704 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Tank Boy Ken, on 17 July 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Quad PPC Stalkers do fire 2 by 2 now, same as his suggestion would do. And it's not fixing anything. You could "fix" it with a random cone of fire OR by improving Hitpoints.

They doubled the hitpoints (internal and external) and things didn't get any better; and it caused other problems that, when addressed, caused other problems...

Or, you could simulate the 'mechs actual ability to physically aim it's weapons and it's ability to calculate convergence for each of it's weapons, in a non cone of fire plug-n-chug setup.

Quote

And one could use this buff to give a bigger % buff to the smalles Mechs, So at least the disparity between a 20t and 40t Mech isn't that drastic.

If they gave more HP like this to the smaller mechs, than the smaller weapons would need a damage boost, causing yet more outliers which would give people ways to muchkinize.

[Teralitha]

Oh dear god... why are people so focused on weapon convergence? ITS NOT THE PROBLEM, NOR DOES IT NEED CHANGING FFS.


Just because you wrote a big long post about it, does not make it the best answer for anything or even a needed change.


Why do these suggestions get so much popularity with the ignorant masses?

Do not ppl realize that after all this time, over a year now, that the actual real reason for all the balance issues is double heat sinks? All these redundant solution ideas do nothing to fix the real problem! And THAT is why this game will die. Not because we dont get a weapon convergence change. or a PPC change, or jump jet shaking.... all ***** changes.


REMOVE DOUBLE HEAT SINKS AND ALL WILL BE RIGHT IN THE WORLD AGAIN LIKE IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ADDED.

Pretty simple, but effective solution to many woes. Just do it and you will see. If the devs cant see that.... then best of luck on finding new jobs fella's.

[zorak ramone]

Teralitha, on 19 July 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

REMOVE DOUBLE HEAT SINKS AND ALL WILL BE RIGHT IN THE WORLD AGAIN LIKE IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ADDED.

You're wrong because "Gauss Rifles." Stop posting this in every single balance thread, FFS.

[Homeless Bill]

UPDATE III: LET'S MEET HALF-WAY
So, it's abundantly clear that they're going to roll with heat penalties, at least for the time being. While I'm still fully in favor of this proposal, in the meantime, I'm advocating for a change to the way the heat penalties are calculated.

Currently, they're a confusing mess. My fix is essentially to take the relative alpha balance numbers (the TCS values) from my system, and just apply them to the heat scale instead. It doesn't matter if you don't like heat penalties; I don't either. If you like it better than what's currently in, you should go support it.

Here's the deviously sneaky part: if they would just use that scale for heat penalties, it would literally take a day of someone's time to switch it from heat penalties to loss of convergence if they ever wanted to try it out.

[zorak ramone]

Meeting halfway is fine, but this is still the better idea.

Bump for great justice.

[Homeless Bill]

Look at those ATD questions and be sad. They leave #7 and #15 on their own, but they lump mine in with a couple unrelated, why-not-heat questions? What the hell, guys?

They essentially just turned the question with the second most votes into something else. It went from "Can we get an official response to the TCL scale?" to "Why didn't you do something else?"

Gah. So. Frustrating.

[Pht]

Homeless Bill, on 20 July 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

UPDATE III: LET'S MEET HALF-WAY

Best of luck.

I'll go the long-term route and hope that whoever does the next game actually has the stones (say, isn't that the republic of the sphere currency? double-entendre intended if so!) to actually simulate the 'mech's ability to handle the weapons, thus finally making a fully genuine MW video game.

What the heck, it's probably only 10 more years. it's not like I haven't been wanting this since MW3 came out in 1999.

[Brilig]

Still think this is the best suggestion. I know they said messing with convergence created issues in ATDs 42. I am not sure this idea would cause those issues. Since your either shooting weapons within the TC's tolerance to achieve the same convergence we have now, or your over tolerance getting no convergence.

Is that correct? Would this fix work without causing issues they mentioned in ATD 42? It seemed like what they are worried about is having to calculate varying levels of convergence in real time, rather than an all or nothing scenario like HB's idea.

miSs, on 12 July 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Weapon convergence is a tough nut to crack. We want to keep the number of random “dice rolls” to a minimum, and network synchronization can become unpredictable when trying to determine a convergence point that may or may not be moving. It will be necessary to make the convergence point calculation server authoritive and that can cause a desync due to the fact that the simulation runs at different frequencies on the server and client.

[Homeless Bill]

Brilig, on 22 July 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Still think this is the best suggestion. I know they said messing with convergence created issues in ATDs 42. I am not sure this idea would cause those issues. Since your either shooting weapons within the TC's tolerance to achieve the same convergence we have now, or your over tolerance getting no convergence.

Is that correct? Would this fix work without causing issues they mentioned in ATD 42? It seemed like what they are worried about is having to calculate varying levels of convergence in real time, rather than an all or nothing scenario like HB's idea.

Check out Update II: An Answer for Paul

[Anais Opal]

Damn fine idea, i would add recoil to ballistics and LRM/SSRM launchers, an AC20 throws a massive round out its muzzle, the recoil would be enough to throw someone's aim off for the next shot.

[TsOrion]

yah i like your systme franken mechs eliminate role warfare i know i ran a cheese 6 LL stalker and I know its gross and overpowerd but capping the LL at 2 is silly its not the eqaul of a ppc it never will be dont handicap it like one it forms the core of a medium/lights "heavy weapons packages if they take one its probably a LL" the pulse laser was hogtied again with another nerf lets stop and think for a second about the thought process there 6 LPL WILL BE THE NEW META .. >_> 0_o nope i know this is disorginized alpha monsters need to be dealt with this heat system is flawed in 3 way its not unilateral for all weapons it seems arbitrary in wich weapons get it and the heat they recieve and its not displayed in the lab these are fixes taht take time ill wait for some of these changes to be implmented as right now i had most of my energy centric mechs knocked downa few pegs and dont have the cbill for a ac2 jag (new meta) or a gauzilla i know people hate cheese builds but there are members of teh community that enjoy the simple efficiancy or the fact that i cant stand when a mech has a non symetrical loadout (i know its a problem) but its common they need to find a better balance you system offers that let them boat BUT restrict the alpha's or make the mech less effective for running those hot builds let us play the way we play without destroying one weapon type (energy) but make it less attractive not DOWNRIGHT awful

[OuttaAmmo NoWai]

Mega Prawn, on 19 July 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

If you're talking about Homeless' balance plan, then the 2xERPPC 1xGauss would not work as they currently do because firing all three weapons at once would give you a cone penalty and a loss of convergence; which would mean that, despite retaining the damage, you would lose its pinpoint accuracy at any kind of distance, spreading its damage and making it less effective at knocking off components.

Also, if you check out the HUD 'prototypes' you'll see that the penalties aren't so bad that there will never be a reason to alpha - there would still be plenty of scenarios where it would be a good idea to fire everything even if it means spreading your damage, it would just remove the ability to put 35 damage in one chunk in one place from 0m to 540m.

So to consider your PPC/Gauss builds - different loadouts with a higher DPS but lower alpha would put you at a serious disadvantage because you lose the ability to put all your damage in one place.

Well... that's how I see it anyhow.

This is garbage - 35 point alphas are nothing. you still have to plink for ages at a brawler Atlas (I saw a ton of them yesterday, must be the SRM buff). You've effectively lowered the engagement range of every mech and loadout in the game. Sure, you could fire at people with 1 PPC to maintain accuracy, but there's no way you can deal enough damage to a brawler by the time it closes with you. You've rendered the long-range game useless in one deft stroke.

[DEMAX51]

OuttaAmmo NoWai, on 25 July 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

This is garbage - 35 point alphas are nothing. you still have to plink for ages at a brawler Atlas (I saw a ton of them yesterday, must be the SRM buff). You've effectively lowered the engagement range of every mech and loadout in the game. Sure, you could fire at people with 1 PPC to maintain accuracy, but there's no way you can deal enough damage to a brawler by the time it closes with you. You've rendered the long-range game useless in one deft stroke.

It absolutely does not "render the long-range game useless" and here's why:

1. Under Bill's plan, 'Mechs have the same DPS, just lower alpha-striking ability. Bill's plan just requires you to have consistently good aim to be as effective.

2. The "long-range game" is meant to soften up targets for your team's brawlers to finish 'em off, not to kill everything in one or two hits before anyone has time to close range.

3. A 35 pt. alpha is certainly not "nothing" especially when all 35 pts are applied to the same part of the 'Mech and you can fire them off almost non-stop.

Edited by DEMAX51, 25 July 2013 - 11:51 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Homeless Bill, on 22 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Look at those ATD questions and be sad. They leave #7 and #15 on their own, but they lump mine in with a couple unrelated, why-not-heat questions? What the hell, guys?

They essentially just turned the question with the second most votes into something else. It went from "Can we get an official response to the TCL scale?" to "Why didn't you do something else?"

Gah. So. Frustrating.

They don't like your method for some reason (too hard? doesn't fit their vision?) and refuse to implement it or any other form of reticule bloom/cone of fire/convergence penalty.

Its unfortunate, but on the bright side, this game did make several improvements relative to MW4 (beam duration lasers, hardpoint/crit mechlab, separate arm reticules, etc). Maybe the developers of the next iteration of MW4 will finally figure out why its important to limit the amount of accurate pinpoint damage that can be applied in a single trigger pull.

EDIT: One day, my kid may grow up and play the One True iteration of Mechwarrior!

Edited by zorak ramone, 25 July 2013 - 11:51 AM.

[New Day]

zorak ramone, on 25 July 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

They don't like your method for some reason (too hard? doesn't fit their vision?) and refuse to implement it or any other form of reticule bloom/cone of fire/convergence penalty.

Its unfortunate, but on the bright side, this game did make several improvements relative to MW4 (beam duration lasers, hardpoint/crit mechlab, separate arm reticules, etc). Maybe the developers of the next iteration of MW4 will finally figure out why its important to limit the amount of accurate pinpoint damage that can be applied in a single trigger pull.

EDIT: One day, my kid may grow up and play the One True iteration of Mechwarrior!

You sure that's an improvement.

Edited by NamesAreStupid, 25 July 2013 - 12:50 PM.

[NamNio]

Homeless Bill has a correct assessment of the biggest problem facing this game. Right now the boating is a symptom of the real issue: pinpoint accuracy at any speed or distance regardless of weapon location on the 'mech. There may be some flaws with Bill's proposed solution, but here is the bottom line for why I support this:

1. The TCL system could easily be balanced.
2. I would rather play this game with the TCL system, than play it in it's current state.
3. This gives PGI another vehicle for balancing the clantech that is going to be showing up soon.
4. This solution is one of few that is not going to limit or constrain our 'mech builds.
5. Boating will still be viable, it will just play differently

Another option that would accomplish the same thing, but be more simple would be to just increase the weapon cooldown time on these high damage sniper weapons to the point where they would be suicide to rely on completely. This band-aid fix would force people to run some skirmishing weaponry or do a single high alpha, then be stuck waiting for long enough for any heavy brawler to close distance and kill them off. This would be much simpler and easier to understand, but now we are limiting people who are fans of these weapons by giving it a very specific niche function. Also, here we are fixing a symptom of the real problem at hand. The TCL limits weapon accuracy when spamming, but does not limit the pilot. The weapon still maintains it's DPS, but it will turn into a close range shotgun alpha, instead of a super-accurate long range snipe with no real drawbacks. Under the TCL system proposed, you can still deal massive damage with high alphas, it just spreads them out a little instead of putting them all on center torso.

These changes would free up PGI to fix some of the other issues, without having to worry about constantly patching all the symptoms of the core problem that will keep cropping up after they are done punishing high alpha PPC boats.

[zorak ramone]

NamesAreStupid, on 25 July 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

You sure that's an improvement.

Its a step in the right direction. Size restrict the hardpoints and it would be perfect.

[Tombstoner]

Teralitha, on 19 July 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Oh dear god... why are people so focused on weapon convergence? ITS NOT THE PROBLEM, NOR DOES IT NEED CHANGING FFS.


Just because you wrote a big long post about it, does not make it the best answer for anything or even a needed change.


Why do these suggestions get so much popularity with the ignorant masses?

Do not ppl realize that after all this time, over a year now, that the actual real reason for all the balance issues is double heat sinks? All these redundant solution ideas do nothing to fix the real problem! And THAT is why this game will die. Not because we dont get a weapon convergence change. or a PPC change, or jump jet shaking.... all ***** changes.


REMOVE DOUBLE HEAT SINKS AND ALL WILL BE RIGHT IN THE WORLD AGAIN LIKE IT WAS BEFORE THEY WERE ADDED.

Pretty simple, but effective solution to many woes. Just do it and you will see. If the devs cant see that.... then best of luck on finding new jobs fella's.

WOW someone forgets what it was like in closed beta with single HS and Large laser builds just coreing you in seconds resulting in double armor and then you live 2x as long or 120 seconds. How about the dominance of the 2x gauss cat... it ruled in the day because of pin point damage and it generated 2 points of heat for 30 points of damage it was the vanguard of today's game play.

Double heat sinks are part of the problem., but pin point damage is the primary issue that is affected by heat capacity and high tonnage mechs with the right combo of hard points. striping dhs will quickly make Gauss builds the only game in town.

Size restricting hard points will only serve to delay the problem until the golden mech with the optimum hardpoint /tonnage combo arrives and that becomes the only game in town. till it gets nerfed.

i prefer a game system the takes into account the largest number of issues in a balanced way that requires the least number of band aid nerfs.

Even if hard points are size restricted how does that work for clan tech... if its only for IS then its a buff for Clans and they definitely dont need it.

Any solution need to work for the long term and take into account the clans... something people easily forget.

[Stomp]

Bumping.

[0rca]

Best solution so far. I would change only one thing - make convergence degenerate with TCL, so high pinpoint alphas are still severely punished, but brawling is not completely dead past 100 TCL, this could add some depth to brawling itself. Make so each single percent of convergence is a single percent of a total angle required to actually converge. (Sorry if someone already proposed something like that, still reading comments)