1263 replies to this topic

[AndyHill]

And that's why we need a mechanism that takes as much cheese out of boating as possible. I don't see how 45 point alpha from mediums is not a gameplay problem if long battles are the goal. The predominantly medium match would probably be even faster than the current assault-heavy one with more emphasis on instant pinpoint alphas.

Also, boating small lasers is definitely an issue, that light and small weapons are not supposed to give so much pinpoint alpha. I believe the pinpoint alphas are the thing preventing any kind of proper weapon balancing and they should be taken care of for all combinations, not just the current flavor of the day. Because those will keep coming and coming longer and harder than any game designer can try to balance.

Edited by AndyHill, 16 June 2013 - 10:53 AM.

[SVK Puskin]

150% is too high, decrease it to 110% and if the heat reaches 115% or 120% the mech should immediately explode.So players have to be more carefull. Set the threshold for SL and SPL to 6, ML and MPL to 4, for ERLL, LL, LPL, ERPPC and PPC to 2, for AC2 and AC5 to 4, for UAC5, AC10, LB 10X AC and Gauss to 2, for AC20 to 1, for SRM2, SSRM2 to 4, for SRM4, SRM6 to 3, for LRM5, LRM10 to 3, for LRM15 to 2, for LRM20 to 1.

[Sable Phoenix]

This is a confusing and over-complicated way to address the problem. If you're insisting on using a tabletop-based system (heat) to fix a non-tabletop-based system (convergence), then at least make the heat actually function like the tabletop. Institute scaling speed and turn-rate penalties at various points on the heat scale. Also institute scaling convergence penalties so that by the time you reach 80% heat your weapons won't even converge at all. And make the damage threshold for heat much less than 150%. Make the damage start at 100%, and if you reach 125% or 130% your reactor explodes outright.

You introduced a system that isn't in the tabletop in the first place, and are now using a system that IS in the tabletop to try and fix the problems that were introduced with the new system. It's a bass-ackwards way of addressing the issue in the first place, but the least you could do is make the system that IS in the tabletop actually accurate to the tabletop. That would not fix the problem entirely but it would at least make it less of a problem, without all this arbitrary and counter-intuitive "heat penalty for the same type of weapon fired simultaneously" crap.

Edited by Sable Phoenix, 16 June 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Five by Five]

Arkatrex, on 15 June 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

Hey guys. Try to think one or two minutes before post something.
...

Arkatrex, on 16 June 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

Okay, i'll try an other explaination:
...

Just saying......

Anyhow, the idea of heat-stacking as a per chasis-variant-weapon quirk has been floated a few times.

Edited by Five by Five, 16 June 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[Tolkien]

ObsidianSpectre, on 11 June 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

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?

While I am not a huge fan of the system as proposed, I'd like to offer a counter point to your statement that it's just a problem with the individual weapons. While I understand your objection to complexity on complexity, there's an important factor that this is addressing that is not and *cannot* be addressed by adjusting individual weapons>

Synergies. Basically what weapon systems work well together. On table top I might say that a mix of energy missile and ballistic weapons synergize well to give flexible firepower and varied ranges along with heat management. For example consider the atlas with the AC20, the SRM6, and the lasers. In the resource material this is an excellent mech, but in that configuration it is just not very compelling.

In this game these weapons have the problem that they need very different aiming to hit your target. It's better now with HSR but hitting a fast moving target with the AC20 the lasers and the SRM requires you to aim at 3 different places and for different durations of time!

In effect combining weapons that are not exact copies of the same thing has a *negative synergy* in that it makes the mech that much harder to use to its full potential. This is not an issue of it being better if you play better, it's just a flat out harder to use situation.

This is why it is necessary to put this bandage on to penalize copies of the same weapon.

I would prefer hit randomization when any weapons are fired as a group but hey, I'll take what I can get.

AndyHill, on 16 June 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

And that's why we need a mechanism that takes as much cheese out of boating as possible. I don't see how 45 point alpha from mediums is not a gameplay problem if long battles are the goal. The predominantly medium match would probably be even faster than the current assault-heavy one with more emphasis on instant pinpoint alphas.

Also, boating small lasers is definitely an issue, that light and small weapons are not supposed to give so much pinpoint alpha. I believe the pinpoint alphas are the thing preventing any kind of proper weapon balancing and they should be taken care of for all combinations, not just the current flavor of the day. Because those will keep coming and coming longer and harder than any game designer can try to balance.

I agree with your sentiment and would love to see the game switch to a hit allocation system. The more skilled players will still hit more often, since you still have to hit the enemy model, but this way pinpoint focused weapons and 6xerppc builds wouldn't be 1 shotting enemies outside of the very very rare head hits.

This would also fix the problem of artwork based imbalance where some mechs like the awesome are suicide if they throw in an XL engine, while others like the catapult can use them with impunity.

I'd also like the devs to look into what a clan mech packing 2 ultra AC 20's (e.g. hunchback IIc?) can do to game balance.

Edited by Tolkien, 16 June 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[MWHawke]

Corison, on 16 June 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

I am sure this was discussed in the 53 pages.. but in the off chance it wasn't.

Rather than these silly tweaks to fix boating, how about you fix the core issue?

Battletech was never balanced for pinpoint aiming of weapons. It seems like the system is very easy to fix.

1) Add an uncertainty range to when you shoot like in some shooters. If your sitting still at 0 heat you might hit anywhere in this area () but if your running hot and jumping this area (.....) for example.
2) Weapons diverge in the above area on a per weapon basis. If you fire 8 ml's with a wide range, your not going to hit the same location unless your at 0 meters.
3) Adjust the uncertainty area based on speed, heat, and stability.
4) Why your at it.. slow down the mechs max speed as your heat level goes up.

This fixes most of the problems introduced without horking over the game. Good aim still gets you close, but the exact location is semi random as it should be. Then you just have to tweak LRM's similar to SSRM changes and have them lock onto random locations instead of the CT.

^ this

[aseth]

I've been thinking more about this, and I think that the "great evil" really is group fire. If you generate more heat than your total number of heat sinks (doubled if using double heat sinks) in a single salvo, you should suffer a penalty to heat dissipation for a short period of time, based on how much you're over. If you're in chain fire, then you don't have to worry much. (Unless you're using ER PPC's with 10 single heat sinks. And if you are, uh... Best of luck with that.) You may want to consider additional heat effects (movement, and gyroscope jitter at high heat levels to represent the weapon attack penalties in tabletop).

If you're chain firing PPC's and hitting the same spot with them, then you're awesome enough a pilot that you should be rewarded for that.

[MWHawke]

p.s. please fix this too:
http://mwomercs.com/...on/page__st__20

[keith]

HRR Insanity, on 16 June 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Incorrect. If only mediums are allowed, the medium with the biggest alpha will be 'overpowered' because it will still kill other 'Mechs faster because of pinpoint damage.

lets face it. the bad ppl will always complain this mech killed me, nerf it.

[DocBach]

keith, on 16 June 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

lets face it. the bad ppl will alwa
ys complain this mech killed me, nerf it.

or like, I get killed by teams where four players are using this much boated with the same weapons so many times it feels like groundhogs day every drop? Players want to win and they will use whatever makes that easy. Right now due to convergence placing all of a mechs weapons in one spot on a bad guy, massive pinpoint damage weapons are much more effective. If players were limited to lighter chassis e would just see mechs that can boat these guns still.

[hoverstorm]

Good initiative by Paul to balance the mentioned weapons.

However, I do not believe, the said method of balancing the heat for small weapons are even necessary. If you are heading towards that direction, do indicate the heat level on our HUD, right through to 150% to give the people an awareness of how much heat the mechs have actually accumulated.

[Vaan]

Hayashi, on 16 June 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Honestly, it would make more sense to keep the max number of weapons rule specific to each chassis. While 6 medium lasers on a hunchback sounds reasonable, 6 medium lasers on a JR7-F isn't very reasonable. And while the Awesome was meant to hold 3 PPCs, the Stalker generally didn't hold PPCs at all.

It'd give the chassis a little flavour if the limits were tweaked according to each type, as opposed to being a global limit. As it is it blanket-punishes most of the heavier chassis far more than the lighter chassis.

And 150% is too high. The only way I can think of getting there is to fire a 6 PPC alpha at 85+% heat. Anywhere between 110 and 130 makes more sense, though I'd prefer it be kept at 110. Put this limit too high, the mechanism never triggers. Put this limit too low, the shutdown mechanic becomes pointless.

I agree with earlier posters though that it makes more sense from a gameplay point of view to reduce the efficiency of heat sinks when a high heat alpha is fired for a certain amount of time, rather than to add bonus heat. Coupled with a lower heat limit we might see a real chance of mechs blowing up from overheat without mashing the override button first.

This already telling us the fault is not on the weapons.. The problem is lies on the hardpoint system! If stalker is not design for PPCs.. limits its energy hardpoint to small or medium lasers and sames goes to raven and spiders as well.. Carrying AC20 or ER-PPC on light is simply weird!!

[Slanski]

The heat adjustments for boating are an unnecessary complication and crutch for the still broken heat formula (3x fire rate at unmodified heat dissipation vs the original boardgame values) as well as perfect convergence for large weapon groups. Treat the source, not the symptoms. Increase heat dissipation by a substantial amount to avoid the all out/hide and cool down high alpha gameplay we have now.

Two ideas need revision as well:
1. Heat sinks in MWO increase total heat capacity. This is a bad idea, leading to too many possible alphas. Heat sinks grant dissipation, not increased capacity and voila, the 3rd immidiate PPC volley will not happen. Upgrade dissipation on DHS in return.
2. Perfect convergence of more than 2 weapons, especially from different torso/arm locations. The 3025/50 targetting computer should not be able to do this. Imperfect or lacking convergence on large weapon groups, unless they are mounted in the same location (Swayback HBK) would alleviate most boating problems for mechs that are not designed for it.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

Wrayeth, on 12 June 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

I'm glad something's being done. Much as this was fun, it's more than a bit broken...



4 PPCs, 1 gauss (3 tons of ammo), 16 DHS, and a 325XL engine.

proves nothing, you can rack the same or even more damage with DDC (2ppc or 2 LL gauss lrm?) if enemy team bad enough, and yours team ain't much better which is the case on this screenie

Edited by BigMekkUrDakka, 17 June 2013 - 04:37 AM.

[Tsula]

Why do people read that the numbers stated are just place holders not real numbers. And the example of the swayback was just that a example. They are looking into each weapon. Thou I think each mech should be looked at. Problem is with mngulti weapon system boating ie ppc gauss. Or some other extrem damage builds with multi weapons. Still open to see if this fix works.

[Victor Morson]

tsula, on 17 June 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

Why do people read that the numbers stated are just place holders not real numbers. And the example of the swayback was just that a example. They are looking into each weapon. Thou I think each mech should be looked at. Problem is with mngulti weapon system boating ie ppc gauss. Or some other extrem damage builds with multi weapons. Still open to see if this fix works.

Because the example, which shows how the system "works" already proves it is broken. The reason there is such backlash is because no matter how you tweak the numbers, the core concept is terrible. There is literally NO problem with boating right now. Boating isn't the issue. Huge tons of guns on assault 'mechs is the issue in my book; some people feel convergence is the issue, which while I disagree with, at least is addressing the problem.

This change? Literally all it serves to do is mess up a bunch of small-arms boats, while leaving high-synergy non-boats to dominate the field. If 3 guns don't count as boating, I will be blasting my Gauss / 3 PPCs in your face no matter what you do to this system. Or I'll just run a twin Gauss Victor when it comes out, seeing as that won't even have heat issues in the first place.

Again, literally nothing is solved about high-damage snipers with these changes. Nothing.All they do is break things that aren't broken - no matter how you try to make exception groups and such - and that is where the buck stops. The core system is backwards and had exactly 15 minutes thought put into it. They all seemed designed to counter builds like the 6 PPC Stalker, which is an inferior build in the first place - so instead of just quirking the chassis directly, they spent valuable programming man hours - hours that could be used for the other balance changes we've begged for - making a radical shift to the fundamental way the game works to no benefit.

I refuse to believe anyone at PGI spent hours on that concept without once thinking through the ramifications of the fact it is literally accomplishing nothing for the stated goal, while also causing chaos with a number of other 'mechs. Someone had to have drawn this on the back of a napkin, posted it, then forgot they even did because 55 pages later we've not heard a thing.

I'd love to believe this whole heat system is nothing more than Paul's hangover from one wild party, and goes away quietly in the end.

Edited by Victor Morson, 17 June 2013 - 05:25 AM.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

so called "high damage snipers" never was and never will be a real problem, if you think they are problem you should play some other game

[Victor Morson]

BigMekkUrDakka, on 17 June 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

so called "high damage snipers" never was and never will be a real problem, if you think they are problem you should play some other game

Well, they kind of are, but not because they are high damage snipers. Too many people are obsessed with stomping that build type out which is wrong.

The problem is since there's no per-drop tonnage restriction, everyone is in an assault that's able to bring way more big guns than any other 'mech, causing a lot of really rapid full-to-zero deaths and making people blame he first obvious symptom, not the disease. Nerf alphas and convergence all you want and the quick deaths won't stop until less people get restricted to 'mechs that carry less weight & space for weapons.

Edited by Victor Morson, 17 June 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[keith]

BigMekkUrDakka, on 17 June 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

so called "high damage snipers" never was and never will be a real problem, if you think they are problem you should play some other game

or they could fix these so called high dam snipers by get away from TT number because TT numbers are bad. they have doubled the armor and ppl still complain they are dieing fast. last online mechwarrior game that had TT numbers was mech3 and that net code was crap. mech 4 went away from TT for a reason, even then some of the weps buffed/ nerfed.

Victor Morson, on 17 June 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

The problem is since there's no per-drop tonnage restriction, everyone is in an assault that's able to bring way more big guns than any other 'mech, causing a lot of really rapid full-to-zero deaths and making people blame he first obvious symptom, not the disease. Nerf alphas and convergence all you want and the quick deaths won't stop until less people get restricted to 'mechs that carry less weight & space for weapons.

how many times can i say yes to this.

[Shumabot]

BigMekkUrDakka, on 17 June 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

so called "high damage snipers" never was and never will be a real problem, if you think they are problem you should play some other game

The joke here is that people do, and that's bad for the games health and longevity. "Love it or leave it" doesn't work when the game requires a player base to not get shut down.

Edited by Shumabot, 17 June 2013 - 06:22 AM.