1263 replies to this topic

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

Totally disagree with idea...Overly convoluted and complex...

The only real current problem is ppc's..

The simplest solution would be to increase the amount of heat they generate per shot (say 3 pts.) and put a minimum range on the ER's of say 120m...The suggested fix (which pgi will probably screw up: see elo ) requires quite a bit of code work, then 3 or 4 patches to get right....

A simple number tweak, no time at all.....remember the KISS principle...KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID....

[Victor Morson]

Honestly PGI, why can't you just start reducing people's movement & twist speed when they get closer to 100%?

That's all we need for heat stuff. It's all we've ever needed.*

* Barring some neat cockpit effects sometime maybe.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

How come fine tuning heat thresholds (how many one can fire, the penalty amount, and for each weapon type and class, for each mech and variant) was considered first instead of adding hardpoint sizes which would solve a lot of heat, boating, and alpha issues, and forces a more dynamic range of weapons to be used for what seems like the same amount of work and time?

Hardpoint sizes seems like the given and obvious way to go. Was this even seriously considered before the heat thresholds???

What is up with the LPL heat nerf???

I JUST DON'T GET ANY OF THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY



How are you going to teach new players this system? People who don't have a clue about heat, a clue about what a "boat" is, why you would even use 6ppcs or 9 medium lasers or 6 machine guns or 4 lrm 20's, or 6 srm 6's. If they don't know that, but you try to explain this complex system to them?

The Training Grounds said:

You can shoot this many weapons at once within a 0.5 sec window, but if you shoot this many, this many, or this many weapons within that 0.5 second window you get penalized, this this and this amount. But you can shoot this many weapons, and then 0.5 second later you can shoot this many weapons to avoid the penalty...Not to mention that the amount you can fire is different for each and every mech for each weapon so where you might be able to shoot this many on this mech without penalty you can only shoot this many on this, this, or this mech without penalty. And just one more thing to add… the penalties are different too.

Wouldn't it be easier to just avoid that topic, and use hardpoint sizes, where you just say it's a certain size, and explain that you can put smaller sized weapons in a larger sized hard point, but not a large sized weapon into a small sized hardpoint?
Then you, PGI, have full and complete control over which mech can use what type of weapon, when and where. but not totally bork people with a hidden and complex system? Once again you are favoring people with macros, and min/maxers who are willing to spend a week overheating in testing grounds to figure out at exactly at what % of total heat can they alpha again to avoid the CT damage?

I just.. yeah i dunno.. Thank you, Jenna Marbles.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 12 June 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[Victor Morson]

ZippySpeedMonkey, on 11 June 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Totally disagree with idea...Overly convoluted and complex...

The only real current problem is ppc's..

I know I sound like a broken record but it's not even PPCs. It's the fact everyone is in assaults capable of firing all those PPCs in the first place. If PPC Stalkers were one of only two assault 'mechs on the field, they would be entirely reasonable.

When you're getting smacked by 4-6 of the things, yeah, you get what we have.

[Elrail]

LPL rest in peace...

[Victor Morson]

MoonUnitBeta, on 11 June 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

How come fine tuning heat thresholds (how many one can fire, the penalty amount, and for each weapon type and class) was concidered over adding hardpoint sizes that solves a lot of boating and alpha issues, and forces a more dynamic range of weapons to be used?

At this point I honestly think "literally anything is better than this proposed system."

Elrail, on 11 June 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

LPL rest in peace...

I hope that the Pulse Laser scrambling will result in some rapid patches because they sound horrible going in. I've not talked about it much because this other issue is far, far, far bigger and more likely to break the balance even more.

Right Now: We can play things other than sniper builds! Maybe we'll get brawlers soon! Looking good!

Then, after the nerf, when they can no longer run those non-sniper arrays (which aren't hurt because, you know, all the damage is in 3 guns or so)..

Post-Patch: Welp can't run anything with more than a few guns. So what would be the best combo of a few guns to run. All hail our returning sniper combo overlords.

This is literally backwards from what it should be doing. It's baffling to the point I wonder if the whole system was crafted on the back of a napkin and wasn't given a peer review, or simply originates from a very deep seated misunderstanding of how the game actually plays.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 04:16 PM.

[WolvesX]

Elrail, on 11 June 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

LPL rest in peace...

I love this!

I LOVE THIS!

Why in the world would you actually NERF (!?!!?!?!?) the LPL.

There IS no reason. There can't be one.

I would really like to know the statement from the guy that thought this out!!!

[Khell DarkWolf]

I like the intended flamer and MG changes: +1

I don't have much comment on the SSRMs because I really don't use them: Null


The Pulse laser changes and the Heat penalty:

This will not work in the intended direction nor solve the issues.

Let me start by saying the small pulse laser change will be a step in the right direction, but not for the Large pulse.

Increasing Large pulse heat to 8.5 means it will produce more heat then a standard PPC. The new Large pulse will have 2.125 HPS (Heat per sec) vs PPC 2 HPS.

I don't know if you looked but 2 medium lasers vs. 1 PPC have the same damage, HPS and cooldown. The only difference is you're paying for 5 extra tons to turn your weapon from a 1 second beam into a projectile that does all its damage at once and has more range.

Another concern is that all of the DPS (Damage per second) weapons are outclassed by the alpha strike weapons because they actually out DPS the DPS intended weapons.

Pulse lasers need to have their heat reduced (and probably matching DMG to their size counterparts) and cooldowns shortened more to bring them up to snuff to be the missing energy DPS variant in the weaponry systems.

Pulse lasers its current form in this stage of the game are just expensive tonnage, weaker damage, shorter ranged, higher heated PPC wannabe's.

I have no problem with having a hit and run or sniper weapon, but that is kinda what a PPC can do. Pulse laser shouldn't be so heat intensive as it is for the ability to cycle only moderately faster. Because currently Pulse lasers jack up your heat faster then PPC's do when their intended purpose should be an attrition weapon in continuous and short bursts.

Lowering the recycle and then lowering the heat to a point where you would be able fire them more often would give them a reason and use for loadouts.

Which is another reason you guys should invert the current heat system:

• Cut the mech heat thresholds in half
  
• Beef up the Heatsink dissipation for the missing threshold accordingly

Now there is reason to choose and pick between DPS and Alpha Loadouts.

I strongly give you my feedback on this matter because I do not believe this will help solve the current issues that we have in the game regarding this gameplay update.

[Lootee]

I'll wait and see, the changes can't make the game any worse right? And might make things better.

But I'd rather just see a limit on the number of weapons that can be fired at once. 1 big gun (AC/20, PPC, gauss, AC/10, LRM20, LRM15, LL, ERLL, LPL) or 3 small guns (ML, SL, MPL, SPL, LRM10,LRM5, SRMs). Add a global cool down of .5sec where only 1 big gun or 3 small guns can be fired. If you try to fire 6 PPCs, they would fire 1 after another every .5 seconds, taking 3 seconds total. The HBK would still be able to unload all 9 medium lasers in 2.5 seconds, but would require a steady aim to make them all hit the same spot.

In TT 1 shot from a heavy gauss rifle (25pts of dmg at point blank range) might cause the firing mech to fall over. Yet in this game you are allowed to fire 2 AC/20s, 3 PPCs + a gauss rifle, 6 PPCs simultaneously and not even suffer the slightest bit of recoil, that's inconsistent and absurd. Just say the global cooldown for big guns is the mech's battle computer preventing a foolish mechwarrior from knocking himself on his arse.

The PGI proposed stacking heat nerf will do absolutely nothing to tone down the double AC/20 and double gauss, 2 PPC + 1 gauss mechs but it would negatively impact mechs like the HBK, JR, CDA, BJ.

The problem is not heat. The problem is 35, 40, 45, 60, 90 points of damage all hitting the same damn spot.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 11 June 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[Rashhaverak]

I do not like the heat penalty mechanic. Players will need spreadsheets to figure out how many weapons they can fire. It just seems over complicated. Regarding the overheat damage idea, I love it, but seriously... 150% is way to high a threshold. Why is the automatic shutdown at 100% if damage doesn't occur until 150%? I'm not even sure that you can reasonably get to 150% without firing six PPCs at once while already at 99%. The threshold where damage should occur on high heat should start at 125%, or even better, at 110%. The most significant aspects of MechWarrior battles were always heat management and movement. I get that you want the game to be easy, fun and accessible to the new player that is unfamiliar with the game, but you are making it way too easy. Set the heat damage threshold at something that makes us respect and care when we are approaching our limit. The new players will learn it quickly enough, and with the damage threshold at a reasonable level (lower) the high alpha builds will be limited in their ability to fire. First see what happens after the alpha builds can't fire and forget until they hit shutdown and then see if additional limits on weapons fire need to be imposed.

Edited by Rashhaverak, 11 June 2013 - 04:18 PM.

[WolvesX]

Way of the "balance" team.

Edited by WolvesX, 11 June 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[Khell DarkWolf]

I forgot to add that to bring the Alpha weapons being better DPS weapons in line.

They have to have a longer recycle time and an even greater heat per shot.

Thus translated. Put PPC cooldown up to 5 or 6 seconds and then up the heat value to an even higher value then its Closed beta original heat (or back to original heat pre-patch)

[Huntsman]

aniviron, on 11 June 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

GLAD THEY ARE FINALLY NERFING THE 8MLAS HUNCHBACK STOCK CONFIGURATION THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN RAMPAGING ALL OVER THE BATTLEFIELD IT IS ABOUT TIME

now if only they'd nerf caps lock...

[Renthrak]

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.

I understand your reasoning, but I disagree with your conclusions.

With differences in rate of fire and tweaks made to heat generated, weapons in MWO produce heat at 1.83x (current LPLAS) to 20x (AC/2) the rate of the TT scale. Heat Sinks, on the other hand, operate at or below the TT rate. The disparity between the two already allows you to adjust each weapon individually.

A reduction in the heat threshold, without any change to heat dissipation, <em>would</em> be an unpleasant nerf for all 'Mechs and weapons. That is why this has been repeatedly proposed in conjunction with a modest increase in cooling rate. Reducing the heat threshold by 15 points and increasing the cooling rate of heat sinks to 1.2x, for example. If you keep the cooling rate (1.2x TT) below the lowest heat production rate for weapons (1.83x TT), you can maintain the relative balance that you have already created.

Using arbitrary heat penalties for firing multiples of the same weapon opens a rather troublesome can of worms. Essentially, it creates an arms race between players who wish to fire massive-damage Alpha Strikes and the developers trying to encourage chain fire. Without a change that applies to <em>every</em> weapon and <em>every</em> 'Mech build, you allow players to find creative ways of bypassing the arbitrary limitations. This means that you will need to anticipate <em>every</em> possible weapon combination that would result in the huge-concentrated-damage effect that boating achieves.

For your Hunchback example, someone who wanted to fire all 9 weapons at once could simply switch out three of the Medium Lasers for another energy weapon, such as Medium Pulse Lasers (which actually <strong>increases</strong> the Alpha Strike damage for this build), and continue to fire them all together. So perhaps you would then include both regular and pulse lasers of the same size in the heat penalty. The player then changes the 3 MPLAS to 2 Small Lasers and 1 Large Laser, maintaining the 45 damage Alpha Strike of the 9xMLAS build that you were trying to discourage in the first place.

Now for the 6xPPC Stalker example. First, I would say that firing 3 PPCs and then 3 more PPCs half a second later is not a big improvement over firing all 6 together. Second, that 0.5 second delay would be easy to incorporate into a macro, ensuring that the pilot never triggers the heat penalty, while still using all 6 PPCs together. You have already stated that the 0.5 second delay is the limit to avoid interfering with chain fire, so I don't know what could be done to fix this scenario with your system.

A lower heat threshold is a limit that simply cannot be circumvented. Particularly with the heat damage above 150% heat that you also mentioned. In both 'Mech examples that you cited, the effect of lower threshold, even with an increase in cooling rate, would be to force players to wait longer between firing groups of their weapons. This also makes chain fire more attractive, because the 'Mech cools while the weapons cycle, which effectively reduces the heat output of each weapon or group by the amount of heat dissipated during the delay. The fewer weapons that are fired together, the larger the effect would be on a per-weapon basis. In this way, the heat-per-shot of any given weapon becomes the limiter for Alpha Strikes, while the heat-per-second and cooldown serves as the limiter for chain fire. Manipulating these values independently then allows for balancing each weapon individually.

I strongly request that you reconsider your proposed heat penalty system in favor of a change to threshold and cooling rate.

Edited by Renthrak, 11 June 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[WolvesX]

All the whinning about the totaly OP Hunchback 4P must finally have reached the "BALANCE" team.

Like...

12 MONTHS TOO LATE.

In closed BETA

Edited by WolvesX, 11 June 2013 - 04:24 PM.

[BootHands]

Hurting boats for the sake of hurting boats is assy. You guys should refund every HBK-4P and Every BJ-1X, since you decided to neuter them.

[MoonUnitBeta]

WolvesX, on 11 June 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

All the whinning about the totaly OP Hunchback 4P must finally have reached the "BALANCE" team.

Like...

12 MONTHS TOO LATE.

In closed BETA

Canadian Carrier Beavers are hard to train. You literally have to follow them by the sound of falling trees just to make sure they go the right way, but... even then. Some fall victim to the footprint of silent fell trees because no one was around to hear it. It's hard work getting a simple telegram to someone around here.

[Victor Morson]

I would like to implore PGI if they are reading this thread to please contact some of the higher level teams and talk to them about balance changes you are thinking about first.

I know you have expressed reservations about this in the past and believe balancing around the "casual market" first is a good idea. I agree with you to an extent: They are where your money is coming from. However, they also - being the casual market - have very little understanding of what they ask for very often.

On the flip side, you also have to contend with die-hard fans of the universe who will never be satisfied if the game does not play out exactly like Table Top. This makes sorting the people interested in playing MechWarrior: Online's meta to it's fullest very hard to separate. They ask for many things and see many problems that simply do not exist.

Sometimes, the two groups even merge - with many pubbies developing attitudes that frakenmechs should work great, because the TT players want them to - regardless if they do. This makes up a huge bulk of the forums feedback and again, are people you need to cater to; but they aren't going to like the changes anymore than the veterans in the end.

But here's the problem, and I really need to stress this: They just glance at surface problems. They don't think deeper about it because they're not interested in that depth of play, or have not reached that level. They aren't going over charts and thinking about why guns are good or bad on a level deeper than things like damage and they put lots and lots of bad builds into the metrics.

If you are consulting really good community players, while you need to keep some bias in mind, you'd get feedback on stuff like this well in advance of releasing to torrents of anger. Not one of them would tell you this is a good idea, that I can pretty much guarantee.

I don't know why there is no program like this in place, but the sad reality every developer needs to learn is that they will never, ever understand their game as well as the very best players. It's a combination of things from being too close, to simply not anticipating behavior. Even worse is when you design a system to operate in a specific way, it's sometimes hard to see the reality of how it actually gets used. I've even been guilty of that.

I think many of the balance decisions that get made are so off the wall, so contrary to what needs to be done, you have found yourself in a situation where whoever is in charge of balance understands the concepts of things, but not the reality of them. I mean on paper, the AC/2 looks like a massively power super weapon superior to the Gauss in every way if you're not factoring in how things actually play out with it.

Again, this is not just about this particular issue and the backlash from many other announcements in the past, but all those coming up in the future. Seriously. There's a lot of dedicated community members out there that are responsible and willing to try to improve the game in any way they can and consulting with them - maybe even giving them access to alternate test builds - would do nothing but benefit everyone playing MW:O from the newest player to the most experienced.

As I've said before, this is not a new recommendation. Many studios do this and it pays off each and every single time. It is literally a free service shy of maybe an hour a week for your community manager to fire off some emails and it would prevent all of this backlash and much of the frustration/number drops that come after bad moves.

I sincerely hope this is considered. When people who have put a lot of thought into these weapon systems and have used them for hours on end are consulted for feedback, you are going to get far, far better feedback before announcing something like this to the public.

EDIT: If you have your internal test department doing balance but have isolated them primarily to internal test builds, I also recommend you get them at least 1 hour a day in the actual current build of the game - or at least, any you have dealing with balance. Even if they are amazingly skilled gamers, they simply will be way behind the way the game works if they are kept in an isolated environment.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[WolvesX]

I got the solution:

JUST

HIRE A

BALANCE

TEAM

Edited by WolvesX, 11 June 2013 - 04:38 PM.

[Havok1978]

the tears... the beautiful scrumptious tears....

i would recommend setting the heat dmg threshold at 130% instead of 150%

bye bye ppc boats.. thank god