hold ~9 machine guns? How is that even a conversion rate then, that pre supposes a final state to build the basis of its own equation.

And yet you're running with that nonsense like a little kid running with scissors poolside and making stuff up all along the way.

Quote

You still don't fix SRM boating sure you cannot run 5(assuming you are basing your limit on # of weapons and size) but there are tons that can run 4, allow 3 ppc boating that without additional changes becomes the best build, and AC/40 jagers are a joke.

Your ability to read nonsense between the lines of a two line explanation of a system that doesn't even make coherent sense in the first place and wasn't represented as a system but rather an individual example inside of an unexplained system is amazing. This is what creationism looks like.

Quote

Hey man, want me to argue against your version of Hardpoints. Grow some balls and post your proposal, I have asked you before, but I guess a paragraph on how you think it should be done is too much to ask.

What is actually arbitrary are basing available loadouts to stock mechs, when the entire point of the game is not running stock mechs. It is cute you think hardpoint caps stop boats. It doesn't, might lower severity of them, but I doubt that will be enough for you.

I'll just restate the most common proposal.

There are two kinds of hardpoints, large and small and two kinds of weapons, large and small.

Large laser, PPC, ERPPC, Pulse/erLL = large
The rest of the energy weapons = small

A stalker has 2 large energy hardpoints on its flippers and the rest are small, ergo it can have two PPCs and numerous smaller backups weapons. An awsome has 3 large, ergo it can have 3 PPCs and numerous small weapons. This is the change that makes the "big arm gun" not a terrible detriment to a mech because it materially matters.

LRM 15/20, SRM6 = Large
Lrm5/10, streaks, srm2-4 are = Small

A cat A1 would have 6 small missile hardpoints allowing for numerous LRM5/10's or up to 6 SRM4's. Effective loss of two SRM6's from its previous 36 srm cap. This prevents LRM60 entirely.

Large scale ballistic hardpoints meaningfully prevent dual goose or ac40 catapaults with empty ears.

Quote

What is actually arbitrary are basing available loadouts to stock mechs, when the entire point of the game is not running stock mechs. It is cute you think hardpoint caps stop boats. It doesn't, might lower severity of them, but I doubt that will be enough for you.

It's cute that you've clearly never run into the idea of hardpoint sizes before and are pretending you know what you're talking about.

Quote

I never addressed stopping boating because I don't think its an issue

Then why are you here? The entire point of hardpoint sizes is to prevent homogeneity in builds through boating.

Quote

The 6 srm A1 could alpha 3 times before it overheat. Anything boating anything would need to stagger its fire, and lower its alpha in order to be effective at all. Shifting towards DPS makes varied non alpha builds better.

Stop conflating boating and "firing their weapons". It makes you sound stupid. Anything firing a lot of guns overheats quicky, boating mechs will STILL BE BETTER during that interim period before overheat because their maximizing their dps, hitting in the most intended and precision areas, and have the best engine and heat tolerances for their specific conflict range.

Quote

Hey, post yours and I will address it directly. Until then.

Many proposals have been listed in this thread and you chose the most nonsensical to strawman repeatedly. You're a troll, but i posted the most common suggestion for you.

[tenderloving]

3rdworld if you want to start a thread about a capacitance system or nerfing the PPC then start a thread. This suggestion/poll thread is about sized hardpoints. There are plenty of other threads you could be posting in instead of derailing this one.

The hardpoint system fixes problems that are not related to heat, or any particular weapon. A hardpoint size system is a tool that the devs can use to easily balance the game, add variety to mech builds, and prevent a host of future issues that will crop up.