One issue with your flamer idea is that it makes flamers only useful on bigger mechs against smaller mechs. It's no longer a light energy weapon, but a bully weapon, that assaults will use to fry lights that get under their PPCs, because even the most inefficient Assault mech usually has superior heat capacity and dissipation to a lighter mech. Even if they have to cut back on firing their weapons, there's basically no way for the light mech to have any significant effects against a larger mech.
Even if we eliminate the heat aspect altogether, so that Flamers don't burn you more than them, then the stats are still pitiful. 2 DPS at 64m for 1 ton, and you can't fire them continuously, meaning their DPS is actually lower. The ML, on the other hand, has 1.25 DPS at 270+m, doesn't have a power limit, and only needs to be on target for 1 second of every 4. I can't see any reason to take a flamer over a medium laser, even with the heat penalty removed.
The range is so short that only lights can really use them semi-effectively (other mechs could use them as anti-light, but lights can easily maintain more than 64m distance), but the heat mechanics make it so that the heat penalties of the flamer favour larger mechs. I can't see assaults swapping a long-range weapon for a Flamer, and the mechanics simply prevent them from being effective against larger mechs, so I can't see a light ever using them effectively.
My 4xLL Cat has 19 DHS, and while it's not spectacularly heat efficient, enemy flamers would simply not generate any noticeable heat on it, or if they did, whatever mech was shooting would overheat and shut down long before I felt any significant effects from them. A light with flamers would not get a heavier mech anywhere close to 90% heat before shutting down, and unless they're terribly inefficient, they wouldn't even notice the heat from the flamers.
Flamers are going to need way more benefits than 2DPS if they're going to be viable. 2DPS is not enough to make up for the terrible range, let alone the massive heat generated.
I stand by my ideas, though they'd probably need tweaking to be balanced perfectly. Flamers either need to be a viable light weapon sans gimmick, or they need to be a specialized tactical option that punishes the enemy in ways other than damage, which is not possible if it penalizes the user more than the target. Your suggestion tries to turn it into a jack-of-all-trades, dealing out damage and heat, but the damage does not make up for the short range (and is not sustainable or precise damage), and the heat punishes the user more than the target.
The only time your flamers would be useful, that I can see, is when you already outnumber your enemy, and basically you just slow down the damage output of both your mech, and the enemy's, and let your teammates deal enough damage to make up for your lack. However, I can't see this niche making them viable, when the Medium laser hurts them more, you less, and is useful in situations where you don't already outnumber the enemy.
Also, I forgot to say in my last post that I disagree that the Gauss is balanced. It is not. Not even close. I have a dual-gauss Cataphract that is specifically my "cheese" build for when I'm frustrated about all the other cheese in the game, because I don't abuse overpowered weapons on most of my other builds (I sometimes shove a Gauss in my Cicada 3C, and it actually becomes viable, which should probably tell you that it's not balanced).
The drawback of low health is meaningless, and the rifle exploding isn't as bad as it seems, for several reasons.
1. It can't be hit itself until the component it's in is already at less than ~33% health (IS+Armour= Health, and armour is generally maxed anywhere you've got a Gauss).
2. It then requires the weapon to actually be destroyed by a crit, which rarely happens before the component is destroyed.
3. If it explodes, odds are the mech is already dead, because either it's in a side-torso with an XL (because most mechs have poor armour distribution, and use XLs because of it); or it's in an arm, and arms are more often destroyed by losing a side torso than by destroying the arm itself, and if you do lose the arm first, it's not going to kill you.
4. The ammo is inert and can be used for crit-protection in vital areas of the mech.
5. It is virtually a no-heat weapon, meaning its high DPS is sustainable indefinitely.
The gauss should be balanced, as it is, but it's not, because armour is over-valued, and poorly distributed. I've been killed by gauss exploding two or three times, ever, and generally speaking, I was so close to death that it didn't matter. My Cataphract has never had a Gauss explode; the arms are too heavily armoured, and the CT too lightly. Similar to how ERPPCs are overpowered because their main drawback is negated by the lack of heat penalties, the Gauss are overpowered because the armour and crit systems mean that the gauss can only be destroyed when the component it's in is a stiff breeze away from blowing up already.
6
Crow's Mechwarrior Balancing
Started by Carrioncrows, Jun 02 2013 11:41 AM
51 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 09 June 2013 - 03:49 PM
Sable Dove, on 09 June 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:
One issue with your flamer idea is that it makes flamers only useful on bigger mechs against smaller mechs. It's no longer a light energy weapon, but a bully weapon, that assaults will use to fry lights that get under their PPCs, because even the most inefficient Assault mech usually has superior heat capacity and dissipation to a lighter mech. Even if they have to cut back on firing their weapons, there's basically no way for the light mech to have any significant effects against a larger mech.
I disagree with this completely. There are always going to be low heat lights and high heat assaults and anything and everything in between. Hell if by some miracle the MG fix goes through you are going to see a return of a lot of low heat light options.
But lets say it is true.
Then, This is a good thing!
If a bigger mech is trying to defend against lighter mechs and he is going to take something like a flamers as a personal defense weapon. That's great!
That's tonnage and energy hardpoints not being used to mount another PPC or ER PPC and it's not exactly a light heat weapon.
However I still believe that lights will be able to capitalize on the flamer more than heavy or assault mechs will. Just because a light can be sure to stay within that 64m range. But that doesn't mean it's not going to have utility, even as a singular weapon.
Quote
Even if we eliminate the heat aspect altogether, so that Flamers don't burn you more than them, then the stats are still pitiful. 2 DPS at 64m for 1 ton, and you can't fire them continuously, meaning their DPS is actually lower. The ML, on the other hand, has 1.25 DPS at 270+m, doesn't have a power limit, and only needs to be on target for 1 second of every 4. I can't see any reason to take a flamer over a medium laser, even with the heat penalty removed.
The range is so short that only lights can really use them semi-effectively (other mechs could use them as anti-light, but lights can easily maintain more than 64m distance), but the heat mechanics make it so that the heat penalties of the flamer favour larger mechs. I can't see assaults swapping a long-range weapon for a Flamer, and the mechanics simply prevent them from being effective against larger mechs, so I can't see a light ever using them effectively.
The range is so short that only lights can really use them semi-effectively (other mechs could use them as anti-light, but lights can easily maintain more than 64m distance), but the heat mechanics make it so that the heat penalties of the flamer favour larger mechs. I can't see assaults swapping a long-range weapon for a Flamer, and the mechanics simply prevent them from being effective against larger mechs, so I can't see a light ever using them effectively.
I do agree the range could be pushed out to 90m.
The heat simply has to stay and if you think about it the damage has to stay and 2 DPS is pretty good damage.
And yes though it will only work in a short burst before it has to recharge, this is also a good thing. It allows a mech to swoop in and go all scorched earth on your target and then break off to cool down.
If you increase the heat damage and take away the actual damage what you end up getting is what the Machinegun is now.
A **** poor weapon created for a situation that may or may never happen.
Preferable i'd rather it be a weapon and a utility.
Quote
My 4xLL Cat has 19 DHS, and while it's not spectacularly heat efficient, enemy flamers would simply not generate any noticeable heat on it, or if they did, whatever mech was shooting would overheat and shut down long before I felt any significant effects from them. A light with flamers would not get a heavier mech anywhere close to 90% heat before shutting down, and unless they're terribly inefficient, they wouldn't even notice the heat from the flamers.
Flamers are going to need way more benefits than 2DPS if they're going to be viable. 2DPS is not enough to make up for the terrible range, let alone the massive heat generated.
Flamers are going to need way more benefits than 2DPS if they're going to be viable. 2DPS is not enough to make up for the terrible range, let alone the massive heat generated.
It's massive heat both ways, yes you take more.
That's a given
But you KNOW it's coming. You can plan for it, you can build your mech for it.
it's got to have sufficient give and take. If it generated more heat for your target than yourself everyone would be using it, it would quickly overtake medium lasers.
Lets say you have 4 large lasers and I have 4 flamers. I take damage on the way in and you do your usual thing. If I manage to stay alive till I close on you that means that your full alpha generates: 7x4 = 28 heat and a cycle time of 4.25 secs with beam time.
So boom, I plop 4 flamers on you and take 60 heat over 5 secs myself and give you 50 heat, no doubt maxing you out at 90% on my side. Now if you use a weapon you are going to end up shutting yourself down, even a single large laser may potentially do it.
All the while I could be using other weapons to damage you, even pitiful weapons like 2 SRM4's with the rest put into heat sinks to cool myself down to manage the flamers.
Even then this is limiting your potential DPS all the while dealing damage. 40 damage + the 2 srm4's.
It is by no means a bad weapons, it's probably not as great as I think it is but altogther I think it's going to be exactly what we need.
Quote
I stand by my ideas, though they'd probably need tweaking to be balanced perfectly. Flamers either need to be a viable light weapon sans gimmick.
And I applaud you, you bring great points to the conversation.
But even 2 dps is not pitiful. 2 tons of flamers is equal to the DPS of a AC2 provided you can stay on target. It's slightly less than what a medium laser would do, but you also have the benefit of putting heat on your target.
Quote
Also, I forgot to say in my last post that I disagree that the Gauss is balanced. It is not. Not even close. I have a dual-gauss Cataphract that is specifically my "cheese" build for when I'm frustrated about all the other cheese in the game, because I don't abuse overpowered weapons on most of my other builds (I sometimes shove a Gauss in my Cicada 3C, and it actually becomes viable, which should probably tell you that it's not balanced).
The drawback of low health is meaningless, and the rifle exploding isn't as bad as it seems, for several reasons.
1. It can't be hit itself until the component it's in is already at less than ~33% health (IS+Armour= Health, and armour is generally maxed anywhere you've got a Gauss).
2. It then requires the weapon to actually be destroyed by a crit, which rarely happens before the component is destroyed.
3. If it explodes, odds are the mech is already dead, because either it's in a side-torso with an XL (because most mechs have poor armour distribution, and use XLs because of it); or it's in an arm, and arms are more often destroyed by losing a side torso than by destroying the arm itself, and if you do lose the arm first, it's not going to kill you.
4. The ammo is inert and can be used for crit-protection in vital areas of the mech.
5. It is virtually a no-heat weapon, meaning its high DPS is sustainable indefinitely.
The gauss should be balanced, as it is, but it's not, because armour is over-valued, and poorly distributed. I've been killed by gauss exploding two or three times, ever, and generally speaking, I was so close to death that it didn't matter. My Cataphract has never had a Gauss explode; the arms are too heavily armoured, and the CT too lightly. Similar to how ERPPCs are overpowered because their main drawback is negated by the lack of heat penalties, the Gauss are overpowered because the armour and crit systems mean that the gauss can only be destroyed when the component it's in is a stiff breeze away from blowing up already.
The drawback of low health is meaningless, and the rifle exploding isn't as bad as it seems, for several reasons.
1. It can't be hit itself until the component it's in is already at less than ~33% health (IS+Armour= Health, and armour is generally maxed anywhere you've got a Gauss).
2. It then requires the weapon to actually be destroyed by a crit, which rarely happens before the component is destroyed.
3. If it explodes, odds are the mech is already dead, because either it's in a side-torso with an XL (because most mechs have poor armour distribution, and use XLs because of it); or it's in an arm, and arms are more often destroyed by losing a side torso than by destroying the arm itself, and if you do lose the arm first, it's not going to kill you.
4. The ammo is inert and can be used for crit-protection in vital areas of the mech.
5. It is virtually a no-heat weapon, meaning its high DPS is sustainable indefinitely.
The gauss should be balanced, as it is, but it's not, because armour is over-valued, and poorly distributed. I've been killed by gauss exploding two or three times, ever, and generally speaking, I was so close to death that it didn't matter. My Cataphract has never had a Gauss explode; the arms are too heavily armoured, and the CT too lightly. Similar to how ERPPCs are overpowered because their main drawback is negated by the lack of heat penalties, the Gauss are overpowered because the armour and crit systems mean that the gauss can only be destroyed when the component it's in is a stiff breeze away from blowing up already.
I dunno, the Gauss has always felt balanced for me. I've always felt that if I peeled armor off a location, and yes I aim for locations rather than just straight up CT most of the time (Unless I am packing apocalyptic firepower), but if I feel like I can peel the armor off the Gauss goes almost instantly. Like no need for a crit seeking weapon at all.
You bring a interesting point perhaps.
One of my earlier ideas was to make the CT have 50% more IS HP and then have destroyed locations only transfer 50% of the damage taken. This would make mechs easier to crack yet harder to kill.
So it might be worthwhile to work on the arms or other locations in a attempt to kill the weapons in their before working on the beefier CT.
Good stuff man.
Edited by Carrioncrows, 09 June 2013 - 03:49 PM.
#23
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 1,005 posts
Member
Posted 09 June 2013 - 05:59 PM
Let's do some math. We'll stick with my 19DHS Cat, and I'll us one of my coolest lights, with 14 DHS (it's actually a Cicada, but I did the math already, so I'll use it).
Cat has:
Heat capacity of 62.6
Heat Dissipation of 3.26
Light has:
Heat capacity of 55.6
Heat Dissipation of 2.56
So with one Flamer on the light, shooting the Cat, the Cat is still dissipating heat at 0.76 HPS, while the light is heating up at 0.44 HPS. But that's with a single flamer, and it's not actually generating heat on the target, so we'll go with 2 Flamers, so the Cat is now heating up at 1.74 HPS, and the light at 3.44 HPS.
This works out to the light heating the Cat up about 45-50% in the time it takes the light to reach 100%. This is over 16 seconds too, so not actually possible with 2 flamers. This is also not accounting for the fact that heat buildup is not linear; hotter mechs heat up even faster, meaning the light will hit 100% likely before the heavy is even at 40%.
So I'd say, considering that you cannot fire flamers indefinitely, you will not be able to affect an enemy mech's heat in any significant way, and the way they function, I would wager your sustainable DPS is actually less than a medium laser, and your burst DPS is not much higher. Flamers are useless for lights to use as long as they generate more heat on the user than the target.
Heat efficiency is relative, but heat dissipation and capacity are absolutes, and I'd say it's rare to find a light that has more sinks than an assault. My dual gauss Phract only has 10 DHS because gauss don't need them, but that's a a rarity; I'd say 14 DHS is pushing it for a light, while mechs without ES/FF can, and will, fit far more in. An assault with even <1.0 heat efficiency will still likely have a heat capacity/dissipation higher than any light. Most assault builds I've seen have 14-20 DHS, which is something I wouldn't expect to see on any light mech.
For it to be an effective heat-thrower, it would have to be based on a percentage, or would have to generate more heat on the target than on the shooter. I can't see any way to make the Flamer a viable tactical weapon without making it inflict more heat than it generates, and if it's not viable as a tactical weapon, then it needs to be viable as a damage-dealer, which I don't feel it is at <2 DPS/64m and 3HPS. So if it's not a viable tactical weapon, and it's not a viable damage-dealer, then I must conclude that it's useless.
Your suggestion might be viable if you switched the heat values. Otherwise, I can see absolutely no reason to take it over a medium laser. Deals less damage, at shorter range, requires constant exposure, and cooks your own mech.
Also, I could definitely get behind a 50% increase to CT IS. Though of course, I would like to see all IS doubled, and armour limits tied to the size and importance of a component, rather than arbitrary values
Cat has:
Heat capacity of 62.6
Heat Dissipation of 3.26
Light has:
Heat capacity of 55.6
Heat Dissipation of 2.56
So with one Flamer on the light, shooting the Cat, the Cat is still dissipating heat at 0.76 HPS, while the light is heating up at 0.44 HPS. But that's with a single flamer, and it's not actually generating heat on the target, so we'll go with 2 Flamers, so the Cat is now heating up at 1.74 HPS, and the light at 3.44 HPS.
This works out to the light heating the Cat up about 45-50% in the time it takes the light to reach 100%. This is over 16 seconds too, so not actually possible with 2 flamers. This is also not accounting for the fact that heat buildup is not linear; hotter mechs heat up even faster, meaning the light will hit 100% likely before the heavy is even at 40%.
So I'd say, considering that you cannot fire flamers indefinitely, you will not be able to affect an enemy mech's heat in any significant way, and the way they function, I would wager your sustainable DPS is actually less than a medium laser, and your burst DPS is not much higher. Flamers are useless for lights to use as long as they generate more heat on the user than the target.
Heat efficiency is relative, but heat dissipation and capacity are absolutes, and I'd say it's rare to find a light that has more sinks than an assault. My dual gauss Phract only has 10 DHS because gauss don't need them, but that's a a rarity; I'd say 14 DHS is pushing it for a light, while mechs without ES/FF can, and will, fit far more in. An assault with even <1.0 heat efficiency will still likely have a heat capacity/dissipation higher than any light. Most assault builds I've seen have 14-20 DHS, which is something I wouldn't expect to see on any light mech.
For it to be an effective heat-thrower, it would have to be based on a percentage, or would have to generate more heat on the target than on the shooter. I can't see any way to make the Flamer a viable tactical weapon without making it inflict more heat than it generates, and if it's not viable as a tactical weapon, then it needs to be viable as a damage-dealer, which I don't feel it is at <2 DPS/64m and 3HPS. So if it's not a viable tactical weapon, and it's not a viable damage-dealer, then I must conclude that it's useless.
Your suggestion might be viable if you switched the heat values. Otherwise, I can see absolutely no reason to take it over a medium laser. Deals less damage, at shorter range, requires constant exposure, and cooks your own mech.
Also, I could definitely get behind a 50% increase to CT IS. Though of course, I would like to see all IS doubled, and armour limits tied to the size and importance of a component, rather than arbitrary values
#24
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 09 June 2013 - 06:42 PM
if your expecting a weapon to go out and and take a enemy mech from 0-90% heat cap in a short time, then I would have to say you are asking way too much of the flamer.
I don't need to heat you up.
You will end up doing that all by yourself.
Where the flamer comes in and becomes useful is after you heat yourself up. To keep you bouncing off that 90% heat cap so if you fire your weapons you are going to shutdown.
or
You have to wait long to cooldown
or
You risk the shutdown
Either way the flamer accomplishes it's job. It puts pressure on you.
Your right if I go out and try and cook you when you have zero heat I am just going to end up shutting myself down, totally agree, but that's not the role of the flamer. Or at least that shouldn't be the role of the flamer.
Honestly i didn't want it to be a weapon that could take someone from 0- 90 % heat just like that. Having a few HBK-4P's running around with 9 Flamers gets into the silly stun-lock stupid.
We can agree that it has to do Significant Damage: OK
It has to deal heat. Not just heat but noticeable heat: Ok
and because it weighs one ton it has to have some serious drawbacks: Ok
Now the heat damage of 2.5 HPS versus the heat taken of 3 HPS I thought was crazy high, but considering the weapon could only be fired in bursts or could be exhausted it would be worth it to take the heat to deal the heat simply because the target wasn't expecting the additional heat.
Anything you could do to limit a targets ability to cool was almost a direct translation into limiting their DPS....at least as far as enemy boats go.
You've give'n me something to think about. I'm not saying your right, and I still feel the Flamer is exceptional strong but I'll think on it more.
Perhaps we can come at this from a different angle.
heh, for all we know all my hardwork and this conversation is a moot point anyways right? =)
If you have any other gems throw them in the pot, i'll get back to you on the flamers.
I don't need to heat you up.
You will end up doing that all by yourself.
Where the flamer comes in and becomes useful is after you heat yourself up. To keep you bouncing off that 90% heat cap so if you fire your weapons you are going to shutdown.
or
You have to wait long to cooldown
or
You risk the shutdown
Either way the flamer accomplishes it's job. It puts pressure on you.
Your right if I go out and try and cook you when you have zero heat I am just going to end up shutting myself down, totally agree, but that's not the role of the flamer. Or at least that shouldn't be the role of the flamer.
Honestly i didn't want it to be a weapon that could take someone from 0- 90 % heat just like that. Having a few HBK-4P's running around with 9 Flamers gets into the silly stun-lock stupid.
We can agree that it has to do Significant Damage: OK
It has to deal heat. Not just heat but noticeable heat: Ok
and because it weighs one ton it has to have some serious drawbacks: Ok
Now the heat damage of 2.5 HPS versus the heat taken of 3 HPS I thought was crazy high, but considering the weapon could only be fired in bursts or could be exhausted it would be worth it to take the heat to deal the heat simply because the target wasn't expecting the additional heat.
Anything you could do to limit a targets ability to cool was almost a direct translation into limiting their DPS....at least as far as enemy boats go.
You've give'n me something to think about. I'm not saying your right, and I still feel the Flamer is exceptional strong but I'll think on it more.
Perhaps we can come at this from a different angle.
heh, for all we know all my hardwork and this conversation is a moot point anyways right? =)
If you have any other gems throw them in the pot, i'll get back to you on the flamers.
#25
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 1,005 posts
Member
Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:10 PM
No matter how you slice it, because it takes so long to heat a target up, and you heat up much faster, flamers are simply not ever going to be useful. If the enemy has one medium laser, they're probably going to out damage you; since you can't heat them past 90%, they can fire at least 1 ML without shutting down, and you generate so much heat that it is literally impossible to actually keep an enemy at 90%, because you will quickly be above 90% yourself, and find yourself unable to attack any more.
I cannot conceive of a way to make flamers appealing other than to either greatly increase damage, or swap the heat values. If the heat remains more harmful to the user, then the flamers will forever be unappealing as tactical weapons, because the only circumstance they would be useful in is if your enemy is already at 80-90% heat, and you're completely cool.
And if you're not in that specific circumstance, your 2DPS isn't even a semi-viable damage dealer. Even the Lord of Boats, mounting 9 flamers, could get about 36 damage out in the 2 seconds before overheating, at which point its DPS would be limited to less than 1. I think I'd rather take 9ML, which deals 25% more damage, over 1 second, at more than quadruple the range, and only be at 60-70% heat (actually, I found 7ML much more viable than 9, which is almost the same damage, over less time, at longer range, and with even less heat).
Using fewer flamers gives more sustained damage output, but still not enough to make it more desirable than a medium laser.
To be honest, we already have a lot of useful, lightweight energy options; especially if they buff pulse lasers to be worthwhile. I would very much prefer flamers to be an almost purely-tactical weapon, since making them bad at dealing damage is going to discourage boating them, and anything that discourages boating is improving the game, as far as I'm concerned. And there is no way to make them tactically viable without making them inflict more heat than they generate.
I cannot conceive of a way to make flamers appealing other than to either greatly increase damage, or swap the heat values. If the heat remains more harmful to the user, then the flamers will forever be unappealing as tactical weapons, because the only circumstance they would be useful in is if your enemy is already at 80-90% heat, and you're completely cool.
And if you're not in that specific circumstance, your 2DPS isn't even a semi-viable damage dealer. Even the Lord of Boats, mounting 9 flamers, could get about 36 damage out in the 2 seconds before overheating, at which point its DPS would be limited to less than 1. I think I'd rather take 9ML, which deals 25% more damage, over 1 second, at more than quadruple the range, and only be at 60-70% heat (actually, I found 7ML much more viable than 9, which is almost the same damage, over less time, at longer range, and with even less heat).
Using fewer flamers gives more sustained damage output, but still not enough to make it more desirable than a medium laser.
To be honest, we already have a lot of useful, lightweight energy options; especially if they buff pulse lasers to be worthwhile. I would very much prefer flamers to be an almost purely-tactical weapon, since making them bad at dealing damage is going to discourage boating them, and anything that discourages boating is improving the game, as far as I'm concerned. And there is no way to make them tactically viable without making them inflict more heat than they generate.
Edited by Sable Dove, 09 June 2013 - 11:33 PM.
#26
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:48 PM
I've thought about it, and aside from getting PGI to completely change the way their Heat Scale works... (I Don't see this happening, after all the work they put into it to make it balanced - At least for DHS - it's just not going to happen)
Of course medium lasers will always be preferable on the damage side of things. The flamer isn't supposed to do more damage than the medium laser.
The above Flamer idea still seems like the best option, of course you have to include all the changes and suggestions to get it to work.
Things like the Module:
Flamers: Fire Bug (Module): This ability allows a mech with Two or more flamers to set a Fire Template 50m in radius. All mechs in the Fire template, including your mech continuous to take additional heat ever second they remain in the Fire effect. A Fire Template effect lasts for 20 secs.
Things like Red line'n your mech passed shutdown causing Heat Sinks to pop. So the more times you red line the more heat sinks you are going to burn out.
There isn't a better option that holds true to what the flamer does.
In all honesty this probably not the result of the flamer idea being bad but of there being no heat effects in the game. Battletech the more heat you suffered the slower your mech moved, the harder it was to aim and the chance to pop your ammo. We get none of that, we simply get a red warning text and then a shutdown.
Of course medium lasers will always be preferable on the damage side of things. The flamer isn't supposed to do more damage than the medium laser.
The above Flamer idea still seems like the best option, of course you have to include all the changes and suggestions to get it to work.
Things like the Module:
Flamers: Fire Bug (Module): This ability allows a mech with Two or more flamers to set a Fire Template 50m in radius. All mechs in the Fire template, including your mech continuous to take additional heat ever second they remain in the Fire effect. A Fire Template effect lasts for 20 secs.
Things like Red line'n your mech passed shutdown causing Heat Sinks to pop. So the more times you red line the more heat sinks you are going to burn out.
There isn't a better option that holds true to what the flamer does.
In all honesty this probably not the result of the flamer idea being bad but of there being no heat effects in the game. Battletech the more heat you suffered the slower your mech moved, the harder it was to aim and the chance to pop your ammo. We get none of that, we simply get a red warning text and then a shutdown.
#27
-
-
- 136 posts
Member
Posted 12 June 2013 - 01:51 AM
Crow, we aren't that much different and I've come to the same conclusions with my number crunching as well.
I admit that is a brilliant way to address the MG and I agree that the differences between the small laser and pulse. The small beam laser needed that 120m increase.
But I did want to also point out in the MG vs Medium laser comparison that you are wrong in a medium laser having a cooldown of 3 seconds, it is actually 4 seconds (cooldown + beam duration = actual cooldown).
On the first video, it was clever regarding endo and ferro armor changes.
I admit that is a brilliant way to address the MG and I agree that the differences between the small laser and pulse. The small beam laser needed that 120m increase.
But I did want to also point out in the MG vs Medium laser comparison that you are wrong in a medium laser having a cooldown of 3 seconds, it is actually 4 seconds (cooldown + beam duration = actual cooldown).
On the first video, it was clever regarding endo and ferro armor changes.
#28
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 1,005 posts
Member
Posted 12 June 2013 - 02:42 PM
I just can't agree about flamers, but I think it's at least an interesting idea, and I applaud your effort with this thread/video/idea.
While it is, unfortunately, unlikely to convince PGI to change anything like this, it is a noble effort, and I wish there were more like you here.
While it is, unfortunately, unlikely to convince PGI to change anything like this, it is a noble effort, and I wish there were more like you here.
#29
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 13 June 2013 - 01:07 AM
Khell DarkWolf, on 12 June 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:
Crow, we aren't that much different and I've come to the same conclusions with my number crunching as well.
I admit that is a brilliant way to address the MG and I agree that the differences between the small laser and pulse. The small beam laser needed that 120m increase.
But I did want to also point out in the MG vs Medium laser comparison that you are wrong in a medium laser having a cooldown of 3 seconds, it is actually 4 seconds (cooldown + beam duration = actual cooldown).
On the first video, it was clever regarding endo and ferro armor changes.
I admit that is a brilliant way to address the MG and I agree that the differences between the small laser and pulse. The small beam laser needed that 120m increase.
But I did want to also point out in the MG vs Medium laser comparison that you are wrong in a medium laser having a cooldown of 3 seconds, it is actually 4 seconds (cooldown + beam duration = actual cooldown).
On the first video, it was clever regarding endo and ferro armor changes.
Yeah i knew it was 4 secs, I am sorry if the video didn't convey that aspect. Thx for the Feedback.
@ SD
Thx mavo, yeah it's a long shot on all accounts but better than no shot i suppose.
#30
-
-
- 229 posts
Member
- LocationMontreal
Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:13 PM
Gotta say these are really novel and good ideas.
This game lacks serious depth of gameplay and hides it behind the illusion of the depth of customization. But given so many weapon systems and combinations are viable, there really arent that many options for customization.
+1
This game lacks serious depth of gameplay and hides it behind the illusion of the depth of customization. But given so many weapon systems and combinations are viable, there really arent that many options for customization.
+1
#31
-
-
- 411 posts
Member
Posted 15 June 2013 - 04:36 AM
Congrats to the op. I don't necessarily agree with all proposed changes but there are some solid ideas in there and all of them are pretty well thought out to begin with.
The presentation format kinda makes it hard to comment though, I refuse to take notes, did enough of that in the university, thank you :-)
The presentation format kinda makes it hard to comment though, I refuse to take notes, did enough of that in the university, thank you :-)
#32
-
-
- The Raider
- 489 posts
Member
- LocationOutlaw On The Run, Faster than a Stolen Gun
Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:09 PM
Bumping thread for the sake of it getting noticed.
#33
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 19 June 2013 - 07:41 PM
Vaskadar, on 19 June 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:
Bumping thread for the sake of it getting noticed.
I appreciate it but don't sweat it, video 3 is recorded with the Sound Engineer and almost ready to go. Because it's the most in-depth, it is just taking longer as I am creating the visual for it to help explain what I mean rather than just playing random footage in the background.
#34
-
-
- 356 posts
Member
Posted 20 June 2013 - 04:04 AM
I'm rather inexperienced when it comes to MWO, but here's my 2 cents.
I agree that the flamers should be a utility weapon. However, to really shine as a utility weapon, I think that the heat dps should be at least equal to the hps. For every 1 heat it generates, it should deal at least 1 heat. In addition, I think it should slow down the heat dissipation of a mech that's over 90%, even if it can't actively go past that. If more heat penalties were introduced, this would make flamers devastating to overheated mechs.
I agree that the flamers should be a utility weapon. However, to really shine as a utility weapon, I think that the heat dps should be at least equal to the hps. For every 1 heat it generates, it should deal at least 1 heat. In addition, I think it should slow down the heat dissipation of a mech that's over 90%, even if it can't actively go past that. If more heat penalties were introduced, this would make flamers devastating to overheated mechs.
#35
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:28 PM
Leafia Barrett, on 20 June 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:
I'm rather inexperienced when it comes to MWO, but here's my 2 cents.
I agree that the flamers should be a utility weapon. However, to really shine as a utility weapon, I think that the heat dps should be at least equal to the hps. For every 1 heat it generates, it should deal at least 1 heat. In addition, I think it should slow down the heat dissipation of a mech that's over 90%, even if it can't actively go past that. If more heat penalties were introduced, this would make flamers devastating to overheated mechs.
I agree that the flamers should be a utility weapon. However, to really shine as a utility weapon, I think that the heat dps should be at least equal to the hps. For every 1 heat it generates, it should deal at least 1 heat. In addition, I think it should slow down the heat dissipation of a mech that's over 90%, even if it can't actively go past that. If more heat penalties were introduced, this would make flamers devastating to overheated mechs.
The extra .5 HPS taken is for two reason.
One the flamer deals damage, even thought the reason someone might take it is for the heat it still needs to deal damage. That way if it fails in it's role to heat them up. For instance you run into a Cataphract with Dual Gauss Rifles and 2 meds, now your flamer is doing relatively nothing because his Gauss Rifles don't generate enough heat to shut him down. So even if you fail to shut him down you should still be able to use it to do damage with.
The 2nd reason is a penalty tax for causing a negative impact on another player. In other words this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you. Heat is a big deal, it is the biggest deal in MWO so when you start fool'n with it bad things can happen and lots of people can get angry. This way everyone knows that he is paying a tax to make his mech grief other players, they know that his mech is got to be running hot to make your mech run hot.
And to a lesser extend to make using a flamer on a target not a sustainable action. Yes you can heat them up for brief moments and max out their heat as well as your own but ultimately you can't sustain it. So packing on more flamers will definitely max them out faster but it will also heat you up a lot faster as well.
The difference is, is that your mech is built to handle the additional heat whereas their mech may not be.
#36
-
-
- 229 posts
Member
- LocationMontreal
Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:43 PM
To make what Carrion Crow is explaining a little easier. Imagine this mech.
If Flamers produced as much or more heat to an enemy than they themselves caused you, you could have a mech (called the Flame no less) that ran at 106 kph running 4 flamers at full armor with far FAR higher heat capacity than any other mech on the field. This could run up to anything and basically stunlock it. Lights would be able to escape speed wise but not fight back, but anything else would take damage and either be shut down because they tried to fight or spend the entire time running.
That would be no fun for the opponent, basically a griefer's wet dream. The biggest part of balance that most people miss is it is as much about what you can do as it is about what can be done to you. A ratio of 'fun to do:fun to be done to you', if that ever drops below 1, you have an unfun game, you want that ratio as high as possible. Its the issue with high alpha builds, they are fun to use yes, but they are extremely unfun to have used against you.
If Flamers produced as much or more heat to an enemy than they themselves caused you, you could have a mech (called the Flame no less) that ran at 106 kph running 4 flamers at full armor with far FAR higher heat capacity than any other mech on the field. This could run up to anything and basically stunlock it. Lights would be able to escape speed wise but not fight back, but anything else would take damage and either be shut down because they tried to fight or spend the entire time running.
That would be no fun for the opponent, basically a griefer's wet dream. The biggest part of balance that most people miss is it is as much about what you can do as it is about what can be done to you. A ratio of 'fun to do:fun to be done to you', if that ever drops below 1, you have an unfun game, you want that ratio as high as possible. Its the issue with high alpha builds, they are fun to use yes, but they are extremely unfun to have used against you.
Edited by Ryebear, 20 June 2013 - 09:46 PM.
#37
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:40 PM
Ryebear, on 20 June 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:
To make what Carrion Crow is explaining a little easier. Imagine this mech.
If Flamers produced as much or more heat to an enemy than they themselves caused you, you could have a mech (called the Flame no less) that ran at 106 kph running 4 flamers at full armor with far FAR higher heat capacity than any other mech on the field. This could run up to anything and basically stunlock it. Lights would be able to escape speed wise but not fight back, but anything else would take damage and either be shut down because they tried to fight or spend the entire time running.
That would be no fun for the opponent, basically a griefer's wet dream. The biggest part of balance that most people miss is it is as much about what you can do as it is about what can be done to you. A ratio of 'fun to do:fun to be done to you', if that ever drops below 1, you have an unfun game, you want that ratio as high as possible. Its the issue with high alpha builds, they are fun to use yes, but they are extremely unfun to have used against you.
If Flamers produced as much or more heat to an enemy than they themselves caused you, you could have a mech (called the Flame no less) that ran at 106 kph running 4 flamers at full armor with far FAR higher heat capacity than any other mech on the field. This could run up to anything and basically stunlock it. Lights would be able to escape speed wise but not fight back, but anything else would take damage and either be shut down because they tried to fight or spend the entire time running.
That would be no fun for the opponent, basically a griefer's wet dream. The biggest part of balance that most people miss is it is as much about what you can do as it is about what can be done to you. A ratio of 'fun to do:fun to be done to you', if that ever drops below 1, you have an unfun game, you want that ratio as high as possible. Its the issue with high alpha builds, they are fun to use yes, but they are extremely unfun to have used against you.
A scarier version would be something like this - http://mwo.smurfy-ne...38fecfec87c4cf0
That combines the ability to grief and flame targets but also paired with a low heat high damage weapon.
#38
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:30 PM
Updated with Part 3 on first post.
Hi-Rez Image of Command Console.
Hi-Rez Image of Command Console.
#39
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 898 posts
Member
- LocationAS7-D(F), GRF-1N(P)
Posted 03 July 2013 - 10:13 PM
I think that your ideas are great. But with that said, not everything is going to work.
The largest issue being your ideas on indirect fire and artillery, and here's why:
You convert a weapon system into a two-man system. Yes, it could potentially create a role for a light mech to be a scout, but it is FAR FAR FAR more likely to instead create a system where the weapon system becomes obsolete, and here's why:
With all the changes you propose, a single user equipped with 2 LRM 15's - we'll call this user a Catapult - would be unable to SEE targets anywhere near its maximum range. Light mechs, likely to have a very small radar profile, would be all but immune to this catapult, as it would be nearly impossible for it to ever get a lock.
In addition, let's assume that this user is unable to get a player to play scout, or worse he had a scout, but somehow the scout dies. This user's mech is now no longer an asset to the team, and is just a hindrance.
As a PLAYER, I would actively avoid this situation. I would choose weapon systems that were not reliant upon other players - as those weapon systems likely would be far more efficient, and would not needlessly tag on another requirement for use.
Does NARC need a buff, sure, does TAG need a buff, maybe, would these changes completely obliterate LRMs in the game ALONE (Without ECM), DEFINATELY. Nobody is going to bring LRMs if you NEED another player to be designating your targets when you could have just brought any direct fire weapon.
I get where you're coming from with your post - well thought out, except apparently the way things are now, I think that some of your changes would hurt far more than they would help.
The largest issue being your ideas on indirect fire and artillery, and here's why:
You convert a weapon system into a two-man system. Yes, it could potentially create a role for a light mech to be a scout, but it is FAR FAR FAR more likely to instead create a system where the weapon system becomes obsolete, and here's why:
With all the changes you propose, a single user equipped with 2 LRM 15's - we'll call this user a Catapult - would be unable to SEE targets anywhere near its maximum range. Light mechs, likely to have a very small radar profile, would be all but immune to this catapult, as it would be nearly impossible for it to ever get a lock.
In addition, let's assume that this user is unable to get a player to play scout, or worse he had a scout, but somehow the scout dies. This user's mech is now no longer an asset to the team, and is just a hindrance.
As a PLAYER, I would actively avoid this situation. I would choose weapon systems that were not reliant upon other players - as those weapon systems likely would be far more efficient, and would not needlessly tag on another requirement for use.
Does NARC need a buff, sure, does TAG need a buff, maybe, would these changes completely obliterate LRMs in the game ALONE (Without ECM), DEFINATELY. Nobody is going to bring LRMs if you NEED another player to be designating your targets when you could have just brought any direct fire weapon.
I get where you're coming from with your post - well thought out, except apparently the way things are now, I think that some of your changes would hurt far more than they would help.
#40
-
-
- Rage
- 2,949 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:01 PM
Christof Romulus, on 03 July 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:
I think that your ideas are great. But with that said, not everything is going to work.
The largest issue being your ideas on indirect fire and artillery, and here's why:
You convert a weapon system into a two-man system. Yes, it could potentially create a role for a light mech to be a scout, but it is FAR FAR FAR more likely to instead create a system where the weapon system becomes obsolete, and here's why:
With all the changes you propose, a single user equipped with 2 LRM 15's - we'll call this user a Catapult - would be unable to SEE targets anywhere near its maximum range. Light mechs, likely to have a very small radar profile, would be all but immune to this catapult, as it would be nearly impossible for it to ever get a lock.
The largest issue being your ideas on indirect fire and artillery, and here's why:
You convert a weapon system into a two-man system. Yes, it could potentially create a role for a light mech to be a scout, but it is FAR FAR FAR more likely to instead create a system where the weapon system becomes obsolete, and here's why:
With all the changes you propose, a single user equipped with 2 LRM 15's - we'll call this user a Catapult - would be unable to SEE targets anywhere near its maximum range. Light mechs, likely to have a very small radar profile, would be all but immune to this catapult, as it would be nearly impossible for it to ever get a lock.
According to who? And why would he be unable to get a lock?
The M-Sig would be a natural 800 with a + or - depending what variant if we wanted to get clever.
That means that your Catapult would be able to detect that mech at 800m. Doesn't matter if it's a light or an assault.
So lets throw some modifiers at you for that light mech
He's running at full speed - +100 M-SIG
He is running at 90% of heat capacity - + 90 M-SIG
So right now you are able to lock up that light mech at 990m
Lets say you have a BAP, now you can lock him up at 1190m
But lets imagine he turned off his active sensors to try and be "stealthy" for a -300 M-Sig and you can only lock him up at 880m now. Now with out active sensors he can't target a mech so he can't get lock on with his missiles, can't see the targets damage grid or recon for his teammates. Only Scout.
But lets say he has a ECM as well - so now you can only lock up the target at 480m
But even with all that my version of sensors and Electronic warfare is still miles above what we have now. I mean it's a light mech with ECM and you can still lock him up at 480m. I would say that's a dramatic improvement with out the need for teammates.
You get someone to Tag or Narc him and his M-Sig jumps allowing you to lock him up at 1480m even with his ECM and Sensors off.
Quote
In addition, let's assume that this user is unable to get a player to play scout, or worse he had a scout, but somehow the scout dies. This user's mech is now no longer an asset to the team, and is just a hindrance.
As a PLAYER, I would actively avoid this situation. I would choose weapon systems that were not reliant upon other players - as those weapon systems likely would be far more efficient, and would not needlessly tag on another requirement for use.
Does NARC need a buff, sure, does TAG need a buff, maybe, would these changes completely obliterate LRMs in the game ALONE (Without ECM), DEFINATELY. Nobody is going to bring LRMs if you NEED another player to be designating your targets when you could have just brought any direct fire weapon.
I get where you're coming from with your post - well thought out, except apparently the way things are now, I think that some of your changes would hurt far more than they would help.
As a PLAYER, I would actively avoid this situation. I would choose weapon systems that were not reliant upon other players - as those weapon systems likely would be far more efficient, and would not needlessly tag on another requirement for use.
Does NARC need a buff, sure, does TAG need a buff, maybe, would these changes completely obliterate LRMs in the game ALONE (Without ECM), DEFINATELY. Nobody is going to bring LRMs if you NEED another player to be designating your targets when you could have just brought any direct fire weapon.
I get where you're coming from with your post - well thought out, except apparently the way things are now, I think that some of your changes would hurt far more than they would help.
Lets say that the above is true and they simply have massive amounts of ECM on their team and it's just a nightmare for getting locks - Much as it is now, and you left your TAG at home.
Even then your missiles are not useless because you could switch to bombard mode and still rain down fire up to 1500m. Sure you are not doing a great amount of damage as the LRM15's are spread over a template to saturate an area rather than target a individual mech or location and only hitting with a few missiles per salvo, BUT you are still doing damage and not limited by your inability to lock on to your target.
This system provides even more autonomy than what we have now. It is less reliant on other players to help you out but it also is much more rewarding for when they do!
When you get these sorts of wicked combo's between teammates that builds comradeship as working as a team is much more effective than the individual which makes from some fun gameplay.
But even if you PUG with people that are not interested in playing that way you are not restricted because of the way they play.
See where I am going?
17 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 17 guests, 0 anonymous users
