1263 replies to this topic

[keith]

Suprentus, on 11 June 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

I find it funny (with a touch of irony) that everyone is calling the idea dumb, then explaining how they would make it better. That's exactly why this change is being implemented. This exact boating punishing mechanic is what so many other forum warriors, like yourselves, have championed as the true way to "fix" boating.

have u stepped foot in this game in the last 2 months? nothing in his post fixes anything. does not address the reason y ppl take mass assault mechs, all it does it force ppl either to chain fire or take mixed configs. forcing ppl to play a certain way is a no no. its gaming 101, give them as many choices as they want but make sure they are balanced. added a crap ton of heat for alphing striking is neither TT nor balancing the game, added a weight balance mechanic to your game first.

[Suprentus]

Deathlike, on 11 June 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

The mechanic itself doesn't actually deal with legit builds that accomplish the same instant damage effect. Plus, the 6 PPC Stalker boats simply don't have to alpha.. just half alpha at 2 second intervals (30 damage per interval)... but if you were to build a 3 ERPPC/1 Gauss Rifle build that the Atlas-RS and Highlander-733 can build, you still do the obscene 45 pt damage alpha that avoids said limitation. You don't really change the meta of the builds that much... you only influence usage.

And to that, I say...so? They're assault mechs; they're supposed to hit hard. Prioritize the Highlander-732 and Atlas-RS. They're not going anywhere fast. I promise you that if you shoot them enough, they will die.

[WolvesX]

I seriously think you balance for low elo.

S-SRM rework is fine imo, but only if you buff the damage to 2.5.

The pulse lasers need a buff, not a nerf, the LPLs are not a viable weapon. Seriously. Less heat! They will produce more heat than a PPC.

MG and Flamer are a good step, but it won't be the last. They will still be not good enough!

---

The heat penalty system is just bad, its so bad, I think think of any other game I played that had such "strange" ideas to balance things.

Please do not do this!

---

SRM need a damage buff -> 2 would be a first step.

Edited by WolvesX, 11 June 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[Tennex]

If these numbers are real...

the 8 ml builds now cost 13 ml's heat. Please tell me these numbers are just arbitrary to illustrate an example.

[keith]

Suprentus, on 11 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

[DELETED CONTENT]

no that was MW4 a much better balanced game then this, almost all chasis had a use unlike this so called game

[BlackBeltJones]

Why does this not address the energy load on a mech over time? Why does it penalize based on (what appears to be) weapon name? Is the energy load (heat) from a PPC somehow different than that of an ER PPC or LPL? Do they not create the same type of heat and only vary in the amount? Why would it be ok to fire 3PPC and 3 ER PPC but not 6 PPC's? Would the heat or load be that same and the only difference is the weapon name? Is there such righteousness in the BT universe that Mech builders decided to limit, arbitrarily the amount of heat a single weapon type can produce without ill effect? In the future will different manufacturers of weapons be subject to the same limitations? If I equip 3 different 'brand' PPC's will I be spared the heat penalty? Again this addresses a symptom and not the problem. Solutions must be made outside of the vacuum.
Also curious how can you create complete weapons balance when you "address every weapon individually" - This is the vacuum of doom.

Edited by BlackBeltJones, 11 June 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[WaddeHaddeDudeda]

TL;DR.

Stupid changes are (as usual) stupid.

Almost noone runs 6 PPC Stalkers anyway.
4 PPCs are king atm - 4 PPCs will be king after another brilliant patch.

The King is dead - long live the King!


(And thanks for killing Mechs like the 4P!)

\sarcasm

Edited by WaddeHaddeDudeda, 11 June 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[Suprentus]

keith, on 11 June 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

have u stepped foot in this game in the last 2 months? nothing in his post fixes anything. does not address the reason y ppl take mass assault mechs, all it does it force ppl either to chain fire or take mixed configs. forcing ppl to play a certain way is a no no. its gaming 101, give them as many choices as they want but make sure they are balanced. added a crap ton of heat for alphing striking is neither TT nor balancing the game, added a weight balance mechanic to your game first.

Why do people keep asking me this? Yes, I play regularly, and I don't do half bad, if I do say so, myself. I usually get at least 1 kill in every match, though often more. In fact, I have 22 mastered mechs in my mechbay, all loaded out with different and viable builds.

Furthermore, I don't really understand what you're blasting me about. I'm basically berating you lot for focusing your attention on issues where there are none in the first place. Usually, issues that people take with this game are more a direct result of their lack of imagination and resourcefulness.

[sarkun]

The boating is not the problem, it's the symptom! The problem is absolute pinpoint accuracy!!!

I've just had a match were I died early to sniper fire so I could see all of my teams loadouts:
We've had

• 2x 6PPC stalkers
  
• 4ERPPC stalker
  
• Atlas RS with Gauss & 4PPC
  
• Misery with Gauss & 4PPC
  
• Misery with Gauss & 3ERPPC
  
• K2 with 4LL
  
• AC40 Jaeger (me)

that is 27 PPCs, 3 Gauss, 4LL and 2AC20.

All high alpha, pinpoint damage. If you increase the heat, we will just move towards more Misery and Atlas RS configs. What is needed is not additional confusing heat mechanic, but accuracy nerf. Or we can just pretend this is quake2 instagib railgun mode. Only the players are much much slower and cant jump so are easier to hit.

[Shakespeare]

keith, on 11 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

no that was MW4 a much better balanced game then this, almost all chasis had a use unlike this so called game

Uh, no. MW4 Multi was a flat-mapped bunny-hopping snipefest. Gauss and hitscan ERLLs, with no weight balance mechanic to speak of.

The hardpoints, I agree, were easier to manage from a balance standpoint, but they never did, and the game was boiled down to sniper-only counterstrike game, with torso twist and a zoom system. Miserable.

I may not like every change, I certainly don't think we're at where we could be, but MWO is already worlds better for mutliplayer than it's predecessors. Good thing too, since that's the only focus of MWO at all. It'd be embarrassing otherwise!

[Galenit]

Heat penaltys are a bad joke!
150%?
Your mech shut down to prevent damage near 100%.
For overheating you should get the penalty over 100%, scaling linear 1 (maybe 1/2) point for every 1% over 100.

150% as threshold can be ok, but then apply other penaltys for the lower overheating levels, like movement reduction and other things mentioned in so many posts ...

[StalaggtIKE]

sarkun, on 11 June 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Or we can just pretend this is quake2 instagib railgun mode. Only the players are much much slower and cant jump so are easier to hit.

QFT.

[Donnie Silveray]

So many of you people's hate and spitting is really not helping things out ya know . Throwing out your ideas of convoluted solutions and work arounds without regard to the core of the issue at hand.

Though far from perfect, these additions from PGI serve as a great basepoint to further polish down. It makes sense to start the heat threshold at 150% to gather statistics, and rather than assign values to each and every mech using a global heat scale allows them to more universally tweak the scaling for further use down the road.

I admit, not perfect but consider, would you rather be in May? Or looking forward with these features in place to curb excessive minmaxing?

[End Crescendo]

I'm excited.

[Suprentus]

Genewen, on 11 June 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Actually, the idea I saw most often is the above. Also, while we're being ironic, I want to point at how "funny" it is that somebody is being condescendend towards others calling them forum warriors while posting and arguing on the forums himself.

Just arguing about something on a forum makes someone a forum warrior, huh? It has nothing to do with how everyone just happens to have some expert opinion, whereas I am not making any such pretense?

[Crimson Fenris]

Consider simply giving ALL Pulse Lasers the tonnage of their standard counterparts. Then balance heat and range accordingly, to give us a fair tradeoff between range/damage/heat.
Why increasing damage and heat of LPL and SPL, but not MPL as well ?
The intended changes will not make them good weapons : why bother using a small pulse, if I can fit a ML for the exact same tonnage and crit slots, but much greater range and damage output ?

The change for SSRMs seems good so far. A real random behavior, and equal chances to be hit for all sections is appreciated.

The heat treshold idea seems to not solve anything at all.
The numbers you use are very arbitrary, and will not hinder high alpha boating. The 0.5 second will not make any difference, and still allow the use of macros. If that number is set accordingly to each weapon cooldown, it will become a bit more difficult to macro with two or more different weapons systems.
If you further increase this threshold by a percentage of current heat, that became impossible to macro the thing, since it's not a fixed number.

The heat penalty limit will hurt some builds, like hunckback 4P, wich is made for boating, but not any of the misery around (3PPC+Gauss), not to mention Highlanders with a 3PPC build...

Please, set this heat penalty to a percentage of the weapon's heat value : like this, high-heat weapons will suffer more than low-heat ones, wich, I guess, is the intended goal...

Furthermore, as already stated by numerous users before me, the 150% heat limit is FAR TOO GENEROUS !
That means being around 95% heat, and firing 4 or 5 PPC at the same time... no pilot is currently doing that, except in exceptionally desperate situation.
So it will not encourage players to have a better heat managment...

Please, set the limit to 100%, then apply damages accordingly to the weapons fired : for the same reason, it will hurt more the high-heat weapons, as intended.

[Thorqemada]

Imho Canon boats suffer from additional heat generation and the threshold is better set at 4 ML and 2 PPC for example so that they get the low additional heat penalty (roughly any Alpha beyond 20 Points of damage should generate a heat malus).

In every other case you will never see a different behavior beyond the measure tolerance.

The overheat damage threshold imho should shrink each time you Alpha beyond 100% heat and going from 125% to 100% in steps of 5% until every overheating does damage your mech.

Edited by Thorqemada, 11 June 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[keith]

Shakespeare, on 11 June 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Uh, no. MW4 Multi was a flat-mapped bunny-hopping snipefest. Gauss and hitscan ERLLs, with no weight balance mechanic to speak of.

The hardpoints, I agree, were easier to manage from a balance standpoint, but they never did, and the game was boiled down to sniper-only counterstrike game, with torso twist and a zoom system. Miserable.

I may not like every change, I certainly don't think we're at where we could be, but MWO is already worlds better for mutliplayer than it's predecessors. Good thing too, since that's the only focus of MWO at all. It'd be embarrassing otherwise!

u never played in a decent league then. NBT had many different tonnages to play at, some very low, all lights to very high all assaults. where u could u many different tactics beside just jump sniping. this is not worlds better then MW4. it could be if the dev team could balance the game and make some decent maps/ stop adding silly things like +heat on alpha that there is no way to tell what u going g to get when u shoot

[FrDrake]

150% heat threshold = too generous, I advocated 105% in another thread but we can split the difference and try it out at 125% (which is still stupidly generous).

Anti-boating heat penalties = these are bad, are you going to add this stat line to all of the items in mechlab? Is a player just supposed to "memorize" your arbitrary picks for how many of a particular weapon they "should" have? As has been said before, balance the weapon and you take care of boating, going after boating in this manner is just clumsy and awkward.

MGs and Flamers = keep on tuning, we'll get there eventually

Pulse changes = good for SPL, mediums are still underwhelming, LPL are looking kind of bad now

[SirLANsalot]

PGI......this is what I feared.

Your going overboard on the heat penalty. The HBK-4P IS A MECH MADE TO BOAT THOSE GUNS, it is working as intended. Medium Lasers in general ARE NOT AN ISSUE, and ARE MADE TO BE BOATED!

Large lasers and PPC's are NOT made to be boated. Your heat penalty also is going to be ineffective against mechs boating those "big" energy guns. What NEEDed to be done would be a FLAT penalty added to each gun over the limiter. So 2 LL/PPC is normal for a mech, as guns are made to be used in pairs at the minimum. If you place a 3rd one on, it (and all others of that type on the mech already) will have there heat upped by 1. A 4th would up it by 2, and so on and so forth, so the penalty gets steeper and steeper the higher you go. This would be applied to ONLY Large Lasers and PPCs, they would also be grouped by there ER counterparts too. So LL/ERLL and PPC/ERPPC (2 of each) on a mech will not trigger the effect, as they are two very different guns and behave very differently. However placing 2 PPC and 2 ERPPC would trigger the penalty, as a PPC is a PPC regardless of what type it is (same applies to the Large Lasers).

Note: This system would be applied to ALL mechs in the game, not just special ones. Also the penalty would be increased based on a mechs stock configuration. Like a AWS-8Q has 3 PPC normally, thus its penalty would be increased to 3 before it triggers, but its large laser one would not be.


Missiles and Ballistics have there own anti-boating built into themselves (SRMs excluded). Missiles are heavy and take up a lot of crit space and take attentional space and tonnage with ammo (LRM20/15s). LRM 10/5's are intended to be "boated" as they are light and do not deal a lot of damage, but have better RoF over there bigger counterparts, AMS also takes them out quite easily. Ballistics also have there own self balancing factor in either space or massive tonnage (AC20/Gauss/10/LBX), Also mechs for these guns usually have multiple hard-points in the same arm or torso, thus limiting even more what large caliber guns can go in there. Where as Large Energy weapons can be placed multiple times in the same location, Missiles and Ballistics cannot, and its there that is causing the issue.