Jump to content

- - - - -

Gameplay Update - Feedback


1263 replies to this topic

#1 Kyle Polulak

    <member/>

  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 584 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:46 AM

Tell us what you think of the new incoming Gameplay Update news.

Spoiler


#2 Milt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:59 AM

sounds good, so do we still need the tilt-a-whirl jj effect?

#3 Banditman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,109 posts
  • LocationThe Templars

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:06 AM

I don't think that your reasoning for the ML limit is a strong one. You are basing a balance point for the entire game around one single variant of one single mech. That doesn't seem like a great idea to me. I am not arguing for an increase or decrease to the ML limit, only saying that I hope more analysis went into that number than simply to say "Well, the 4P has six energy HP's in it's hunch".

I also think you should consider increase the delay from .5 to a full second. Half a second will not really make a difference in the mega alpha builds like the 6 PPC Stalker. People will simply macro it with a G15 or similar keyboard or mouse. Certainly, they can still macro it at 1 second, but it will feel a lot more awkward at that point.

#4 ManDaisy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,272 posts
  • LocationKing Of Flower Beds

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:06 AM

Personally I think the heat penalty based on weapon amount is a bad way to go. Deciding how many weapons constitutes a heat penalty is very arbitrary, at best based on personal opinion.


150% heat also seems WAY too generous. 125% would be much more realistic as many more mechs other then the most min maxed variants would have fall into this category.


What I would suggestion is a system where max heat generated at once, decreases the effectiviness of heat sinks, rather then create more heat.

20 heat = no reduction to heat sink ability
25 heat = 5% heat sink reduction = for 3 seconds
30 heat = 10% heat sink reduction = for 5 seconds
40 heat = 20% heat sink reduction = for 10 seconds
50 heat = 30% heat sink reduction = for 15 seconds

and so on. As for how long the reduction reduction period last, that would be based on personal prefferance.

So bigger alphas would take longer to cool, with any weapon mix.


This current system also fails to deal with mixed weapon high heat alpha builds. For example, you have y SRM6 boats which also include lasers, ppcs and ballistics. Individually these weapons would not constitute boating. Together however they do.

Edited by ManDaisy, 12 June 2013 - 07:53 AM.


#5 StalaggtIKE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 2,304 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:08 AM

Not my preferred method, however I feel this has potential to work.

#6 Bloody Moon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 978 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:10 AM

Depending on how the values for each weapon will be the results of these modifications can vary from a mediocre solution to a complete shot in the foot.

When it comes to balancing the current weapons, i prefer MustrumRidcully's idea of changing most of the pinpoint weapons into ones that fire in short (roughly 0,5 second) bursts accompanied by a more detailed heat scale with things like mechs slowing down at high heat and some other penalties.

Edit: I'd like to add one more thing that should be considered. This anti-boat mechanism would punish Laserboats far more than PPCboats as the former needs to focus a full 1,5 seconds longer on shooting while the latter only needs 0,5 second more and since it is already harder to deliver pinpoint damage on a Laserboat...

Edited by Bloody Moon, 11 June 2013 - 03:04 PM.


#7 Kitane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 1,009 posts
  • LocationPrague, Czech Republic

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:11 AM

1) Treat ER PPC and PPCs as a one type of weapon, ER LL and LL too.

2) Set the PPC limit to 2, 3 PPC + Gauss builds should already be affected by a penalty.

3) AC20 should be limited to one, with a significant heat penalty for firing two at once.

4) 150% heat limit is not going to have any noticeable effect on the game. Most builds will never get that high even if they tried.

Edited by Kitane, 11 June 2013 - 11:14 AM.


#8 Obadiah333

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 638 posts
  • LocationWest Coast, Oregon

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:12 AM

150%! How about 100%, you know, your ACTUAL limit to heat tolerance. A baby step in the right direction. Quick to nerf some things into the ground that don't need it, hesitant to fix things the right way that do. Unbelievable. Or believable - I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this having been here over a year. Pretty sure this isn't going to have much effect on PPC boating as good pilots are already doing 3 & 3 shots as it is.

#9 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 8,310 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:13 AM

This heat penalty system sounds great, but it appears that it won't do anything to deal with dual AC/20 boats or dual gauss boats. Does PGI not feel that dual ac/20 boats or dual gauss boats are an issue? or is other balancing in the pipes for this? How about 4 lrm 15's?

I'd continue to prefer a system that stacks heat based on the damage output of the alpha rather than the # of weapons fired as the big instant alphas of same weapons are the continued problem rather than the # of weapons - like 9 small lasers.

Also 150% is way too high. Whats wrong with 100% and forcing mechs to be built for more heat efficiency rather than just DHS in the engine and then as many guns as you can cram onto the mech?

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 11 June 2013 - 11:15 AM.


#10 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:14 AM

I am personally against the idea of applying higher heat when firing more weapons. It just doesn't quite make any sense.

It also doesn't fix the problem of "duck taped" weapon systems.

Even if you made all weapons randomly pick a spot when firing, but all weapons fired will pick the same randomly selected spot, will still be problems because all the weapons will randomly hit a single point in space.

That is the problem I have with the current gameplay. All the weapons hit a single point, no matter what type of weapon, in any situation, at any given time. They will always hit dead center of the torso or arm crosshair. That is the issue at hand, so enforcing more heat for firing more weapons doesn't fix this problem.

#11 Buzzkillin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 283 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:14 AM

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 11 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

This heat penalty system sounds great, but it appears that it won't do anything to deal with dual AC/20 boats or dual gauss boats. Does PGI not feel that dual ac/20 boats or dual gauss boats are an issue? or is other balancing in the pipes for this?

I'd continue to prefer a system that stacks heat based on the damage output of the alpha rather than the # of weapons fired as the big instant alphas of same weapons are the continued problem rather than the # of weapons - like 9 small lasers.


The AC40 will probably be next on the list if this system works.

#12 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:15 AM

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 11 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

This heat penalty system sounds great, but it appears that it won't do anything to deal with dual AC/20 boats or dual gauss boats. Does PGI not feel that dual ac/20 boats or dual gauss boats are an issue? or is other balancing in the pipes for this?

I'd continue to prefer a system that stacks heat based on the damage output of the alpha rather than the # of weapons fired as the big instant alphas of same weapons are the continued problem rather than the # of weapons - like 9 small lasers.


I was about to post this - if PGI doesn't think dual AC/20 boats is bad now, have they started internal testing on Ultra AC/20 boats?

#13 Andrew Cranston

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Cadet
  • Cadet
  • 50 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:15 AM

View PostKitane, on 11 June 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

1) Treat ER PPC and PPCs as a one type of weapon, ER LL and LL too.

2) Set the PPC limit to 2, 3 PPC + Gauss builds should already be affected by a penalty.

3) AC20 should be limited to one, with a significant heat penalty for firing two at once.


Seconded. Make people actually have to think about weapon loadouts and use multiple weapon groups. I'm extremely happy with the initial explanation though, as it at least is a major step in the right direction.

#14 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:15 AM

Glad to see balancing happening more often.

I like the idea. but the numbers seem very odd, and not tailored to the game we are all playing.


"cooldown" between heat penalty set at 0.5 seems very arbitrary. This reset time should also be varied based on weapon. Perhaps have it based somehow on the weapon's cooldown.


for what reason should all boated weapon be fired in 0.5 second periods? The 0.5 seconds from chain fire was very arbitrary in the first place.
Honestly a system should have been in place to toggle the chain fire speeds (that way thre would be no need for a AC2 macro)

also seems like this system lends itself to macros

Edited by Tennex, 12 June 2013 - 05:39 AM.


#15 Panzerkampfwagen IV

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 151 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:15 AM

I am in complete agreement about the heart penalty being too arbitrary.
I think taking damage at 125% heat would be a good fix and easy to implement along with a slight increase in PPC heat. This would be a serious nerf to the viability of already borderline mechs like the aforementioned swayback, and would do nothing to discourage 3 or 4 PPC boating which constitutes 90% of the abusers.

#16 ObsidianSpectre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:16 AM

The heat penalty system described is pretty much exactly what I understood it to be when it was first discussed. I still think it's a bad idea. You're heaping complexity on an already complex system, this is a very inelegant solution, and it's going to bring a bunch of problems down the road if it gets implemented.

Balance the weapons individually so you don't need the heat penalty system. Any balance problems you see with boating weapons are just the balance problems with the individual weapons, but exaggerated from having a bunch of them.

I really don't understand PGI's regular reluctance to address balance problems directly. Why do we keep seeming to go the Rube Goldberg route of game balance?

#17 Jungle Rhino

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 579 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:16 AM

lol nerf that 4P it is a killing machine!!

PGI, are you ever going to adopt an approach to gameplay design that is intuitive, logical, and actually makes sense?

The problem is not boating weapons like the PPC, it IS the PPC. It does precision damage, has a good range, and the projectile travels very fast. THAT is the problem here. You are still going to see teams all running 2 or 3 PPC + Gauss and nothing else.

This is because Gauss Rifles are 'free' for mechs of a sufficient tonnage, while PPCs relatively speaking don't weigh much and the heat requirements can be covered by the internal 2.0x heatsinks. All other builds are fail as they are nowhere near as heat/slot efficient as PPC + Gauss. Nor do they do pinpoint damage at long ranges.

#18 Alex Warden

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,659 posts
  • Location...straying in the Inner Sphere...

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:17 AM

love it so far,and sounds pretty fair

but LPLS more damage than a ppc? is that necessary? i think they are great now...

#19 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:19 AM

View PostJungle Rhino, on 11 June 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

lol nerf that 4P it is a killing machine!!

PGI, are you ever going to adopt an approach to gameplay design that is intuitive, logical, and actually makes sense?

The problem is not boating weapons like the PPC, it IS the PPC. It does precision damage, has a good range, and the projectile travels very fast. THAT is the problem here. You are still going to see teams all running 2 or 3 PPC + Gauss and nothing else.

This is because Gauss Rifles are 'free' for mechs of a sufficient tonnage, while PPCs relatively speaking don't weigh much and the heat requirements can be covered by the internal 2.0x heatsinks. All other builds are fail as they are nowhere near as heat/slot efficient as PPC + Gauss. Nor do they do pinpoint damage at long ranges.


Individual PPC's are fine - they are suppose to be king of the energy weapons. The problem is we can shoot several of them at once into the same spot. This will slow them down a little bit, but what about sanctioned boats that come out soon like the Masakari? How about the 9Q Awesome? We're worried about keeping the medium laser Hunchback fair, but what about the stock PPC boats out there we should see later on?

Edited by DocBach, 11 June 2013 - 11:20 AM.


#20 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:19 AM

Oh, the SSRM changes will be GREATLY appreciated.

The Machine Gun change is whatever, just don't make it good against armor also, as it's not suppose to be.

The Flamer change is odd, in my mind. The weapon is for overheating, not dealing damage.

The changes to Pulse Lasers are a holdover till they morph into something new, machine gun pulse lasers (hopefully)?

I thought your mech just exploded if it was WAY over 100%? I don't usually run builds that can alpha that much heat over 100% so I don't know.





9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users