267 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

[QUICK EDIT] For those of you who think I am being mean to Paul by calling his idea foolish, note that there have been hundreds of threads with alternative ideas for adjusting PPC-boating, and 0 dev responses to them. Note also that Paul has not mentioned any alternative to the stupid idea I am calling him out for. Finally, note that his two responses, below, do nothing but try to deflect attention from the fact that this is the only idea they are considering, and shows no evidence that they have thought about what it will do to builds that boat the universally-feared medium laser.

I have tried, many times, to write entirely constructive suggestion posts. They go ignored, along with the thousands of others in this forum section. If you don't like the tone of my post, ask yourself why he decided to respond to this one and not the thousands of other posts, from me, you, and others, about this topic.

Finally, calling someone's idea stupid is not insulting that person.[END EDIT]

Some may not have read the statement from Paul, To curb boating with high alphas... we are testing a system that induces a heat scale when firing multiples of the same weapon within a specific time frame. The more weapons fired of the same type, the higher the heat scale climbs.

I think this a hugely stupid reaction to PPC boating. It also doesn't affect jump-jet PPC mechs (Highlanders, CTF-3D, etc) because gravity brings them under cover.

In order for it to affect PPCs appreciably at all, it is going to have collateral damage which will adversely affect a number of mechs and popular builds which are not causing massive QQ or driving players away from the game. Here are a few:

• 6 ML Jenner and numerous other lights
  
• Hunchback 4P (like, any sane build for it)
  
• Several Awesomes
  
• Stalkers with multiple SRMs, LRMs, MLs, MPLs, SLs for side-weapons, you name it
  
• Quad AC/2 Jagermech (already very limited by heat)
  
• DRG-FLAME (common to run 4 ML, MPL, or LL)
  
• CN9-AL
  
• 4/5ths of CDAs if using MLs or similar
  
• AS7-D
  
• AS7-RS
  
• CPLT-A1, CPLT-C4 (almost everything you'd want to use them for)
  
• COM-TDK
  
• HGN-733

Oh, gee, did I just list half the mechs in the game, which "boat" many of the same weapon commonly, and are not over-powered? Yes, I did.




Another fine example of how unbelievably foolish PGI can be! If they approach it this way, they must either cripple 50 common, reasonable builds in order to nerf PPC/ERPPC boats, while still not affecting the jump-jet ones; or not do enough, but gimp all those other mechs/builds a little more anyway.

http://mwomercs.com/...07#entry2355607

I should have just made my entire post in 48 points font but that wouldn't sufficiently express my outrage.

Edited by Niko Snow, 24 May 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[Zaptruder]

Yeah... I've proposed the energy system that does actually solve boating problems... but most people think (because they don't think enough) that the problem can be solved via heat nerfs or with convergence nerfs.

Truth is, even individual PPCs aren't that bad. They do what they're intended for quite well. As well as Gauss and AC20s.

The real problem is massive alpha striking damage that converges on a single point. Even when you're not killed, it still leaves you severely weakened and compromised if it hits a critical area.

So what? Nerf Alpha strikes. How?

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.

The traditional 2PPC+Gauss+JJ plague suddenly ends because no mech can fit that and a 400 sized engine. It doesn't nerf skill by making convergence a factor of a random number generator - you just have to man up and use skill to hit the same spot twice... or more likely, have your 'alpha' strike spread around the mech, as the original Battletech designers intended!

Everything else... continues to operate just fine.

As far as convergence nerfs go... just don't go there. Reduces the core gameplay, makes it feel less satisfying and tricky to implement with any degree of fairness.

I mean, take an atlas firing on a spider for example - if his weapons in his torso don't converge, but instead travel parallel to the point of fire - putting the reticle on the spider would cause torso mounted weapons fire to zip past the left and right side of the spider!

Who would want that? People that don't think enough about the solutions that they're proposing.

Edited by Zaptruder, 18 May 2013 - 12:35 AM.

[Paul Inouye]

@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."

[jeffsw6]

I have read your posts on an energy system. I thought about the same thing, but I just don't like the idea, so I didn't reply to your other posts so far. Since you are bringing it up here, though, I will share my reason for feeling the energy system is not the right solution:

I already have a heat gauge to watch; and don't need another one for energy.

Energy system would add another mechanic for PGI to have to get right, and they obviously aren't capable of understanding the game-play, armaments, etc. without adding an additional layer of complexity.

PPCs can be fixed with easy range and (slight) heat modifications. If PPCs suddenly do zero damage at < 90m and not much from 90m - 180m, the PPC-boating mechs will be easier to beat in a brawl, OR THEY WILL CARRY LESS PPCs and more side-weapons, which is good. If ERPPCs cost so much heat that firing more than 2 of them will overheat most mechs, and overheating causes you some damage (lost heat sink, or whatever, something minor but effective) then most people won't use 4 ERPPCs. They will mix them with other weapons. Again, good.

So that's why I don't like your energy-system idea. I mean, it might be better than the garbage meta that we have now, but I think it has significant drawbacks, is not necessary to actually solve the problem, and it has the danger that ... PGI will screw it up even worse.

[Ralgas]

You did read the last sentence of the post, yeah?

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. It will severely help your blood pressure.

If the investigation doesn't pick this up to your satisfaction then this would be warranted

Edit: damnit sniped by the man!!

Edited by Ralgas, 18 May 2013 - 12:41 AM.

[jeffsw6]

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."

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.

Edited by jeffsw6, 18 May 2013 - 12:51 AM.

[Paul Inouye]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

I have read your posts on an energy system. I thought about the same thing, but I just don't like the idea, so I didn't reply to your other posts so far. Since you are bringing it up here, though, I will share my reason for feeling the energy system is not the right solution:

I already have a heat gauge to watch; and don't need another one for energy.

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?

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Energy system would add another mechanic for PGI to have to get right, and they obviously aren't capable of understanding the game-play, armaments, etc. without adding an additional layer of complexity.

PPCs can be fixed with easy range and (slight) heat modifications.

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."

[jeffsw6]

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?

No, that was in response to Zaptruder, who is suggestion the addition of an energy-system to cap PPC simultaneous-fire or refire rate.

Your modification isn't just a PPC heat change. As you have described it, your change would affect every weapon that is commonly used in multiples. That's why it is stupid. No one is posting in 48 points because they got cut down by someone with "too many Large Pulse Lasers" even though that weapon has identical weight and damage output (over a duration) to PPC. Why? Because the LPL doesn't deliver crits the same, doesn't deliver 100% of its damage to one point (unless you are aiming well), lasts more than one instant, and its effective range is substantially shorter.

If players were screaming about LPL-boating, 9 ML Hunchbacks, etc. then perhaps your idea would be valid. This is not the case. You are going down the wrong path.

[ObsidianSpectre]

I have to agree with the OP. That's a poor way to balance this. If a weapon is OP when there's six of them, it's also OP when there's one of them, it's just easier to see it when there's six. Balance the weapon on it's own, and you won't have to worry about boating being too powerful.

My own suggestion is to slow the shot velocity of the weapons back down, so that it's harder to hit with them. They were slower before, and needed to be increased to make them viable before HSR, but now that we have that the weapons should really be slowed back down. Do that first, and then see where things stand. If it's still too much, look at tweaking heat/damage. But don't do some silly boating penalty.

[jeffsw6]

ObsidianSpectre, on 18 May 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

If a weapon is OP when there's six of them, it's also OP when there's one of them, it's just easier to see it when there's six.

I don't think that's true. AC/20 is pretty wicked, but no mechs can have 6, or even 3!

Consider, though, that AC/10 has pretty decent range, the same damage as PPC, less heat, same way of delivering critical damage, and a faster rate-of-fire. Why is the AC/10 not over-powered? Because the projectile is (relatively) slow and the gun weighs 12 tons and uses 7 slots before you even think about ammunition.

Edited by jeffsw6, 18 May 2013 - 01:04 AM.

[Karl Split]

Personally I think soft gameplay fixes to boating would work well. IE introduce mech effects when you get to high heat levels > Slower turning, lower top speed, > less accuracy > hud messing up.

This would encourage people to chain weapons and not just pummel everything into high alphas every time.

For jumpjetting id introduce a lot of instability making aiming hard.

Id introduce those before looking too hard at numbers, although the recycle time on ppc's doesnt seem too onerous to me.

And yes paul, I do know its a different department that would have to inplement graphical/gameplay elements like that, I just feel that is where you should look first to address the issues.

And finally no, im not a poptart fanatic, Im hardly playing at the moment as I hate the current meta

[jeffsw6]

Karl Split, on 18 May 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

Personally I think soft gameplay fixes to boating would work well. IE introduce mech effects when you get to high heat levels > Slower turning, lower top speed, > less accuracy > hud messing up.

This has been re-hashed over and over. It won't affect the 4 - 6 PPC mechs at all, because they basically take one shot, and then retreat to cover (by using either gravity, or .. reverse.)

What that will do is gimp brawlers even more than they are today.

I'm not totally against the concept of heat penalties. I am against doing that while brawlers are already extremely weak, because it will completely cripple them while having very little impact on long-range mechs.

[Nebelfeuer]

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

[...]
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 might be the problem here. The "boating nerf" is much more needed then a "PPC adjustment".

[Asmudius Heng]

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."

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 ....

[Kiiyor]

Bloody hell. I'm constantly amazed at the amount of content people can utterly fabricate from dev communications. They have barely posted anything other than the vague notion of testing something, and you have concocted some Machiavellian plot out of it.

I personally like to wait for more information before I start jumping into orbit to make conclusions and baseless accusations.

[Rhent]

@Paul
1st) What constitutes boating?
-I'm running Misery w/: 1 Gauss, 2 ERPPCs, 3 ML. I can snipe at long range and when they close I have focused fire at close range.
-I'm running Misery w/: 1 AC 20, 5 ML, 1 SRM6. I can focus fire all but the SRM6 on one narrow target.

In both of those builds above, I can unload an ungodly amount of focused fire, About 50 on a target and sustain it for a few rounds.

2nd) Putting in a sliding heat penalty for firing weapons of the same type probably won't fix the issue.
-The most popular sniper build is: 1 Gauss + 2 ERPPC's. Would the scale apply to 2 PPC's?
-Another popular sniper build is: 2 Gauss. how are you going to scale 1 heat?
-Light mechs running 6 ML, what will happen to them?

3rd) Shut down mechanics are easily avoided.
-I am part of the Native Kuritan Rid Humping Stalker movement. I can get up on a ridge, and unload 3 volleys of 4 PPC's blast and on my 3rd volley I start moving backwards and when I shut down I fall back on the hill and I can't be hit even though I'm shut down. Instead of falling back, as soon as I shut down I should stop dead in my tracks in the open so I can be shot. If Poptarters on overheat had a good chance of falling forward out of cover, that would help fix that mess as well.
-Poptarters will purposely go up on their 3rd volley to Jump, shoot then overheat and fall to safety behind the ridge.
-The damage to the internals is a good idea.

4th) The real issue is CONVERGENCE
-Rethink convergence amongst the weapon positions. I honestly have no clue on how to even suggest implementing this. However, if say someone can get about 40% damage to where they are aiming and the 60 still hits but in in close proximity, that would probably fix a lot of the boating issues AND would increase game time so people don't die as fast.

[Karl Split]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

This has been re-hashed over and over. It won't affect the 4 - 6 PPC mechs at all, because they basically take one shot, and then retreat to cover (by using either gravity, or .. reverse.)

What that will do is gimp brawlers even more than they are today.

I'm not totally against the concept of heat penalties. I am against doing that while brawlers are already extremely weak, because it will completely cripple them while having very little impact on long-range mechs.

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.

[jeffsw6]

der langsamere, on 18 May 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

Dont go off the handle or theyll further delete general discussion and cram fifty more subforums in here -.-

Plus, as we've seen time and again, you nerf one weapon thats OP ppl just boat the next one and the next and the next...

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.

What is the next weapon to be boated? I think LRMs will make a huge come-back and that might be unfortunate. I agree with you that the game moves from one bad meta to the next. I think Paul and crew are paying too little attention to the game-play because their priorities seem to be bugs (understandable) and content (understandable.) But bad balance drives players away, more so than they would imagine; and it is EASY TO IMPROVE.

Paul, since you're up and reading, can you shed any light on why you don't make more frequent, less dramatic balance changes to the armaments? Everyone understands it is easy to do, but we don't get why you aren't actually doing it.

[Karl Split]

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.

[Zaptruder]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

I have read your posts on an energy system. I thought about the same thing, but I just don't like the idea, so I didn't reply to your other posts so far. Since you are bringing it up here, though, I will share my reason for feeling the energy system is not the right solution:

I already have a heat gauge to watch; and don't need another one for energy.

Energy system would add another mechanic for PGI to have to get right, and they obviously aren't capable of understanding the game-play, armaments, etc. without adding an additional layer of complexity.

PPCs can be fixed with easy range and (slight) heat modifications. If PPCs suddenly do zero damage at < 90m and not much from 90m - 180m, the PPC-boating mechs will be easier to beat in a brawl, OR THEY WILL CARRY LESS PPCs and more side-weapons, which is good. If ERPPCs cost so much heat that firing more than 2 of them will overheat most mechs, and overheating causes you some damage (lost heat sink, or whatever, something minor but effective) then most people won't use 4 ERPPCs. They will mix them with other weapons. Again, good.

So that's why I don't like your energy-system idea. I mean, it might be better than the garbage meta that we have now, but I think it has significant drawbacks, is not necessary to actually solve the problem, and it has the danger that ... PGI will screw it up even worse.

PPCs could stand a specific weapon nerf (cool down to 4.0sec is a good start, heat bump up to 8 and 12 respectively would be a good way to finish it off).

But that'll still leave AC20 boats, Gauss boats, SRM boats, laser boats, ALL THE BOATS. So... why wouldn't the solution be to nerf alpha striking in general?

Also, given the speed at which it recharges, it's not a gauge you really need to watch.

It could be implemented simply enough (without gauge) as something that causes weapons without sufficient charge to be redded out until they can be fired. Kinda like weapons on a cool down.