704 replies to this topic

[S p a n i a r d]

Very nice.

Balances Alpha AND introduces a Recoil Effect to continuously-firing ballistics
(which i think will be the next "problem" if PGI somehow balances Energy weapon
and Heavy Ballistics boating separately). And no problem with regards to "realism" too,
since it just makes sense that it is easier to calculate firing solutions with fewer
weapons compared to a multitude of weapons.

One suggestion though, introduction of a "target movement" variable..

Basically, if the target did not change position compared to the moment that you
fired your first salvo, the TCL stress is reduced to half for the next salvo
- since the targeting computer doesn't have to "recalculate" too much (since the
target is in the same position anyway). Adds some sort of realism and is also
punishment for of course, standing still

Edited by S p a n i a r d, 14 June 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[S p a n i a r d]

Another thing that bugged me the moment i was reading into the middle of your post..

What is your line of work/profession?

(Of course you may choose not to reply (or maybe just PM me lol))

I'm really just curious.. because of the way you present and think about things

[Zyllos]

S p a n i a r d, on 14 June 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Very nice.

Balances Alpha AND introduces a Recoil Effect to continuously-firing ballistics
(which i think will be the next "problem" if PGI somehow balances Energy weapon
and Heavy Ballistics boating separately). And no problem with regards to "realism" too,
since it just makes sense that it is easier to calculate firing solutions with fewer
weapons compared to a multitude of weapons.

One suggestion though, introduction of a "target movement" variable..

Basically, if the target did not change position compared to the moment that you
fired your first salvo, the TCL stress is reduced to half for the next salvo
- since the targeting computer doesn't have to "recalculate" too much (since the
target is in the same position anyway). Adds some sort of realism and is also
punishment for of course, standing still

You could expand this entire system to include a LOT of TCS values into various actions:

Firing weapons from different sections at the same time: +5 TCS to each weapon fired per section
Moving 51-75% Throttle: +15 base TCL (lower limit increase)
Moving 76-100% Throttle: +30 base TCL (lower limit increase)
Jump Jetting: +30 base TCL (lower limit increase)
Free-Fall (no jump jetting): +15 TCL (lower limit increase)
Targeting Computer: -50% TCS to equipped weapon; mech gains 25 TCL dissipation per second (to 125)
Shoulder Actuator Critical Hit: +100% TCS to all equipped weapons in arm
Gyro Actuator Critical Hit: +50% TCS to all equipped weapons

You can see where I am going with this. You can easily expand this system into other areas and it also makes the system extremely easy to balance due to how easy it is to expand.

[Homeless Bill]

Phaesphoros, on 14 June 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

@Homeless Bill
Now that I got it backwards in the GIMP'ed screenshot, why do you suggest losing the convergence first, then COF? IMO losing convergence is much worse than some randomness.

zorak ramone, on 14 June 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

One, I think its overkill to both kill convergence and introduce cone of fire at 100. Killing convergence is a really harsh penalty with a steep threshold (99 = everything ok, 101 = can't aim). Its too much to penalized a player for going slightly over 100. Also, it would differentially affect mechs based on their geometry. A K2 with PPCs/GRs in the torso would hardly be affected while a Jagermech with GRs in the arms wouldn't be able to hit at all.

I suggest that you don't need to kill convergence, but rather, you start getting increasing cone of fire as you go over 100. Say, at 101 it would be .2 degrees and at 200 its 20 degrees (not sure if these are good numbers, but they demonstrate the principle). This still prevents convergence of massive alphas without penalizing someone too harshly for barely going over the threshold, and without unequally penalizing mechs based on their geometry and hardpoint layout.

This is one some people may disagree with, but I believe the convergence penalty is the most important preventative aspect because it solves short-range combat as well. This isn't a system to fix sniping - it's a system to fix all things. At short range, a cone of fire does virtually nothing. Without an immediate, meaningful penalty, I fear it won't be enough.

My thoughts boil down to this: if it can't solve this 'mech, it's not a sufficient solution.

AC/40 Jagermechs, K2s, and Splatterboats will be unaffected if convergence loss isn't serious business. You can say, "Well, that's awfully harsh," but the TCL dissipates so quickly that I see no reason to give players a lot of wiggle room. If you set up your weapon groups correctly, you should easily be able to space out your fire without going over 100. Fired 1/100th of a second too early, lost convergence, and missed? That sucks, but it's one shot; cowboy up and fire again.

Cone of fire is really just there to further penalize snipers and things with multiple weapons mounted in the same place (3xPPCs on the HGN-732).

In short, if it doesn't hit brawlers with an immediate effect, brawling will be supreme and the long-range game will largely go away. Which I'd prefer to the current metagame, but my goal is balanced warfare.

ssm, on 14 June 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

Make a test server, invite the goons, and after a week it will occur to everyone that only legitimate way to compete is facehugging with relatively small mechs boated with MLs and SRMs (or something similar)

Every "magic wand" solution to balance has flaws, and those flaws will be always exploited.

...

And so on.

That's why having separate TCS values for each weapon is brilliant: if it turns out that my current numbers encourage SRM and medium laser boating, you could simply increase the TCS value so you can fire fewer simultaneously

You say that every magic wand solution has flaws, but I'd challenge you to tell me what this won't solve. Every other solution I've seen is either draconian and un-fun or incomplete and useless; this one hits every problematic build without any foreseeable collateral damage.

HighTest, on 14 June 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

This thread is great. Sadly, I just found it today, otherwise I'd have loved to be part of the discussion.

Solution:
Involve a very slight random number generator effect when multiple weapons are fired simultaneously. Or heck, even add it to when every weapon (except homing weapons) fires.

What it will do is make long-range sniping a little less effective. But, you might argue, at 50m they can still boat effectively. Sure they can! But you would be able to fight back at that range too.

Never too late to join =D

I like that it's much easier to understand, but your solution removes a small bit of complexity for a large bit of solvency. First, I think the TCS values are necessary to properly balance the fact that it's far more okay to fire 4 medium lasers together than 4 PPCs. I would hate to see a Jenner's accuracy being penalized for doing what it's supposed to do.

Second (and this is the big one), without convergence loss, it will not solve our problems. It will just make brawling super-dominant. As I said further up in this post, if it doesn't solve the Hunchback IIC, it's not a sufficient solution in my mind. If it only affects snipers, we're in for a lot of AC/40 (and Splat, whenever SRMs get some love).

Haji1096, on 14 June 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

in the sense that gamers will counter tcl mechancism by using small profile mechs boating weapons with small tcl

That's why each weapon having its own TCS value is so awesome: if people are boating small weapons, you can raise the TCS on those weapons until it's no longer overpowered. It gives PGI an entirely independent set of numbers to balance burst damage.

zorak ramone, on 14 June 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Two, I'm not sure that missiles need to be part of the TCL system. I think a preferable implementation would be to ensure by missile flight path that missiles tended to hit multiple sections. This would be more in line with CBT, and it would separate the missile weapons as a class from the energy and ballistic weapons. How to do this is another issue all together, but I think its possible.

All three classes of missiles need fixing right now, but I also think they should all be affected by this penalty as well.

LRMs - They need to do more damage and spread it around way more, but I also think that ridiculous salvos of 60 or 80LRMs are bad in the same way that huge pinpoint damage is: a single mistake means instant death. I'm not saying getting caught in the open shouldn't mean death, but I'm suggesting that it should take more than a single click to do. An LRM40 sounds like enough for a single volley to me (especially since you only have to wait one second to fire off a second one).

SRMs - They need to be at 2.0 damage or close to it. Once that happens, you'll see Splat back in style. And I don't see any reason that sort of build shouldn't be hostage to the same restrictions as everything else. The Splatcat would have been a lot less cheesy if it could only fire one ear a time accurately.

SSRMs - They need to seek the center torso less, but again, why should this type of weapon be exempt from penalties? I'm thinking Timberwolf Alt D (4xSSRM6 + 2ERPPC) when I'm thinking that streaks need the same limit as everything else gets.

To account for the fact that all of them spread damage, their TCS to damage ratios are very low compared to other weapons.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 14 June 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[Zyllos]

Homeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

...
SRMs - They need to be at 2.0 damage or close to it. Once that happens, you'll see Splat back in style. And I don't see any reason that sort of build shouldn't be hostage to the same restrictions as everything else. The Splatcat would have been a lot less cheesy if it could only fire one ear a time accurately.
...

I think if they made the SRMs ripple fire extremely quickly and then upped the damage to 2.0, then applied the Cone-of-Fire ideas you had, they would be fine.

[zorak ramone]

Homeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

This is one some people may disagree with, but I believe the convergence penalty is the most important preventative aspect because it solves short-range combat as well. This isn't a system to fix sniping - it's a system to fix all things. At short range, a cone of fire does virtually nothing. Without an immediate, meaningful penalty, I fear it won't be enough.

My thoughts boil down to this: if it can't solve this 'mech, it's not a sufficient solution.

Well, the change that I suggested (gradual cone of fire at TCL > 100) would still fix this mech given that you calculate TCL at trigger pull, as you suggested.

Once the pilot pulls the trigger on the 2xAC20, you're immediately at 200 TCL and whatever CoF angle that would generate (exact values to be determined later).

Quote

AC/40 Jagermechs, K2s, and Splatterboats will be unaffected if convergence loss isn't serious business. You can say, "Well, that's awfully harsh," but the TCL dissipates so quickly that I see no reason to give players a lot of wiggle room. If you set up your weapon groups correctly, you should easily be able to space out your fire without going over 100. Fired 1/100th of a second too early, lost convergence, and missed? That sucks, but it's one shot; cowboy up and fire again.



Cone of fire is really just there to further penalize snipers and things with multiple weapons mounted in the same place (3xPPCs on the HGN-732).

Well thats kind of my point. If you have no convergence as the primary penalty for going over 100, then you penalize mechs based on geometry. An AC/40 Jagermech at 101 TCL with no convergence would be screwed, but an AC40 K2 would be just fine. Similarly compare a HBK-4P ML boat with a Blackjack ML boat.

Quote

In short, if it doesn't hit brawlers with an immediate effect, brawling will be supreme and the long-range game will largely go away. Which I'd prefer to the current metagame, but my goal is balanced warfare.

If an immediate effect at TCL > 100 effect is desired, then it would better to go CoF as I suggested, but set a baseline. I.e. maybe start CoF at 20 degrees (again, actual numbers by playtesting) at TCL = 101, giving you immediate serious spread once you go over TCL = 100, then then gradually increasing CoF as you increase TCL, like say 0.2 degrees per point over 100.

The advantage of doing it this way is that you penalize every mech equally regardless of its geometry.

[zorak ramone]

Homeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

All three classes of missiles need fixing right now, but I also think they should all be affected by this penalty as well.

Well the purpose of the penalty is the prevent players from accurately doing large chunks of damage in single locations in single shots. If missiles were, by virtue of their flight mechanics, incapable of doing consistent damage in a single location, then they wouldn't need this penalty.

That said, given the current implementation of missiles (LRMs/SRMs tend to hit CT, SRMs can mostly be aimed), then yes, they absolutely would need the penalty.

[Zyllos]

Good points Zorak.

And I personally believe having that initial base as a CoF, once the TCL is over 100 is important. Then increasing the spread as the numbers go up to the 200, which then the CoF will cap.

I would hope that SRMs would move more into ripple firing their shots with an increase in damage (to 2.0). Having them fire at a rate of 1 SRM per 0.1s would make an SRM/2 require 0.1s worth of aiming while an SRM/6 would require 0.5s worth of aiming. I would also might increase the speed of SRMs a bit.

Then, just make the CoF for SRMs increase just like other weapons.

[Homeless Bill]

I would personally like to say thank you to everyone that has spammed the moderators and developers with this thread. Garth said he'd gotten five PMs about it this morning alone. <333

S p a n i a r d, on 14 June 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Basically, if the target did not change position compared to the moment that you
fired your first salvo, the TCL stress is reduced to half for the next salvo
- since the targeting computer doesn't have to "recalculate" too much (since the
target is in the same position anyway). Adds some sort of realism and is also
punishment for of course, standing still

Zyllos, on 14 June 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

You could expand this entire system to include a LOT of TCS values into various actions:

Firing weapons from different sections at the same time: +5 TCS to each weapon fired per section
Moving 51-75% Throttle: +15 base TCL (lower limit increase)
Moving 76-100% Throttle: +30 base TCL (lower limit increase)
Jump Jetting: +30 base TCL (lower limit increase)
Free-Fall (no jump jetting): +15 TCL (lower limit increase)
Targeting Computer: -50% TCS to equipped weapon; mech gains 25 TCL dissipation per second (to 125)
Shoulder Actuator Critical Hit: +100% TCS to all equipped weapons in arm
Gyro Actuator Critical Hit: +50% TCS to all equipped weapons

You can see where I am going with this. You can easily expand this system into other areas and it also makes the system extremely easy to balance due to how easy it is to expand.

Though I favor the system going in as-is and unmodified for balancing purposes, I would totally love to see stuff like this. I think it's a more elegant way to balance poptarting, it's a no-brainer idea for a module, and it would be another way to implement effects for critical damage.

S p a n i a r d, on 14 June 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

What is your line of work/profession?

I'm really just curious.. because of the way you present and think about things

I'm a video game programmer. Though if I had my way, I'd be working as a designer (PGI, you should totally hire me =D).

The way I present things probably has more to do with the four years of debate I did in high school. I've always had a passion for arguing, but those few years made me extremely proficient at structuring persuasive writing and speech. Even the bunderlining is something I got straight out of Policy debate.

[Skunk Wolf]

Roll back.

Stock variants of mechs only.

Full Credit value for all equipment on modified mechs that does not match the stock configuration of the mechs in the mech bay.

Allow a month long event to purchase mech bays with credits or a limited time per account, that's user activated.

No mech modification outside of modules until the Clans show up and Omni-Mechs are here.

Get a helmet, it'll be a fun wild ride.

Edited by Skunk Wolf, 14 June 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[Pater Mors]

Hmmm. After reading through the OP I still feel that a properly implemented heat system will solve almost all these problems.

Yes, you still get that first monster Alpha but you die or severely cripple yourself instantly. No more cheesing every Mech you meet because you're dead or can barely move/fire.

Drop heat capacity drastically. Raise heat dissipation drastically. Suddenly it's infeasible to Alpha because you're going to cook yourself in the process 9 times out of 10. Firing discipline comes back. Chain fire becomes the norm. Versatile builds become the norm. Boating still works but requires a lot more skill to do properly. Alpha is put back in it's place as a last resort tactic.

Edit: I'd like to see penalties for constantly running hot as well. Say for more than a few seconds above 80% heat. Convergence could certainly be a part of these penalties.

Ballistics require more skill to use than lasers, PPC's and missiles and I think that the increase in skill is a good enough trade off for not having as much in the way of heat penalties. The AC40 Jag is only dangerous if the pilot can shoot and get within effective range and they're very squishy anyway. If it's really that bothersome, mess with the projectile speeds and reload times a bit to increase the skill needed to use ballistics. Also the chance of ammo explosion should be upped (20 - 30%) when taking damage to a stripped section with ammo in it.

Edited by Pater Mors, 14 June 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Traigus]

Pater Mors, on 14 June 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Ballistics require more skill to use than lasers, PPC's and missiles and I think that the increase in skill is a good enough trade off for not having as much in the way of heat penalties. The AC40 Jag is only dangerous if the pilot can shoot and get within effective range and they're very squishy anyway. If it's really that bothersome, mess with the projectile speeds and reload times a bit to increase the skill needed to use ballistics. Also the chance of ammo explosion should be upped (20 - 30%) when taking damage to a stripped section with ammo in it.

What do you drive?

Most people that consider heavy mechs squishy drive bigger than heavy mechs and have huge alpha firepower themselves.

As a medium pilot, I turn the wrong corner and I can get 1 shot by these things , or best case, 2 shot. I can never kill one unless I spot it at a really extensive range ,and can hammer on it repeatedly. Hell, I usually can't put out damage fast enough to kill a severely damaged one before I get hit by 4 rounds to the CT

[Pater Mors]

Traigus, on 14 June 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

What do you drive?

Most people that consider heavy mechs squishy drive bigger than heavy mechs and have huge alpha firepower themselves.

As a medium pilot, I turn the wrong corner and I can get 1 shot by these things , or best case, 2 shot. I can never kill one unless I spot it at a really extensive range ,and can hammer on it repeatedly. Hell, I usually can't put out damage fast enough to kill a severely damaged one before I get hit by 4 rounds to the CT

I drive all weight classes. Sure, I get nailed more in my Treb than I do in my Highlander but it just means I pick my fights better. I don't find them that hard to take down unless we're on open ground and I have no cover or they get the drop on me. I eat AC40's for breakfast in my 152kph Jenner unless they are VERY good shots. The thing that makes the AC40 squishy is the XL engine.

I also don't Alpha with pretty much any Mech. Edit: I should say I don't Alpha with any Mech because I generally build versatile builds. I do alpha in something like a StreakCat, but I've never owned a poptart (strip all my JJ's off my HGNs) or PPC Stalker or anything like that.

Edited by Pater Mors, 14 June 2013 - 04:13 PM.

[Traigus]

Pater Mors, on 14 June 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

I drive all weight classes. Sure, I get nailed more in my Treb than I do in my Highlander but it just means I pick my fights better. I don't find them that hard to take down unless we're on open ground and I have no cover or they get the drop on me. I eat AC40's for breakfast in my 152kph Jenner unless they are VERY good shots. The thing that makes the AC40 squishy is the XL engine.

I also don't Alpha with pretty much any Mech.

Ok, because they just faceroll me about 90% of the time unless I have a lot of space.. Not to mention there is always 3 of the damn things, so even if I can keep one at bay, there is usually 2 more that hit me from behind. 99% of the mechs I have seen in the last month are (Stalkers, Atlasses, Highlanders, Jenenrs, Ravens, and AC 40 Jaegers).. there have been a smattering of blackjacks. Everythign else is a rare novelty. it is not unusual for me to drop with 3 AC40's on my team and 3 to be on the other team.

The only way I can avoid BETA-STRIKE land is to play my heavy mechs where my ELO is garbage.

There is nothing i can do, I'm just dead. I can be as accurate as hell, but my cruisers just can't repel firepower of that magnitude... and these guys really don't miss. Which is why I support this system BTW,

Edited by Traigus, 14 June 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[Soy]

Balance the clans?

HA!

Balls in your court, Inner Sphere.

[Psydotek]

I'm sure someone also mentioned this (I didn't read every page of the thread, only the initial post and some of the last page or two)...

This sort of solution would also allow for certain clan 'mechs that are known for having powerful targeting computers to have a proper advantage over their inner sphere counterparts (either by having a higher TCL threshold or faster TCL decay).

[Homeless Bill]

Skunk Wolf, on 14 June 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Roll back.

Stock variants of mechs only.

Full Credit value for all equipment on modified mechs that does not match the stock configuration of the mechs in the mech bay.

Allow a month long event to purchase mech bays with credits or a limited time per account, that's user activated.

No mech modification outside of modules until the Clans show up and Omni-Mechs are here.

Get a helmet, it'll be a fun wild ride.

Sounds like a fun game. When are you planning on making it?

Seriously though, stock-only should be a mode when they have time to put it in. But it should not be the basis of the game.

Pater Mors, on 14 June 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Drop heat capacity drastically. Raise heat dissipation drastically. Suddenly it's infeasible to Alpha because you're going to cook yourself in the process 9 times out of 10. Firing discipline comes back. Chain fire becomes the norm. Versatile builds become the norm. Boating still works but requires a lot more skill to do properly. Alpha is put back in it's place as a last resort tactic.

Edit: I'd like to see penalties for constantly running hot as well. Say for more than a few seconds above 80% heat. Convergence could certainly be a part of these penalties.

Ballistics require more skill to use than lasers, PPC's and missiles and I think that the increase in skill is a good enough trade off for not having as much in the way of heat penalties. The AC40 Jag is only dangerous if the pilot can shoot and get within effective range and they're very squishy anyway. If it's really that bothersome, mess with the projectile speeds and reload times a bit to increase the skill needed to use ballistics. Also the chance of ammo explosion should be upped (20 - 30%) when taking damage to a stripped section with ammo in it.

Heat does not prevent the problem; it punishes it after the cheese has been launched, and is thus inferior. You make them needlessly severe to account for the fact that they don't prevent the problem. Again, it also totally ignores ballistics. The heat penalties you're talking about are a massive change, they're way too severe, and new players will **** their pants.

The fact that you think ballistics take more skill than lasers is absurd. I just... I don't even. And I don't know what ***** AC/40 Jagers you've been facing, but they're about as cheesy as it gets. A low-skill player can go toe-to-toe with an assault in one, and a skilled pilot is absolutely devastating. And that's on a 65-ton 'mech. Again, what would you do about the Mauler or Devastator? Clan 'mechs with heavy ballistics like the Hunchback IIC? You're just ignoring impending problems in favor of fixing the current FOTM. I'm guessing your solution would be the same as PGI: just avoid 'mechs capable of mounting heavy ballistics.

Basically, I think you're all kinds of wrong, and I'm not going to try to convince you of it. If you don't see the same problem everyone else sees, then you keep believing what you want.

Let's try this again without being a huge *******.

I like your solution one hell of a lot more than what PGI is doing. I think if heat penalties go in, lowering the cap and raising dissipation is the way to go. It's a system-wide solution instead of their inane per-weapon stacking penalty. Heat values for individual things are best left alone in favor of something like this.

I'm not sure where I stand on penalties for running hot. I know it was there in tabletop, but I've been mulling over whether it's something that should be punished or not in realtime. I don't see running hot as a necessarily bad thing, unless you're always toeing the line. Over 80-90%, I'd be fine with seeing some penalties start to appear.

I have two big problems with reducing the heat cap and making it so that an alpha is dangerous:
1. It will be extremely punishing to new players. Even now, they only get a couple volleys before they overheat. Making it so that a single salvo could do damage to their 'mech seems like a bad way to go in my mind.
2. Alpha strikes are awesome. I really like seeing a 'mech fire everything it's got in a desperate bid to put out some damage. Not all the time, but not as infrequently as you'd like, either. I just think that alpha strikes and regular shooting should have a difference: one is for putting damage on a specific target and the other is for putting huge amounts of immediate damage on any part of a target - not just an act of desperation.

I completely disagree with you about ballistics. Ballistics and PPCs are the easiest weapons to put on target - you only have to aim once and click once. Lasers require you to keep them pointed at a component for the entire beam duration.

To me, duration and travel speed aren't the way to go on ballistics. Travel speed won't affect the in-your-face UAC/20s and reload duration isn't much of an issue when all you need to do is put one or two shots on target before it pops. And nerfing projectile speed will also make the Gauss far less useful. It needs to be useful when equipped single, but not overpowered when stacked.

I also dislike the random chance of blowing up as a way of balancing anything. Personally, I'd like to see more ammo explosions, too, but I think something more is needed as a core balancing mechanism.

Soy, on 14 June 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Balance the clans?

HA!

They're still going to be OP, but at least they won't be able to core an Atlas with a single volley.

Psydotek, on 14 June 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

This sort of solution would also allow for certain clan 'mechs that are known for having powerful targeting computers to have a proper advantage over their inner sphere counterparts (either by having a higher TCL threshold or faster TCL decay).

Yes, indeed. Adaptability is a huge bonus for this system. If PGI wanted to make it more intricate and interesting, its simple to expand.

zorak and Zyllos - replies incoming at some point in the near future.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 14 June 2013 - 09:32 PM.

[Soy]

Point was, Clans shouldn't be 'balanced'. They were never supposed to be 'balanced'. The deus ex machina for them is supposed to be, well, Inner Sphere zerg strat. Obviously that will take some hand of god mechanics in CW and stuff to get right. But right isn't balanced, hehe...

[Pater Mors]

Homeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Heat does not prevent the problem; it punishes it after the cheese has been launched, and is thus inferior. You make them needlessly severe to account for the fact that they don't prevent the problem. Again, it also totally ignores ballistics. The heat penalties you're talking about are a massive change, they're way too severe, and new players will **** their pants.

The fact that you think ballistics take more skill than lasers is absurd. I just... I don't even. And I don't know what ***** AC/40 Jagers you've been facing, but they're about as cheesy as it gets. A low-skill player can go toe-to-toe with an assault in one, and a skilled pilot is absolutely devastating. And that's on a 65-ton 'mech. Again, what would you do about the Mauler or Devastator? Clan 'mechs with heavy ballistics like the Hunchback IIC? You're just ignoring impending problems in favor of fixing the current FOTM. I'm guessing your solution would be the same as PGI: just avoid 'mechs capable of mounting heavy ballistics.

Basically, I think you're all kinds of wrong, and I'm not going to try to convince you of it. If you don't see the same problem everyone else sees, then you keep believing what you want.

I read your whole post from start to finish with an open mind and made a decision about it based on how the game feels and what's coming up in future and prior experience with the MW franchise. Then I provided you my opinion about that. Way to be a rude d*ck about it.

I might have enjoyed a more in depth discussion with you on your idea and on my own ideas and how they could potentially mix in a way that might actually fix problems in this game if implemented correctly but since you want to be an aggressive, arrogant *** then you can go f*ck yourself.

[Homeless Bill]

Pater Mors, on 14 June 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

I read your whole post from start to finish with an open mind and made a decision about it based on how the game feels and what's coming up in future and prior experience with the MW franchise. Then I provided you my opinion about that. Way to be a rude d*ck about it.

I might have enjoyed a more in depth discussion with you on your idea and on my own ideas and how they could potentially mix in a way that might actually fix problems in this game if implemented correctly but since you want to be an aggressive, arrogant *** then you can go f*ck yourself.

I'll be honest: it's been a long week at work, I'm tried, I saw an opinion I vehemently disagreed with, and I pounced. I pounced like the aggressive, arrogant ******* I typically become while arguing. You received a week's worth of unrelated hate, and for that I am truly sorry =[

You gave some well-written feedback, and I was a huge {Richard Cameron}. You're right, I'm ashamed, and there's no excuse. The kind of response you got is the kind of response trolls deserve.

I stand by the arguments I made, but not at all by the manner in which I made them. Your opinion is no less valid than mine, I sincerely appreciate the time you took to read the OP and give your feedback, and I hope you can eventually forgive me for letting the rabid homeless guy off the leash.

I know all too well that the first step in persuading someone is finding common ground, and that's the polar opposite of what I did. I'm clearly not perfect, and I'll work on staying off the forums when the rage is engaged.