704 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

zorak ramone, on 26 June 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Guys.

Any solution that involves tweaking the heat scale or adding heat penalties will not solve the whole "high alpha - pinpoint damage" problem that the OP is addressing because "Gauss Rifles."

Back in the days of SHS, GR K2s were king and were completely unaffected by heat. There is no way you can twist CBT's heat scale to make 2xGR any sort of heat burden.

I believe you read only the heat threshold section of my idea. But I confess my convergence idea refuses to address Gauss Rifles. I'll walk you through why, and quickly refresh you on the other half of the idea which addresses convergence. Part of it is already in the works according to Bryan Ekman in 2 different ATDs (to include purple large laser variants, lol!)

First off what you said is true. But back in closed beta, Gauss Rifles had no penalties in their use and travelled as fast as PPCs do now.

• CB: GR bullet travelled 2000m/s, PPC travelled 1200m/s.
  
• Current: GR bullet travels 1200m/s, PPC travels 2000m/s.

Gauss rifle now explodes with a 90% chance just from losing your front armor. There's a second chance from losing your rear armor. There's a third chance when the weapon loses its 3 health (3 MGs for 1 second = destruction of Gauss Rifle). That's up to 3 instance-triggers of a 90% chance of exploding. You can't beat the odds of 3 90% chances. That's 270 out of 300 odds that just one rifle will explode. If you manage to go all 3 instances without the rifle exploding then you deserve some props and a beer!
Consider this, like all MWO mechs the Atlas has the internal structure of half the maximum armor. So if the RT (ballistic point) of the Atlas is 86 max combined armor, then the internal is 42. Once that Gauss Rifle explodes it's down to 22 health.
That's the most internal structure you can have on any mech that weighs 100 tons or less. To even carry the weapon is a risky death sentence. To carry two is worse. To carry three is suicide.

It doesn't need to be nerfed any farther now.

Gauss rifle impact.

Spoiler

Before I go farther I should note that currently the Catapult, the Hunchback 4G or 4H, the Misery, any Atlas, Cicada 3M, Highlander and several others can in fact run the twin PPC + gauss combination. My Cicada runs it with an XL 170 engine and low armor.

Now your fear of the PPC + Gauss combination, I can understand that. Yes it would still be possible. However as mentioned in previous posts you'd be able to fire 4 times back to back with twin standard PPCs and a Gauss safely and that's assuming you are stationary, period. Any more or if you're moving/jumping/etc, with any mech, you'd shut down. Get close to them and they are pretty helpless. The twin ER PPC + Gauss couldn't manage 3 shots without shutdown.

It's also very likely heat for the PPCs would increase if the dispersion idea doesn't go through.

But that leads me to something else I addressed earlier. I would push for a PPC dispersion or splash damage effect. No, not the way SRMs do it. Let's say we hit an Awesome in the CT. The splash goes out to the LT and RT. PPC does 10 damage in total, but since we splashed to 3 parts we'd deal maybe 6 to the impact site and 2 to each side torso. That's 6 + 2 + 2 = 10. See image as to why I believe that should happen.

Spoiler

Does that not look like a splash?

PPC has lost its pinpoint after that.

All other autocannons are addressed in a system PGI has already mentioned in lore-friendly weapon variants. The only true way to create them is multi-shot ACs. Autocannons are never, ever depicted as firing single cannon shots. They fire in bursts and categorized as "damage ratings."

A simple and easy version to recite is the AC/20. The AC/20 is rated for a total of 20 units damage. This could be done by firing 20 shots that deal 1 damage, or 4 shots that deal 5 damage, or any other way.

A specific variant is called the Super Crusher Heavy Autocannon (an AC/20). It fires 10 shots of 2 damage each in a rapid and terrifying burst at a rate of (guessing here) 1 shot per 0.1 seconds or 1 shot per 0.2 seconds. That means it pumps out essentially 10 AC/2 rounds in a single burst no longer than 2 seconds. More likely 1 second long. Can you hold a rapidly firing cannon on target in the exact same spot for a full second?

With or without Bill's system it'd do incredible wonders. With Bill's Targeting Computer Load idea it will be even better, but mine would manage without it too. (Although as said in the gameplay balance thread when I first read and enjoyed Bill's idea, instead of creating a cone of accuracy as proposed, it would work a bit different. All weapons adjust horizontally only to converge on a focal point, not vertically (since bullets do not fall). It would be an 'arc of error' unless projectile drop is introduced.)

An Arc of Error would possibly fire like this \ / or this / \ and thus not hit the actual target in the intended area.

Edited by Koniving, 26 June 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[Adrian Steel]

Ghost Badger, on 10 June 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

I'll add this thread to the folder of reasonable, thought out alternatives that PGI will never read, nor apportion money for recoding.

[Syrkres]

I do like the thoughts put together here.

[Mahws]

Phaesphoros, on 26 June 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

And, AFAIK, that's what they're supposed to be (from TT/canon). Same goes for the LB 10-X AC, which is really ironic considering MWO's LBX.

They're not. They're massively expensive in terms of BV. So more double heatsinks = less mechs fielded.

Though on the subject of what things are supposed to be in canon:
The AC/2 has 10% of the DPS of an AC/20.
The Machine Gun has the exact same DPS as an AC/2.
Double Heatsinks, Endo-Steel and XL Engines are massively expensive and are extremely rare, even in the elite forces of the military, let alone for random mercenaries.
SRM are not dumb fire.
SSRM will only fire if they're guaranteed to hit.
ECM does not prevent missile lock on.
Vibration sensing wall hacks aren't a thing.
CASE actually helps XL engines.
Getting to 100 heat doesn't cause you to shutdown with no harm done.
Light and medium mechs far, far outnumber heavies and assaults on the battlefield.
Customizing the weapon loadout, or engine, on a mech is extremely expensive and very rarely done.
A single mech, even a 20 tonner, is something treasured and handed down through a family. A mercenary owning four personal mechs, let alone dozens is unheard of.
Committing two assault lances to seize two small portable germanium mines would be utter lunacy.
Jump Jets are useful for going forwards faster than you could on land.
Things other than mechs exist on battlefields.
Light mechs are intended for anti-vehicle/infantry/scouting. Fighting an Atlas in a Jenner would be straight up suicide.
And so on...

[Zyllos]

I have some qualms with some of your information posted here:

Koniving, on 26 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

I believe you read only the heat threshold section of my idea. But I confess my convergence idea refuses to address Gauss Rifles. I'll walk you through why, and quickly refresh you on the other half of the idea which addresses convergence. Part of it is already in the works according to Bryan Ekman in 2 different ATDs (to include purple large laser variants, lol!)

First off what you said is true. But back in closed beta, Gauss Rifles had no penalties in their use and travelled as fast as PPCs do now.

• CB: GR bullet travelled 2000m/s, PPC travelled 1200m/s.
  
• Current: GR bullet travels 1200m/s, PPC travels 2000m/s.

Gauss rifle now explodes with a 90% chance just from losing your front armor. There's a second chance from losing your rear armor. There's a third chance when the weapon loses its 3 health (3 MGs for 1 second = destruction of Gauss Rifle). That's up to 3 instance-triggers of a 90% chance of exploding. You can't beat the odds of 3 90% chances. That's 270 out of 300 odds that just one rifle will explode. If you manage to go all 3 instances without the rifle exploding then you deserve some props and a beer!

This is not entirely correct. The Gauss Rifle has a 90% chance of explosion when it takes 3 damage from a critical hit. That is the only instance in which it triggers. It does not trigger this at armor removal or everytime you take damage with no armor, but only when a critical hit happens and the damage is applied to a Gauss Rifle which exceeded it's current HP (starting of 3).

I am not entirely sure, as with the case of ammo bins, that if a section is removed by internal structure damage (destroying the section), that it has a 90% chance of exploding.

Ammo has 10 HP and only a 10% chance of explosion when 10 points of critical hit damage has happened to it. It also has a 10% chance of exploding if that section's internal structure points is depleted (destroyed).

Edited by Zyllos, 27 June 2013 - 06:32 AM.

[Koniving]

Zyllos, on 27 June 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

I have some qualms with some of your information posted here:

This is not entirely correct. The Gauss Rifle has a 90% chance of explosion when it takes 3 damage from a critical hit. That is the only instance in which it triggers. It does not trigger this at armor removal or everytime you take damage with no armor, but only when a critical hit happens and the damage is applied to a Gauss Rifle which exceeded it's current HP (starting of 3).

I am not entirely sure, as with the case of ammo bins, that if a section is removed by internal structure damage (destroying the section), that it has a 90% chance of exploding.

Ammo has 10 HP and only a 10% chance of explosion when 10 points of critical hit damage has happened to it. It also has a 10% chance of exploding if that section's internal structure points is depleted (destroyed).

Well then, let's see you stand still for me with a gauss rifle in an arm that has 3 health armor and I'll use a small laser to strip it. Then you can tell me why it is that your rifle explodes when you lose your front armor to a single small laser, whose total damage cannot reach the gauss rifle's 3 health due to having spent it on the armor.

Lately I've been running an Atlas RS with 6 rear torso armor. The rifle explodes more than half the time it's shot by a passing glance of lasers.

We've also done tests where a single AC/2 round used against the limb (with 2 armor) causes the rifle to explode. Later tonight I'll arrange for that test again to be recorded from two angles.

(edit: Armor, not health.)

Edited by Koniving, 27 June 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Phaesphoros]

Koniving, on 26 June 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Well if you assume that 10 standard heatsinks (had plenty of time to test this one and it seems to be accurate within a two heat point margin of error) gives you 30 threshold, then you can reason that 30 divided by 10 is 3, and thus each standard heatsink increases your heat by 3.

Therefore, a "1.4" heatsink would increase you by 3*1.4 which is 4.2. After that it's arithmetic: 10 1.4 heatsinks is 10*4.2 = 42.

And yes, supposedly the first ten engine heatsinks increase your threshold by 2.0 as well as your dissipation. That's the important thing. The two are not the same. One's maximum heat, the other is how fast you cool.

Hm I remember how "high" the heat threshold is from my experience with the 4 ERPPC AS7-RS. It's not that high at all, i.e. this build is very much useless as it's far too hot.

Went to testing grounds to support my memories, dropped on Frozen City. 21 DHS (yeah great the STK can pack 2 more). First alpha: 57 % heat, second alpha: shutdown. An ERPPC currently produces 11 heat, therefore this test suggests the heat threshold is (w/o elite skills) at about 77.
Read on why this test was crap. This post will also go into Patch Feedback.

Then I stripped all external heat sinks and dropped again. First time on Caustic; two (2 only) ERPPCs raised heat from 6% to 49%. I already guessed there might be issues with the environmental temperature, therefore I dropped again, landing on Alpine. Little did I know...
First 2 ERPPC salvo raised heat from 0% to 33%. That didn't match with the numbers from Caustic, so I waited for the heat to return to 0 % and the moment it hit 0% I fired again (2 ERPPCs). Heat went up to 43%. (Several tests show the same number.)
Then let the heat return to 0% and wait some longer. Two ERPPCs now raise the heat to 33%, which suggests there is a NEGATIVE HEAT % that is not displayed.

Redid the test with 11 external heat sinks, same methodology as above. Result is: 33% heat increase from 2 ERPPCs.

This suggests a heat threshold of 51 w/o external DHS, and 67 w/ 11 external DHS. With these two data points and assuming a constant increase of the heat threshold for every external DHS added, this suggests an increase of 1.45 per external heat sink. The absolute heat threshold w/o external heat sinks matches the formula 30 basic + 10 internal * 2.0 within a slight error margin.


Then I went into online matches. Little did I know...
In online matches, the heat indicator seems to be highly inaccurate. I have mastered the AS7-RS, therefore I have the elite heat skills. When firing 2 ERPPCs, the heat goes from 0 % (with the methodology described above) to something between 20 % and 24 %, sometimes spiking to 28 % or higher for a fraction of a second. Similar things happen when starting to walk, where the heat is at 2 % from walking. All 4 ERPPCs raise the heat from 2 % to something between 52 % and 54 %, sometimes only 50 %, sometimes with a 1 second buildup of 2-4 % after the heat has already been increased by the shots. In every case, the dissipation doesn't start instantly but with a 1-2 s delay, unlike on testing grounds.
This suggests a heat threshold between 92-110 (2 ERPPC tests) or 81-85 (4 ERPPC tests). As I can definitely NOT fire two salvos of 4 ERPPCs, the threshold must be lower than 88.

I removed external heat sinks (and put in a gauss with 3 tons of ammo -- lol MORE CHEESE). Frozen City, same methodology. 2 ERPPCs: 0 % -> 31 % heat
4 ERPPCs: 0 % -> 64 % heat
(with the same weird effects like spiking and heat buildup)
This suggests a heat threshold of something between 71 and 69.

If we assume that the 2-ERPPC-tests w/ 11 external DHS are somehow buggy, and use an average of about 83 for this case, subtract a heat threshold of 70 for 10 internal DHS, we end up with 1.18 per external DHS.
If we assume that the 4-ERPPC-tests w/ 11 external DHS are somehow buggy, and use an average of about 100 for this case, subtract a heat threshold of 70 for 10 internal DHS, we end up with 2.72 per external DHS.

Let's use the formula (30 basic + 10 internal * 2.0 + 11 external * 1.4) * 1.2 elite skill then we end up with a heat threshold of 60 (no external DHS) or 78 (11 external DHS), respectively.

This. is. weird.

Edit: Patch Feedback thread

Edited by Phaesphoros, 27 June 2013 - 09:52 AM.

[Zyllos]

Koniving, on 27 June 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Well then, let's see you stand still for me with a gauss rifle in an arm that has 3 health armor and I'll use a small laser to strip it. Then you can tell me why it is that your rifle explodes when you lose your front armor to a single small laser, whose total damage cannot reach the gauss rifle's 3 health due to having spent it on the armor.

Lately I've been running an Atlas RS with 6 rear torso armor. The rifle explodes more than half the time it's shot by a passing glance of lasers.

We've also done tests where a single AC/2 round used against the limb (with 2 armor) causes the rifle to explode. Later tonight I'll arrange for that test again to be recorded from two angles.

(edit: Armor, not health.)

Here is a good reason.

If that Gauss Rifle is the only item equipped in that section, then every single critical hit will deal damage to the Gauss Rifle. And with how the Critical Hit System is made to where a weapon can do 2x and 3x critical hits, even a single LBX pellet will destroy the Gauss Rifle if it is by itself.

Try loading some other items to fill the other critical hit slots and it will explode less often. If every critical slot is filled with an item (ferro-fiberous and endo-steel doesn't count), then the Gauss Rifle has a 7/12 chance, or 58.3%, of being hit by a critical hit. So that would up the survivability of the weapon in the location.

I don't use the Gauss Rifle much, but I would like to see if the Gauss Rifle also has a chance of exploding when the internal structure section is removed (destroyed) and it is still alive, like ammo bins.

Either way, we are getting WAY off topic here.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 June 2013 - 09:19 AM.

[Zyllos]

Phaesphoros, on 27 June 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Hm I remember how "high" the heat threshold is from my experience with the 4 ERPPC AS7-RS. It's not that high at all, i.e. this build is very much useless as it's far too hot.

Went to testing grounds to support my memories, dropped on Frozen City. 21 DHS (yeah great the STK can pack 2 more). First alpha: 57 % heat, second alpha: shutdown. An ERPPC currently produces 11 heat, therefore this test suggests the heat threshold is (w/o elite skills) at about 77.
Read on why this test was crap. This post will also go into Patch Feedback.

Then I stripped all external heat sinks and dropped again. First time on Caustic; two (2 only) ERPPCs raised heat from 6% to 49%. I already guessed there might be issues with the environmental temperature, therefore I dropped again, landing on Alpine. Little did I know...
First 2 ERPPC salvo raised heat from 0% to 33%. That didn't match with the numbers from Caustic, so I waited for the heat to return to 0 % and the moment it hit 0% I fired again (2 ERPPCs). Heat went up to 43%. (Several tests show the same number.)
Then let the heat return to 0% and wait some longer. Two ERPPCs now raise the heat to 33%, which suggests there is a NEGATIVE HEAT % that is not displayed.

Redid the test with 11 external heat sinks, same methodology as above. Result is: 33% heat increase from 2 ERPPCs.

This suggests a heat threshold of 51 w/o external DHS, and 67 w/ 11 external DHS. With these two data points and assuming a constant increase of the heat threshold for every external DHS added, this suggests an increase of 1.45 per external heat sink. The absolute heat threshold w/o external heat sinks matches the formula 30 basic + 10 internal * 2.0 within a slight error margin.


Then I went into online matches. Little did I know...
In online matches, the heat indicator seems to be highly inaccurate. I have mastered the AS7-RS, therefore I have the elite heat skills. When firing 2 ERPPCs, the heat goes from 0 % (with the methodology described above) to something between 20 % and 24 %, sometimes spiking to 28 % or higher for a fraction of a second. Similar things happen when starting to walk, where the heat is at 2 % from walking. All 4 ERPPCs raise the heat from 2 % to something between 52 % and 54 %, sometimes only 50 %, sometimes with a 1 second buildup of 2-4 % after the heat has already been increased by the shots. In every case, the dissipation doesn't start instantly but with a 1-2 s delay, unlike on testing grounds.
This suggests a heat threshold between 92-110 (2 ERPPC tests) or 81-85 (4 ERPPC tests). As I can definitely NOT fire two salvos of 4 ERPPCs, the threshold must be lower than 88.

I removed external heat sinks (and put in a gauss with 3 tons of ammo -- lol MORE CHEESE). Frozen City, same methodology. 2 ERPPCs: 0 % -> 31 % heat
4 ERPPCs: 0 % -> 64 % heat
(with the same weird effects like spiking and heat buildup)
This suggests a heat threshold of something between 71 and 69.

If we assume that the 2-ERPPC-tests w/ 11 external DHS are somehow buggy, and use an average of about 83 for this case, subtract a heat threshold of 70 for 10 internal DHS, we end up with 1.18 per external DHS.
If we assume that the 4-ERPPC-tests w/ 11 external DHS are somehow buggy, and use an average of about 100 for this case, subtract a heat threshold of 70 for 10 internal DHS, we end up with 2.72 per external DHS.

Let's use the formula (30 basic + 10 internal * 2.0 + 11 external * 1.4) * 1.2 elite skill then we end up with a heat threshold of 60 (no external DHS) or 78 (11 external DHS), respectively.

This. is. weird.

Yes, I noticed this exact same thing. The in-game heat is so erratic that it's impossible to tell if the intended numbers are correct or not.

I would suggest PGI change from a % system (we already have a bar for the %, we don't need the readout) to an absolute value readout. This will make doing testing MUCH easier.

The same needs to be applied to armor/internal structure instead of the "Yellow/Orange/Red" percentage scale we have now in the readouts.

[Koniving]

Phaesphoros, on 27 June 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

This. is. weird.

Fun, isn't it? That's how screwed up the heat system is. We'd need 30 different charts for each build, each map, and each internal/external arrangement. Far from the simplistic system I was vouching for, isn't it?

It should be simple math. Find a stock build with that which has no efficiencies unlocked and the weapons seem to support it on forest colony (not the snow one). This is where they based all of their heat stuff as it's been the first map, so it's the only one that should be vaguely valid. From here testing the stock build with 10 heatsinks seems to confer 30 threshold. Yet once you start doing unlocks it seems your threshold increases a bit from basic efficiencies (cool run obviously accelerates your cooling, but the other thermal one actually seems to increase your maximum threshold, then that 10% increase is turned to 20% with the elite.)

If 30 threshold for 10 heatsinks, then the rise should be steadily increasing per heatsink. But it's not. In reality it's about impossible to calculate, which means in its current state it's about as impossible to balance.

Yet another reason to remove the raising threshold. It ~is~ freaking weird, isn't it? And they think random heat jumps in intervals of 10 will fix this; some maps it'll be deadly, others it'll be a slap on the wrist, and overall it'll nerf new mechs and have little effect on the mastered mechs.

Zyllos, on 27 June 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Here is a good reason.

If that Gauss Rifle is the only item equipped in that section, then every single critical hit will deal damage to the Gauss Rifle. And with how the Critical Hit System is made to where a weapon can do 2x and 3x critical hits, even a single LBX pellet will destroy the Gauss Rifle if it is by itself.

Try loading some other items to fill the other critical hit slots and it will explode less often. If every critical slot is filled with an item (ferro-fiberous and endo-steel doesn't count), then the Gauss Rifle has a 7/12 chance, or 58.3%, of being hit by a critical hit. So that would up the survivability of the weapon in the location.

I don't use the Gauss Rifle much, but I would like to see if the Gauss Rifle also has a chance of exploding when the internal structure section is removed (destroyed) and it is still alive, like ammo bins.

Either way, we are getting WAY off topic here.

I'm fairly aware. I wrote this up for new players. If the direct link doesn't work, it's post #15. Crit-padding to protect your weapons and ammo. It's an old, old, old concept. The small laser's crit damage is virtually non-existent. Cannons are, for the most part, the only ones that do any noticeable crit damage beyond armor. (MGs count as energy, as they were updated with laser HSR and the MG spray is just a particle effect).

The point though is that the gauss rifle is so volatile it doesn't need to be nerfed any further. It's intended to be a sniper's weapon, making it a multi-shot weapon defeats that purpose. Bill's TCL can handle the triple Gauss Rifle build of the Muromets and certain quad gauss builds, the twin Gauss may be strong but it isn't impossible to deal with, and the twin gauss + 1 PPC isn't that much stronger if we use my PPC dispersion idea.

[Vertigo 1]

PGI should respond to this. Have they even ever acknowledged the problem/proposed possible solutions they are looking into?

[Shatterspike]

Phaesphoros, on 27 June 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Weird heatsink stuff

Holy crap, I had no idea the heat system was THAT messed up. Any attempt at heat balancing in the current environment is an exercise in futility.

[Solis Obscuri]

Looks pretty good, Bill, though I think you might be going a little soft on some of the lighter energy weapons.

[Zomboyd]

numbers wise i think you could put the threshold as 20.5-21 points before convergance is affected. Make it work like the reticule in FPS games, the more burdan the wider the area the weapons could possibly hit.
Then it would be a matter that Ballistic weapons put their damage as load. eg Ac 20 puts a load of 20 on system.
Lasers a similar way while pulse lasers may only put 75% of the strain on the targeting CPU as they are ment to be more accurate.
Missiles i would go LRMs 1 point pre missile with Artimis putting .75 per missile.
SRMs& SSRMs 2 per missile with artimis making it 1.5.
i think 15-20 points of recovery per second for targeting cpu would be good.

just some numbers i was playign around with.

Edited by Zomboyd, 28 June 2013 - 01:42 AM.

[Zyllos]

Koniving, on 27 June 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Fun, isn't it? That's how screwed up the heat system is. We'd need 30 different charts for each build, each map, and each internal/external arrangement. Far from the simplistic system I was vouching for, isn't it?

It should be simple math. Find a stock build with that which has no efficiencies unlocked and the weapons seem to support it on forest colony (not the snow one). This is where they based all of their heat stuff as it's been the first map, so it's the only one that should be vaguely valid. From here testing the stock build with 10 heatsinks seems to confer 30 threshold. Yet once you start doing unlocks it seems your threshold increases a bit from basic efficiencies (cool run obviously accelerates your cooling, but the other thermal one actually seems to increase your maximum threshold, then that 10% increase is turned to 20% with the elite.)

If 30 threshold for 10 heatsinks, then the rise should be steadily increasing per heatsink. But it's not. In reality it's about impossible to calculate, which means in its current state it's about as impossible to balance.

Yet another reason to remove the raising threshold. It ~is~ freaking weird, isn't it? And they think random heat jumps in intervals of 10 will fix this; some maps it'll be deadly, others it'll be a slap on the wrist, and overall it'll nerf new mechs and have little effect on the mastered mechs.



I'm fairly aware. I wrote this up for new players. If the direct link doesn't work, it's post #15. Crit-padding to protect your weapons and ammo. It's an old, old, old concept. The small laser's crit damage is virtually non-existent. Cannons are, for the most part, the only ones that do any noticeable crit damage beyond armor. (MGs count as energy, as they were updated with laser HSR and the MG spray is just a particle effect).

The point though is that the gauss rifle is so volatile it doesn't need to be nerfed any further. It's intended to be a sniper's weapon, making it a multi-shot weapon defeats that purpose. Bill's TCL can handle the triple Gauss Rifle build of the Muromets and certain quad gauss builds, the twin Gauss may be strong but it isn't impossible to deal with, and the twin gauss + 1 PPC isn't that much stronger if we use my PPC dispersion idea.

I think the speed on the Gauss Rifle needs to be upped between the PPCs and AC/2 but leave the TCS value to only allow one shot at the same time but the value is not 100, but instead something like 75 so that you only have to wait 0.5 to fire the next one, then have to wait 0.75s to fire another, then so on and so forth. I think that doesn't make them "nerfed" compared to other weapons.

[n3ctaris]

Seriously, why is there not a command post saying they are actively investigating this fantastic idea?

[zorak ramone]

Koniving, on 26 June 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

[/size]

I believe you read only the heat threshold section of my idea. But I confess my convergence idea refuses to address Gauss Rifles. I'll walk you through why, and quickly refresh you on the other half of the idea which addresses convergence. Part of it is already in the works according to Bryan Ekman in 2 different ATDs (to include purple large laser variants, lol!)

I only read "heat based system for alpha strike balancing" and didn't read any more. You yourself admit that it doesn't address GRs. In fact, any heat based system of balancing can not address GRs.

The rest of your post are basically reasons why it doesn't matter that GRs can't be dealt with. I will try to summarize

Quote

<snip> GRs explode </snip>


It doesn't need to be nerfed any farther now.

The GR crit weakness was an unecessary nerf. It was PGI attempting to work around two major flaws in the game mechanics. These flaws led the GR to be vastly superior to every other weapon.

The first was the fact that their heat scale was all screwed up. They took CBT damage and heat values, increased recycle time across the board, increased armor, but left heat dissipation rates the same. This unequally nerfed weapons based on the heat they produced. Guess which weapon didn't get affected, and ended up being dominant (GR!). This flaw was kind of covered up by the introduction of DHS, but its still there (hence the heat reductions in all the heavy energy weapons).

The other flaw was the convergence issue that Bill addressed in the OP.

However, in addition to being a dumb nerf (dumb because it works around the core flaws instead of addressing the core flaws), it does nothing to reduce the GR's effectivness. I run an Atlas with 2xPPC/GR all the time, and I wouldn't trade that GR for anything in the world. The risk of explosion just isn't so serious: if I'm already crit out I'm going to loose that section soon anyway. GRs are even better for mechs that carry them in the arms, where they're not likely to be crit out.

Quote

<snip> 2xPPC/GR and 2xERPPC/GR isn't that bad, oh and splash damage for PPCs</snip>

The issue isn't PPCs. Its GRs. The only reason we're focusing on PPCs these days is that several mechs are capable of carrying multiple PPCs, or multiple PPCs + GR. However, very few mechs are capable of carrying 2xGR, and all of these mechs are heavies.

The moment we get a mech heavier than a CTF-3D that can pack 2 or more GRs and at least 1 PPC, this mech will dominate, and no heat balancing mechanism in the world (at least any one that allows SINGLE PPCs to be useable) will be able to stop it.

The stock victor VTR-9A1 carries several machine guns, IIRC in the legs. If PGI moves these to the torsos (as is likely), then this mech will be a jumping 80 tonner that can carry 2xGR/PPC. That's a 40 point alpha that never stops due to heat.

If you think mechs like this are rare, they are not. There are several mechs, which if added to MWO, would completely break the game, and would be invulnerable to any heat based mechanism for regulating alpha strikes (because GRs) consider the following subset:

Annihilator
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Annihilator
Capable of 4xGR or 3xGR/PPC. Its 100 tons, so its got the tonnage to carry it. Never mind the slow stock speed since engines can be upgraded. EDIT: this one is also capable of 4xUAC5/4xML. Lol?

Thunderhawk
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder_Hawk
Carries 3xGR in stock and potentially capable of 3xGR/2xPPC. Another 100 tonner as well

King Crab
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/King_Crab
Another 100 tonner. Carries 2xAC20 in stock, with tonnage to spare. Depending on where they put the stock LL, this thing could also do 2xGR/PPC. The big advantage this guy has would be his very low profile.

Gunslinger
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gunslinger
An 85 tonner that can carry 2xGR/2xPPC based on stock hardpoints. Other than looking ridiculous, what's special about it. Well, it JUMPS and has ECM!

Mauler
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mauler
Another 2xGR/2xPPC mech in a 90 ton package. This one would also be capable of 4xUAC5.

Devastator
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Devastator
Another 2xGR/2xPPC (in stock!) mech in a 100 ton package.


Two of these mechs are fan favorites that have appeared in prior games (Annihilator and Mauler). One has popped up several times in polls for mechs we'd like to see (King Crab). The others are not obscure mechs and could end up being added to the game. These are not the only mechs capable of multi-GR configurations.

Edited by zorak ramone, 28 June 2013 - 11:02 AM.

[Barantor]

Bumping because this is a very well thought out idea.

One thing would be possibly giving color codes to weapon groupings when you set them (still hope for out of game weapon grouping assignments) green for good, yellow for "close to threshold" and red for TC overload.

There are always reasons why the snipers in fps games have so many random disabilities when their guns can one/two shot enemies and this seems like a reasonable facsimile to those kind of ideas.

[Homeless Bill]

Solis Obscuri, on 27 June 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Looks pretty good, Bill, though I think you might be going a little soft on some of the lighter energy weapons.

It's possible, but I've never had a problem with anything running eight mediums so far (though as I made a point of in my OP, that could be because there is no assault that can mount that kind of arsenal).

Either way, the great part about this system is how easy it is to tweak those numbers without affecting other things. If small lasers are the new alpha strike cheese, just up the TCS a bit and watch it even out.

Barantor, on 28 June 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

One thing would be possibly giving color codes to weapon groupings when you set them (still hope for out of game weapon grouping assignments) green for good, yellow for "close to threshold" and red for TC overload.

Did you check the HUD mock-ups? Is what you're talking about different than what it does now?

Vertigo 1, on 27 June 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

PGI should respond to this. Have they even ever acknowledged the problem/proposed possible solutions they are looking into?

n3ctaris, on 28 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Seriously, why is there not a command post saying they are actively investigating this fantastic idea?

All I know is that people have spammed the developers and it's been forwarded (according to Garth). My guess is that means it's sitting in an unread email =P

On one hand, I really want an official response. I put a lot of time into this, it's got a ton of support, it's one of the only solutions that solves all symptoms of the problem - current and future, and no one has been able to poke a hole in its ability to solve the problem.

On the other hand, I know what the official response would be: it's too complicated; we're going for mass appeal. Even though the argument has no merit, even though it would require a more subtle and intuitive adjustment by the player than any other system I've seen presented, and even though it keeps the rest of the game completely unaffected - that will be the response.

To me, no game that takes two minutes to get to the fight and two seconds to be vaporized has mass appeal. Does my system have some complexity in terms of concept and implementation? Absolutely. Is it complex in terms of player interaction? Absolutely not. It's about as intuitive and minimalist as it's going to get: set up your weapon groups properly and don't spam them all at once.

You can ask them for an official response, but don't hold your breath.

[JokerVictor]

n3ctaris, on 28 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Seriously, why is there not a command post saying they are actively investigating this fantastic idea?

Because this idea can't be monetized, duh.

Bill, the second you incorporate a quarter slot into that targeting computer this sh*t will be in the game in days.

Edit: Holy crap.... post #400. Think you're really onto something here man. Preach it!

Edited by JokerVictor, 28 June 2013 - 07:46 PM.