267 replies to this topic

[Ralgas]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

First of all, the only official comment you've made on the subject of PPC/Gauss boating is one that states you are investigating a wide-reaching, disasterous heat-mechanic change. You deserve every bit of outrage that you may receive. You've not said, "oh, we're thinking of adjusting the range," or "perhaps we need to increase heat," or "maybe the PPC just isn't heavy enough," or "gauss ammo/ton doesn't promote a true sniper." The only thing you've said about it is something fantastically foolish.

You'll note that I linked the thread. It is important for players to express their opinions about this, though. Your idea is extremely foolish and I am pretty certain you have not thought it through, or sufficiently tested it. You guys keep failing harder and harder at weapon balance.

I'm glad you want to address the huge alpha mechs. Your approach is so bad, it belongs on a wall of shame. If you didn't want outrage then you should have explained why players shouldn't be concerned about their perfectly reasonable 9 ML Hunchback or 4 SRM6 Stalker.

EDIT: Also, Paul, I truly believe you guys do not understand why PPCs are so effective. You need to look at the way damage from PPCs, AC/20, Gauss, etc is delivered when they crit; and to understand that concentrated damage on one armor section is far more powerful than a wandering beam-duration weapon. So far, there is no indication you've really considered this.

FURTHER EDIT: For players, note that the Paul response isn't "hrm, maybe our idea could use some work," or "we are also looking at other approaches." It is basically a claim that I've mis-represented him, which is not true. Click the thread linked in my original post.

That's just it though, the parts he and i quoted states they haven't fully tested it, instead you're paraphrasing and doing the exact opposite of the what the thread suggests. The post above even has a feedback link where this could have been left. Threads like this are a pretty good example of why pgi doesn't really like sharing with us.

Now all of that said, As i've left in other threads including the feedback one, my solutions would be....

* Dump heat containment from the mech trees (-20% to current heat caps)

* add the heat dmg penalties for shutdown mechs above 120% heat (as per override dmg)

* make 140% a hard cap on heat at with point you blow the motor ala out of bounds.

Edited by Ralgas, 18 May 2013 - 01:18 AM.

[armyof1]

It's too early to get upset over the heat multiplier tests since we don't know what the results and changes that will come from the test will be. There's been no mention of all weapons getting the same heat penalty, whether medium lasers or PPCs so basically all we know is the devs are testing such a system but not how it will be the same or different heat penalties when firing multiples of the same weapon. So really we know nothing as of now, let's wait and see what kind of decisions will come from the tests first.

[Hammerfinn]

Holy **** people, and you wonder why they don't post more details about what they're considering?

If you want clear and constant communication form the devs, ask cordial and topical questions instead of instantly flaming. If I was in development on this game, I'd simply ignore all of you.

And I'm a 7th grade teacher. They have more ******* maturity than many posters here. Be ashamed.

[Ralgas]

armyof1, on 18 May 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

It's too early to get upset over the heat multiplier tests since we don't know what the results and changes that will come from the test will be. There's been no mention of all weapons getting the same heat penalty, whether medium lasers or PPCs so basically all we know is the devs are testing such a system but not how it will be the same or different heat penalties when firing multiples of the same weapon. So really we know nothing as of now, let's wait and see what kind of decisions will come from the tests first.

Ere we go!! Someone got it

[Tahribator]

Way to call out a dev and call them stupid when they reply to you. Paul, why do you take this bitter troll seriously when there are civilized threads begging for attention?

As you may have inferred, I support the proposed nerf. Boating is what's unbalancing this game. As long as you can put 3+ of the same weapon in a mech, they will take the most effective weapon and boat it. Any little advantage will be multiplied. Be that Missile, Ballistic or Energy. Throwing the meta off once again.

Obviously the proposed changes will affect other mechs as well, but the effect can be tuned for lighter energy weapons. This will discourage high alphas and encourage DPS gameplay for the first time in MWO.

[jeffsw6]

Karl Split, on 18 May 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

No id disagree with that. A lot of brawler builds are pretty good at managing heat, I dont think that would mess with them too much, unless they were boating brawler builds themselves.

Many players are also good at managing heat, by keeping it just under 100%. If they suddenly have to keep it under 50% to be able to aim, that will dramatically impact sustained combat (brawling) while placing absolutely zero penalty on stand-off mechs, who are currently the most powerful.

Keep in mind that it is likely LRM-boating will make a big come-back soon, too. Yet another thing to make brawlers QQ.

[Zaptruder]

I wish people would stop suggesting that messing with heat was the correct way of solving an alpha strike issue.

Because you're screwing with all the weapons just to maybe have a chance at fixing one set of weapons. Why would you do that? Why?

And when that weapon family is only a symptom of the primary problem, what's the point?

[jeffsw6]

Ralgas, on 18 May 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

That's just it though, the parts he and i quoted states they haven't fully tested it, instead you're paraphrasing and doing the exact opposite of the what the thread suggests.

No, I'm explaining why the one and only change they are discussing, in response to PPC-boating, is game-breaking for brawlers and ineffective against pop-tarters.

Paul didn't say "we're looking at several things, like changing heat and range, a heat multiplier when several identical weapons are fired in a short interval, etc." He only said the last part. All indications are that the only thing they're even considering is going to make the problem WORSE, not better.

[Thomas Covenant]

Paul Inouye, on 18 May 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

Um... who said ANYTHING about a gauge to watch? Are you confusing heat scale (which is a heat penalty that increases over time or some other factor) with an actual HUD element?



So you want heat modifications to help fix PPC's? This is what a heat scale is. It's also unique to weapons. Some weapons will hardly see a problem... some others will see larger penalties.


And one other thing you haven't noted in my original post:

"Forgot about the level of assumptions that would be made about the PPC change.

Let me clarify, this is not a change to "nerf" boating/high alpha builds/"poptarting". It's a change to put the refire rate of the PPC back in line with the rest of the large energy weapons."

That all sounded good but the last part, what are you saying? "We are doing nothing to help with boating/high alpha builds/"poptarting" so don't get ahead of yourself and complain that we are not."

[Adrienne Vorton]

Zaptruder, on 18 May 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Through an energy system: Engine rating = energy capacity. Energy use = dmg x 10. energy recharges to full in 2 seconds. 15/30/50 energy use for walking/running/jumping.

Naturally limits alpha strikes to engine/10. The larger the alphastrike, the less tonnage you have to carry the weapons for alpha striking... so you'll either have to give up weapons, engine/alphastrike or heatsinks/ammo/armor.

actually i thought about something similar...

[Zylo]

Paul Inouye, on 18 May 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

Um... who said ANYTHING about a gauge to watch? Are you confusing heat scale (which is a heat penalty that increases over time or some other factor) with an actual HUD element?



So you want heat modifications to help fix PPC's? This is what a heat scale is. It's also unique to weapons. Some weapons will hardly see a problem... some others will see larger penalties.


And one other thing you haven't noted in my original post:

"Forgot about the level of assumptions that would be made about the PPC change.

Let me clarify, this is not a change to "nerf" boating/high alpha builds/"poptarting". It's a change to put the refire rate of the PPC back in line with the rest of the large energy weapons."

I'm still concerned that heat scaling won't do enough to discourage boating and encourage weapon diversity since the larger maps make long range weapons far more desirable now than they were in the past when the heat was lowered on the PPC/ERPPC as well as the 3 types of large lasers.

What reason does a player have to take shorter range weapons when another player boating PPCs can do a significant amount of damage to a single point? Sure they might be more heat efficient but getting close enough on the large maps isn't always easy and the PPC boat might only need 1 or 2 shots to score a kill. The heat scaling might be a more effective fix if the total heat capacity was also lowered with dissipation rate increased to make DPS builds more competitive with high alpha builds.

It's at least a step in the right direction and I know the fixes being considered aren't final.

I guess I just miss the game balance before all the PPC boating started when games were actually fun. It seems the combination of missile changes, larger maps, lower PPC heat and the coolant flush consumables have made the PPC boats far more common than they should be.

Edited by Zylo, 18 May 2013 - 01:48 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Asmudius Heng, on 18 May 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

Why could you not reply to the dozen of other non flame bait threads with civilised and interesting discussion about why high alpha boating is detrimental to the game ....

I have to agree. This just sets a bad precedent. I mean, it's obviously extremely tempting and natural to want to reply to a thread with your name in the title, but if you do it only for those, you'll end up having countless of such threads.

Joining discussions is a great idea. You need to share more of your thoughts, give more insights into the reasoning for decisions, because we're often at a loss why you believe certain approaches could work. Maybe you have a point we haven't seen. Maybe you do not. More back & forth communication would be nice.

But more... "casual": Don't react to posts personally addressing you, unless you want to see the forum full of such posts.

[Roadbuster]

Paul Inouye, on 18 May 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

@jeffsw6: If you're going to quote me, please at least complete the quote. "Investigation items are not locked in and are exactly that... thoughts and tests. Do NOT go flying off the handle about how this won't work or that won't work until we make an official post."

Did you consider testing some of the other ideas how to reduce alpha/boating which are discussed here in the forums?
And if not, what was the reason?

It would be nice to get some more information about what you guys are planning, or your reasons for considering a certain adjustment.
Like this change to PPCs/alpha/boating. Why do you think this is the best sollution?

[Thomas Covenant]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 May 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

I have to agree. This just sets a bad precedent. I mean, it's obviously extremely tempting and natural to want to reply to a thread with your name in the title, but if you do it only for those, you'll end up having countless of such threads.

Joining discussions is a great idea. You need to share more of your thoughts, give more insights into the reasoning for decisions, because we're often at a loss why you believe certain approaches could work. Maybe you have a point we haven't seen. Maybe you do not. More back & forth communication would be nice.

But more... "casual": Don't react to posts personally addressing you, unless you want to see the forum full of such posts.

Agreed. I wouldn't be helping to bump this threat if it wasn't Paul's choice, even if TC did make some good points behind all the flame and rudeness. 1st world problems much?

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 18 May 2013 - 02:01 AM.

[aniviron]

Karl Split, on 18 May 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

Perhaps cone of fire on jumpjetting Rhent?

In fact cone of fire in general may be a good idea, in Battlefield 3 stopping dead and taking your time with a shot is a lot better than charging out there gung ho firing madly, and this is supposed to be a tactical shooter after all.

I can see this working out just greaaat for lights.

[Fooooo]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

They need this feedback. I'm glad that Paul has read & replied, but I am discouraged that he is, so far, just defending his idea and digging his heels in; instead of discussing any other alternatives they are considering, or telling us why we should not be concerned about 50 other builds that aren't OP.
....snip!.

I don't believe he is digging his heels in.

Yes his first 2 replys may have seemed a little heated / defensive (which is somewhat a no no for a dev.....no hard feelings paul), however he has posted in the CC post and over the forums that its just an idea.....

Probably one of many that have been floating around the office over there, many of which are probably taken from the forums believe it or not, or at least influenced a little by them.

Him only saying that particular one may not have been the wisest choice, but he did add after that it is just an idea and they will probably test it out just to see what happens......along with all the other ways they would like to check out.... (not on the live server of course, but internal. The eventual PTR will hopefully also see these types of ideas tested I'd say)

So he is right, in that you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the idea he posted is the one they have chosen, and that its exactly designed like that & set in stone. You should most definitely still give feedback about what you think of it....which has happened, just don't treat it like its the only idea or coming instantly next patch when they have said otherwise.

[MCXL]

Paul,

PREAMBLE: First off, I am not trying to be hostile, understand that since founding I have spent quite a bit more, I like the game, and I like PGI, yadda yadda. If you think I sound mad or anything while reading this, send me a message, I will bake you a cake or something because honestly, I am having fun with MWO, and I am here for the long haul, there just are some gameplay design decisions that concern me about the long term health of the game, particularly at a high level of play.

I don't understand the lack of desire to reduce the accuracy of weapons (at range in particular) at all. At this point there are two things that makes time to kill per engagement noticeably shorter than usual.

1. Enemy makes a choice to be more fragile - XL engine, Low armor load out etc.

2. Pinpoint burst capability of damage 30 or higher.

I know that people complained a lot about the dual Gauss load outs, and now are complaining about the AC/20 builds but I think that most of that comes down to the sheer repeat ability of the burst damage.

There is no doubt that there is a huge amount of satisfaction for a player that is running a 40+ damage alpha build in landing a hit on a component, but at what cost to the game? Right now there are several diverse builds available to this type of play, but they all roughly have the same effect, cutting down the power level of the enemy team.

What counter play does this system offer, other than don't get hit? Not getting hit is an option for very few players realistically, particularly so now that hit detection has improved immensely from closed beta. I think the scariest part about that though is that I still have many PPC hits look like they hit and not register (My average ping is 60-70). Once the HSR system works 99% instead of 60-75% like it is now a player who like myself is only moderately skilled will be able to land these shots fairly reliably on anything but the smallest fastest mechs.

If just one alpha strike fully lands on a component of a small, medium, some heavies, and with the really high damage builds, some assaults immediately reduce a component to low health. When I am playing with these mechs I feel so confident in the high alpha, that I am now targeting the enemy mechs offensive capability. With a 40 damage alpha I can completely eliminate all the armor on a hunchbacks gun. That means I only have to hit one more time to take out that AC/20, and reduce his threat level very significantly, making him unable really to respond. He loses 25 damage if I take out that torso section, and with 2x AC/20's I can do that in about 4.5 seconds very reliably in range. I'm assuming that I miss with one of the 4 shots I have in that time, that's where the extra .5 seconds come from.

I know that a high design level goal is to make it so players don't feel that the game is trying to punish them for having skill, but at this point there is still a lot of RNG in the game, except in the one area where it would show up on screen, and while the argument can be made that it is less dissatisfying feeling when you don't see it happening, it is there. Critical hits, and ammo/weapon explosions are extremely random and problematic from a competitive perspective.

If the rationale is that the near perfect convergence is there to promote skilled play, and prevent randomness from punishing good players, then why does a Gauss Rifle explode 90% of the time. Why not 100%? It's pretty punishing if I blow up a Gauss and it does no damage to the mech, but the last 7 times it did. Ammo sometimes explodes, sometimes doesn't and sometimes it cascades and just blows up the whole mech. I know that CASE prevents all this stuff in the torso components, but then why not have it ALWAYS HAPPEN if they don't have case? Isn't that a skilled thing, to use case to prevent ammo explosions? Why reward a player for not equipping an item that specifically is meant to protect them from something so catastrophic?

I understand if say you wanted to make the system weapon dependent say Lasers couldn't destroy guns, only ammo, and each shot only damaged one slot at a time, or whatever etc. The system doesn't have to be visible to be understandable and predictable. I like the idea of machine guns and flamers shredding internals, but why not make it more predictable and logical.

MG, x (3? 5?) mg bullets destroy one crit slot at a time, per section, no ammo explosion.
Flamer every full (x) seconds of flamer damage causes one ammo pack to detonate in exposed areas from cook off.

Boom!


What I got when I Googled ammo explosion.

Those are predictable, reliable damage effects that do interesting and individual things to the weapon system that make them more valuable, particularly to skilled players.

Hmm, I seem to have strayed a bit off my main point, which was convergence.

If you look at the way the arms and torsos of the mechs move as they lumber along, there is just no way that they would be able to maintain accuracy as they moved through the battlespace. That is fact based on what PGI has done with the mech animations, and realistically is one of the major drawbacks of a vertical tank layout. You gain all sorts of other versatility but you do lose that cushy smooth ride a tank (or in the future HOVERTANK) has. That means that you lose the ability to shoot guns perfectly accurately while moving.

I have thought about this a lot, and I get that PGI doesn't want just a big *** cone of fire, and sometimes you hit and sometimes you don't, that isn't what I want either. I propose a few possible changes that would drastically increase TTK without hurting DPS overall in most situations, heat scaling (another topic I have gone in depth on) and would maintain a skill based game play experience.

• Modify convergence rate
  
• Movement aim penalty
  
• Very small cone of fire
  
• Magic

And here comes the anticlimactic part, I am at work, and I've spent all my free time typing, but it is time for me to actually work now, because we go live in 50 minutes. I'll come back to this as soon as I can.

I love the game Bryan, Paul, & Co. and just want to help make it better.

God, my posts always end up so long when I talk about this game.

[jeffsw6]

Fooooo, on 18 May 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

I don't believe he is digging his heels in.

Yes his first 2 replys may have seemed a little heated / defensive (which is somewhat a no no for a dev.....no hard feelings paul), however he has posted in the CC post and over the forums that its just an idea.....

He hasn't said they are even considering any other ideas. He has dug his heels in. I don't see any post saying, "here is why we think it won't cripple the 9ML HBK or 49 other common builds that are not OP." All he did was try to brush off the entirely legitimate criticism I've directed toward their plan by claiming that it isn't set in stone, without offering any insight into what alternatives they are considering.

That sounds to me like it is, in fact, set in stone; otherwise they would have ... some other idea to offer. They evidently don't!

MCXL, on 18 May 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

Modify convergence rate

Remember that nerfing convergence rate will handicap brawlers far more than ranged mechs.

The arc that an aimed weapon has to travel is huge to adjust from 300m to 70m -- very common when a light mech is circling you, or you are a light circling an enemy, or you come around a corner in an urban situation.

The arc to adjust from 650m to 690m is tiny -- common when pop-tart sniping as you allow your gun to aim at the ground beneath the enemy while traveling upward, and then it quickly converges on him at the peak of your jump.

If they were to nerf convergence rate enough to have any impact on pop-tarts, it would make it so you are constantly shooting big X's of lasers when brawling, totally missing your opponent and zapping the sky or terrain, because your weapons take too long to range when you aim at someone.

[Deathlike]

I've always wondered why PGI doesn't understand its own meta... this thread only confirms what I already knew.

To understand the meta, you must literally do the following:

1) Build/copy popular builds
2) Succeed in using said builds
3) Look into detail why such builds are successful (heat, damage, cooldown, etc.)
4) Make appropriate adjustments

To me, it doesn't seem like even step #1 is being looked at.

[TexAce]

Paul Inouye, on 18 May 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

@jeffsw6: If you're going to quote me, please at least complete the quote.

"Investigation items are not locked in and are exactly that... thoughts and tests. Do NOT go flying off the handle about how this won't work or that won't work until we make an official post."

You would really be better advised to look into convergence and pin-point than heat.