1263 replies to this topic

[BadSkut]

I would argue that top tier players who boat are less than top tier. If this game wants a true competitive scene there should be strict rules on using any build that would be considered "OP". Right now, competitive 8v8 matches are just plain boring to watch and making games fun to watch is the only way to promote the e-sport aspect of the game. Hell, even the COD competitve scene bans certain weapons, equipment and perks. I'd like to see the competitive scene of this game to go toward forcing the players to use stock loadouts on all mechs. This takes the game away from pumping out as much damage as possible as soon as a target is within weapons range, to a game where the best pilots are the ones who can overcome the weaknesses of a less than optimal build.

Now of course there would have to be other restrictions, such as total tonnage, or even a requirement for a certain number of mechs in each weight class, to stop everyone from choosing one mech because it's deemed "the best". As it stands, I feel like I'm a pretty decent pilot, and normally I would be interested in at least dabbling in competitive play, but the nature of most "top tier" games, as it stands right now, completely turns me off to the scene.

[LastPaladin]

I'm glad you guys are addressing the pulse lasers, as they needed a tweak to make them useful. Normalizing them first before tweaking them is sensible, but it is going to make LPLs pretty worthless until you make another adjustment. Compared to regular large lasers or PPCs, they just have too many disadvantages with not enough extra benefits. I was using them in a few builds where I had extra tonnage for weapons but not many free slots or hardpoints, because they were handy to fit in certain spaces that PPCs could not. Now, though, the additional heat makes even that purpose too disadvantageous, since I will not have any room to add another heat sink on those kind of crowded builds.

I realize we are still in beta and everything is still fluid, so I'm willing to be patient while you tweak things like this, but I hope you do strike the right balance. If the weapons aren't balanced right, with all the important variables taken into consideration, then we'll end up with everyone using just the few most optimal weapons, and that would make for a boring game. Especially in the Battletech universe, where customization and adaptation is half the fun

The other worry I have about the update is the heat system for alpha strikes. Increasing the penalty for only the same weapons types doesn't make any sense to me. I can just alpha strike with a PPC, an ER PPC, a Large Laser, an ER Large Laser, and a Gauss rifle. Sure, the ranges vary and aiming might be trickier, but it will still score me very quick kills if I sneak up and fire when the stars are aligned. My most effective alpha strike build so far uses mostly medium range weapons anyway, so for that I would have no problem using a few types of lasers and a few different SRMs and still killing quite effectively with no heat penalty

I think this is an example of why nerfing things to respond to the metagame is an ineffective, reactive strategy that can hurt the game. Alpha strike tactics aren't being used to ruin other players games, but because they are an effective tactic. Now, if you nerf them, the first thing those players will do is be creative and try to find a loophole to keep the tactic effective. Failing that, they will switch to the next most effective tactic, the metagame changes, and more people will complain about the new tactic.

Also, when you change the game to respond to a single concern, you're often going to trigger unintended consequences. For example, now all mechs that can only carry a limited range of weapons (like that champion Jenner you're hocking, for example) have a penalty even though they were not necessarily effective alpha strike machines. Meanwhile, the larger mechs that were the main source of the problem can fit a wider variety of weapons in their hardpoints, due to more free tonnage (or more heat sinks), and won't carry as great a penalty. So, you have, just like with the jumpjet nerf, penalized mechs that weren't the problem more than you have penalized mechs that were the problem.

If you want to make alpha strikes more rare, then it would be better to penalize any alpha strike or any type of multiple weapons fired together. However, if you do that, then the metagame will just change to everyone chainfiring weapons with the fastest reload times. Hey, maybe then LPLs will be worth it again

I'm glad you guys are addressing the pulse lasers, as they needed a tweak to make them useful. Normalizing them first before tweaking them is sensible, but it is going to make LPLs pretty worthless until you make another adjustment. Compared to regular large lasers or PPCs, they just have too many disadvantages with not enough extra benefits. I was using them in a few builds where I had extra tonnage for weapons but not many free slots or hardpoints, because they were handy to fit in certain spaces that PPCs could not. Now, though, the additional heat makes even that purpose too disadvantageous, since I will not have any room to add another heat sink on those kind of crowded builds.

I realize we are still in beta and everything is still fluid, so I'm willing to be patient while you tweak things like this, but I hope you do strike the right balance. If the weapons aren't balanced right, with all the important variables taken into consideration, then we'll end up with everyone using just the few most optimal weapons, and that would make for a boring game. Especially in the Battletech universe, where customization and adaptation is half the fun

The other worry I have about the update is the heat system for alpha strikes. Increasing the penalty for only the same weapons types doesn't make any sense to me. I can just alpha strike with a PPC, an ER PPC, a Large Laser, an ER Large Laser, and a Gauss rifle. Sure, the ranges vary and aiming might be trickier, but it will still score me very quick kills if I sneak up and fire when the stars are aligned. My most effective alpha strike build so far uses mostly medium range weapons anyway, so for that I would have no problem using a few types of lasers and a few different SRMs and still killing quite effectively with no heat penalty

I think this is an example of why nerfing things to respond to the metagame is an ineffective, reactive strategy that can hurt the game. Alpha strike tactics aren't being used to ruin other players games, but because they are an effective tactic. Now, if you nerf them, the first thing those players will do is be creative and try to find a loophole to keep the tactic effective. Failing that, they will switch to the next most effective tactic, the metagame changes, and more people will complain about the new tactic.

Also, when you change the game to respond to a single concern, you're often going to trigger unintended consequences. For example, now all mechs that can only carry a limited range of weapons (like that champion Jenner you're hocking, for example) have a penalty even though they were not necessarily effective alpha strike machines. Meanwhile, the larger mechs that were the main source of the problem can fit a wider variety of weapons in their hardpoints, due to more free tonnage (or more heat sinks), and won't carry as great a penalty. So, you have, just like with the jumpjet nerf, penalized mechs that weren't the problem more than you have penalized mechs that were the problem.

If you want to make alpha strikes more rare, then it would be better to penalize any alpha strike or any type of multiple weapons fired together. However, if you do that, then the metagame will just change to everyone chainfiring weapons with the fastest reload times. Hey, maybe then LPLs will be worth it again

[LastPaladin]

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

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.

+1000 on this.

When I was first playing with builds, what I did, and I'm sure many other players did the same, was to get all the weapons stats, make a spreadsheet, and build a few formulas to see what were the most effective weapons. It was readily apparent that there were a few weapons that beat the others when you calculated DPS, DPS/ton, DPS/heat, DPS/heat/ton, etc. When that is the situation, then of course I am going to prefer to use those most effective weapons whenever I can cram them in. I have to be feeling masochistic, or just bored with the usual weapons to choose otherwise.

[Teralitha]

OR





You could just remove double heat sinks...... no that would be too simple.


Removing double heat sinks achieves all the same goals as all this heat scale work is intended to do.


Paul, your making this whole mechwarrior thing way more complicated than it needs to be....

[Colin Thrase]

I pilot many mechs, some with good Alpha strike and some not. My garage includes a Stalker with 4x ER PPC. I built this Stalker after watching a 6x ER PPC Stalker on Youtube. I found the 6x ER PPC to be complete garbage, and shutdown constantly. You just can't fit enough heat sinks into it. As a result, I feel like the 6x Stalker build is already "nerfed", so to speak, because any light/medium that gets close enough to circle it is pretty much guaranteed to kill it. I have done so myself with Jenners, Centurions, and Dragons (multiple types).

I found that even the 4x ER PPC Stalker was hard to keep from shutting down, so I downgraded two of them to regular PPCs (so now it's 2x ER PPC, 2x PPC).

I understand the nerf, because at least 1 in 3 games I can one-shot a light mech (typically a commando or spider that's just sitting still on a cap point), and I'm sure this isn't a good experience for them. However, they must learn not to sit still, just as I had to learn that when piloting my light mechs.

However, I believe the problem could better have been addressed by implementing a heat scale similar to the Table Top game. The original game had several distinct penalties for overheating. These penalties took effect even before you overheated (movement penalties, targeting penalties, possible ammo explosions). I personally believe that these penalties would go much further towards addressing the PPC boats out there, myself included. If I had to risk that an ammo explosion might occur *before* I even shut down, I'd definitely try not to overheat.

[Fate 6]

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?

Take all of my internets

[CyberianK]

We had the patch yesterday... why has this not been implemented?

When is it coming?

[Fate 6]

CyberianK, on 18 June 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

We had the patch yesterday... why has this not been implemented?

When is it coming?

Soon^TM but hopefully never

[MustrumRidcully]

BadSkut, on 18 June 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

I would argue that top tier players who boat are less than top tier. If this game wants a true competitive scene there should be strict rules on using any build that would be considered "OP".

Ive seen the community try this in Startrek Online. It doesn't work.

If you are a top tier player, you know what makes a good build and what makes a poor build. Considering that you strive to be your best in every other area - aiming, tactics, movement, coordination, communication, it's completely unnatural to not try to be your best for build, too.

The only ones that can ensure balance for the game are the game designers. The community will always fail to do so.

I remember a tournament where the tournament holders deliberately set rules to avoid certian "cheese" (at that time in STO, it was mostly heal cruisers that were impenetrable). The rules they set up where pretty much in accordance with the current concerns over the meta.

But then they won the tournament, and some accused them of rigging the tournament in their favor, because of the specific build they used being so effective. Now, maybe that is true, but I think the more realistic case is - they set up the rules, and then they tried to do what good players always do - try to be as effective as they can be, and found a new, legal build that turned out to OP. Or maybe it wasn't, because that'S the only time the community played under the rules, and the tournament holders at the time where generally considered the best, no matter what the developers put up for game changes.

Or let's go to the real world sports.
When Micheal Schumacher won the World Championship, he didn't drive a mediocre car. The Ferrari team tried to have the best car, and the best driver, and the best box crew. A part of Schumachers job was not just to drive in circles, it was working with the engineers to make the car the best it could be.
You can sure ask him to drive a Go Kart again, but any Formula One driver will try to be the best driver he can be with the best car he can get.


*forum acting up again?*

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 June 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[Jukebox1986]

Why this makeshift-heat-penalty? Why dont you balance things properly?

[Gaan Cathal]

Quote

We considered the notion of doing a max heat threshold reduction but this would have ended up nerfing every weapon system and every Mech in the game. This is why the heat scale penalty path was chosen since it lets us address every weapon individually and also allows us to take into consideration all Mech builds.

How it works:

• We set a threshold of the number of weapons fired simultaneously. By simultaneously fired, we mean weapons of the exact same type being fired in under a 0.5 second time range. This 0.5 second time comes from the amount of time between weapon switches when Chain Fire is engaged. Chain Fire is a mechanism meant to help MechWarriors manage their heat and we do not want to punish those who use this mechanic.
  
• If a player fires a number of weapons beyond the threshold, the heat scale will increase significantly for every weapon fired beyond the threshold.

As has been pointed out, this doesn't really deal with mixed-weapon alphaboats. 6PPC Stalkers won't fire 3-and-3, they'll load 3PPCs, 3ERPPCs and fire all six for less heat than the 6PPC+Penalty gives. Swaybacks will replace the non-Hunch MLAS with SPLS and sacrifice a little range in the name of still facepunching (although with the SPL changes I'd not be surprised to see 6SPL+3MLAS if the penalty system doesn't nerf that). The reason lowering heat containment was suggested was that it was a root-cause fix, minimising excessive heat-firing across the board (and yes, it would nerf the swayback somewhat, but then so does your current model).

In short, a heat containment reduction would force a 3ERPPC+3PPC Stalker to manage heat the same as a 6PPC Stalker. Under the penalty system it can full-alpha at will, unlike the mono-weapon version. For another example, a 4(ER)PPC Catapult works atm, although it's not commonly used at the high end because "just bring a Stalker". With reduced heat containment the same build would work, you'd just end up firing them paired. Essentially having 2PPC volleys with twice the standard PPC r.o.f. That's what you're clearly trying to achieve. With the penalty system, it'll just be a case of mixing 2ERPPC and 2PPC.

Simple, you say, we'll just make ERPPC and PPC count the same! A: How will that work with lasers, will all lasers be the same? All lasers of the same subtype? Of the same size? B: So the Catapult runs 2ERPPC and 2LL/ERLL. Sure it looses a bunch of the pinpoint, but it's still a case of frontloading the alpha as hard as possible.

ManDaisy, on 11 June 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

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

In fairness, I would far rather they started loose and tweaked their way down. Sweeping balance changes are universally a bad idea.

[SICk Nick]

I agree with the posts about using something similar to the BT heat scale and also the pilot damage that was in BT.

I remember in BT heat was a BIG deal. Ammo explosions especially. And pilots took what? 3 DMG and died? That's a headshot, an overheat and a fall= game over for that pilot.

There would be a lot of cool effects you guys could create too for both heat effects and pilot damage.

(If my armor gets ripped off my head would the sounds change as now I'm in open air? Lol. Wind noise and such?
Just a thought.)

(Are there going to be any maps we can go completely submerged in water?)

[MrMadguy]

And here are another two reasons, why I don't like this idea:

1) It complicates game mechanics and game mechanics should be simple, clear and intuitive. I quited one game not long time ago, cuz it's devs made very complex system of crutches and props only to do one thing - to prevent players from playing, how they like and to force them to play, how devs want them to play.

2) Weapons should not be ideally balanced and equally optimal. Let's take a look at another game for example - Counter-Strike. Are all weapons ideally balanced and equally optimal there? No! M16 and AK47 are the most optimal and players are choosing this weapons in most cases. And what about others? Others are suboptimal, situational, playstyle dependant or even fun only. Are shotguns as viable as M16? No! And we can say the same about our game too. There are most optimal fight distance and shoting style - so almost all players will choose the same weapons as most optimal. And yea, I have some speadsheets too and they tells me, that best weapons in the game are - AC/2, MDL and LRM5. AC/20 and PPC - are almost worst ones. So what we gonna do? Boat mech only with this weapons and delete all others from game? No? You know... If heavier weps are suboptimal in terms of dps/ton/slot, then the only reason for using them is...guess what?...to have higher alpha dmgs. What is the reason for installing one 14ton 10slot 270m range AC/20 with 5dps, if I could install 12ton 2slot 720m range 2xAC/2 with 8dps instead? So if you'll try to restrict alphas, then you'll simply kill heavier builds. If I'll fill my Atlas with 2xAC/2, 4xMDL and 2xLRM5, cuz this are the most optimal weapons, then what will be the difference between it and any heavy mech? Only amount of speed and armor? Think about it.

[AndyHill]

That is actually a pretty good point. In BTech the alpha ability of weapons is calculated into their weight, size and heat. The MLAS is a very efficient weapon, but in BTech it has nowhere near the alpha of an AC/20. I don't agree with your spreadsheets on what the best weapons are, because alpha is the key and absolute solution in MWO, not so much DPS and you don't seem to take that into account. However, using multiples of efficient weapons screws the alpha balance up completely, since now instead of the fearsome 20 point pinpoint strike of a HBK 4G you can have a far more fearsome and efficient 45 point pinpoint MLAS salvo in 4P.

This is also making it difficult to balance weapons, since instead of a specific weapon being op or up, it's usually a question of a high number of different weapon combinations and any changes to one weapon have effects on a variety of configurations instead of just the weapon itself. Good luck with balancing that.

[Shumabot]

MrMadguy, on 19 June 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

And here are another two reasons, why I don't like this idea:

1) It complicates game mechanics and game mechanics should be simple, clear and intuitive. I quited one game not long time ago, cuz it's devs made very complex system of crutches and props only to do one thing - to prevent players from playing, how they like and to force them to play, how devs want them to play.

2) Weapons should not be ideally balanced and equally optimal. Let's take a look at another game for example - Counter-Strike. Are all weapons ideally balanced and equally optimal there? No! M16 and AK47 are the most optimal and players are choosing this weapons in most cases. And what about others? Others are suboptimal, situational, playstyle dependant or even fun only. Are shotguns as viable as M16? No! And we can say the same about our game too. There are most optimal fight distance and shoting style - so almost all players will choose the same weapons as most optimal. And yea, I have some speadsheets too and they tells me, that best weapons in the game are - AC/2, MDL and LRM5. AC/20 and PPC - are almost worst ones. So what we gonna do? Boat mech only with this weapons and delete all others from game? No? You know... If heavier weps are suboptimal in terms of dps/ton/slot, then the only reason for using them is...guess what?...to have higher alpha dmgs. What is the reason for installing one 14ton 10slot 270m range AC/20 with 5dps, if I could install 12ton 2slot 720m range 2xAC/2 with 8dps instead? So if you'll try to restrict alphas, then you'll simply kill heavier builds. If I'll fill my Atlas with 2xAC/2, 4xMDL and 2xLRM5, cuz this are the most optimal weapons, then what will be the difference between it and any heavy mech? Only amount of speed and armor? Think about it.

Counterstrike is one of the worst balanced games in esports history and its esports scene is dead largely due to a refusal to balance and bring the game into this millenium. It is a horrific example, and it as far from where you want to go as possible. That game is losing valve money.

[von Pilsner]

Shumabot, on 19 June 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Counterstrike is one of the worst balanced games in esports history and its esports scene is dead largely due to a refusal to balance and bring the game into this millenium. It is a horrific example, and it as far from where you want to go as possible. That game is losing valve money.

You mean CS:GO, right?

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Been away for a long damn time 150 plus days and I just read this update.

While I don't think it immediately a terrible idea for the boating....(guys calling it arbitrarily based on personal opinions, where the heck do you think all the TT values came from? There was no 'community input' stop being clowns).

Being over red line should destroy heat sinks. No matter how many sinks you have, you can only shoot so much before you start blowing them out. Problem solved. NEXT!

Edited by SJ SCP Wolf, 19 June 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[Jestun]

Penalties over 150% heat are fairly pointless as very few people get there. I don't see the point in this.

Re: the multiple weapons heat system it shows promise, but with what looks like different limits for different weapons and mechs it could just be a huge complicated mess. I'm not sure if this is the case but it is mentioned that the Hunchback is specifically balanced around firing 6 medium lasers (not 6 energy weapons, the specific weapon is mentioned) and PPCs are then mentioned as having a different limit (using a different mech in the example).

[Sephlock]

Quote

S-SRMs are undergoing a revamp on their targeting solutions. There are 7 bones that are randomly selected by each SSRM missile. Right now, those bones are located at joints rather than center-points for each of the components. We are looking at changing that so the bones are placed further apart and more toward the center of each component. We are also looking at weighting the torso bones in a manner that make them not a priority for SSRMs. For example, all components would have a weight of 1.0. The Torsos however would take a weighting of 0.35(LT) 0.3(CT) 0.35(RT). The reasoning behind this weighting is that if all the torsos had an equal value of 1, each missile would have a 3/7 chance of going for a torso. Any sort of torso twist/movement would increase the chance of a missile in flight to hit the CT (since it’s the biggest component on a Mech) if they were to target a side torso.

[Shumabot]

von Pilsner, on 19 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

You mean CS:GO, right?

Sure. CS:GO doesn't exactly have enough different in it to qualify as an actually different game for me though. Taking source and just putting the code and visuals from the left 4 dead molotov cocktail in isn't exactly a "sequel". Either way, the CS scene is dead as a dornail outside of China.

SJ SCP Wolf, on 19 June 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Been away for a long damn time 150 plus days and I just read this update.

While I don't think it immediately a terrible idea for the boating....(guys calling it arbitrarily based on personal opinions, where the heck do you think all the TT values came from? There was no 'community input' stop being clowns).

Being over red line should destroy heat sinks. No matter how many sinks you have, you can only shoot so much before you start blowing them out. Problem solved. NEXT!

Ok, heres your next question:

Your solution solved nothing and greatly exacerbated already existent balance issues with the non viability of light and medium mechs, why did you post it?