1263 replies to this topic

[Maxx Blue]

I need two clarifications about the heat penalties:

1) Are the number of weapons and heat penalty different for each mech or mech variant?
2) How will the max-weapons-before-penalty be communicated to the player. I would prefer it wasn't a black box we have to play-test our way into figuring out.

[Asmudius Heng]

Zharot, on 11 June 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

This just illustrates the insanity of the heat scaling. Shoot one GR, 1 heat. Shoot two at once, 12 heat. Shoot two in quick succession, 2 heat.

Why? Nobody knows.

Space magic.

[Five by Five]

As for the streak srms.... if the missile hit locations are getting spread out a bit so they don't nail the CT so much,... can the splash damage on them now be bumped back up?

Edited by Five by Five, 11 June 2013 - 07:33 PM.

[Conraire]

I haven't replied here in a while, but what the hay.

Let see, on the heat dmg part. 150% if far too high. I don't think I've ever seen anyone reach 150% heat between alphas after overriding. Proper heat damage level would be either anything above 100% or 110%. This would give lower heat builds a little wiggle room, and cause high heat high alpha builds to think a bit before frying themselves, or change their builds.

Far as the stacking penalty goes.. You could almost go a bit further on certain weapons. Then just give the specific mechs that are meant and designed to boat those system, quirks to counter that out on that specific variant. ML could be limited to 4 at a time. And then give the 4P a quirk that it didn't get the stack penalty, unless it fired all 9.

Large lasers could be limited to say 3 without a penalty. PPC/ER PPC maybe limit to 1 or 2, and gives awesomes the quirk for better heat efficiency with them, since it's one of their primary weapon systems.

[Mister Blastman]

CONVERGENCE is the answer! NOT heat weapon stacking penalties!

Bad idea, developers. Back to vacation.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 11 June 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[Matthew Ace]

HEAT PENALTIES FOR WEAPON BOATING
The proposed weapon boating Heat Penalty system is, as others have put it, unintuitive at best. That said though, it is not completely without merit (however, it is too impractical) as it allows for new dimensions of changes for Mech quirks.

The problem with weapon boating is PINPOINT DAMAGE, which is best fixed through convergence changes, in conjunction to heat capacity system/dissipation tweaks and maybe buffs to weapon heat (Dare I say it? ML/MPL/SPL produces too much heat).


DAMAGE TO INTERNALS AT 150%
As many others have pointed out, this is too generous, and a better starting value would be 125%.


PULSE LASERS CHANGES
While SPL changes looks pleasing on paper, I disagree with how LPL will be handled. Even at 7.3 heat, they are currently hotter than regular PPCs (due to beam durations) when fired at maximum ROF.

Some suggested an overhaul, making them rapid-fire weapons (which I am all for).

Myself, alternatively (expanding on the proposal):
- Decreased beam time
- Decreased heat (SPL/MPL at least)
- Faster ROF
- Increased damage
- Pulse lasers able to track target continuously by a few degrees relative to facing to further enact increased accuracy. If you missed just by a slight amount, it'll hit the nearest component on the target instead.

[Lindonius]

I supported the JJ shake but I'm not supporting this nonsense. Essentially because the JJ shake actually did what it set out to do (make it difficult to poptart). Whereas this clown shoes suggestion will do absolutely NOTHING to prevent high damage alphas. How do the Jager/Cataput dual AC20 builds fit in to all this? No penalties for having ONE but massive penatlies for having TWO? There are already too many Jaegers running around and this will increase the amount even more.

How about dual gauss? They already produce practically 0 heat. This system will do NOTHING to prevent dual gaussing.

Edited by Lindonius, 11 June 2013 - 07:48 PM.

[Ronin Starwalker]

The issue is still convergence.

I think the best approach I've read and heard about is a seperate reticle for each weapon system that will only converge when you stop moving.

People will still boat weapons and still fire them. It's the pinpoint accuracy that is the issue.

Use the same logic you did with pop tarting, they both have a common root cause.

Six Sigma Master Black Belt Root Cause Analysis = Convergence.

Edited by Ronin Starwalker, 11 June 2013 - 07:57 PM.

[OneEyed Jack]

And this is why I haven't bought the MC to get that Firebrand I've been eyeing.

This is moronic. It's not well thought out and makes no remotely logical sense.

• It's a massive nerf to many stock builds, some of which (like the 4P) lose most of their usefulness. The ability to fire 9 lasers at time is what makes the mech. If only 6 can be fired without massive penalties, it loses the one advantage it could be considered to have over other mechs, like Jenners or Cicadas.
  
• Penalizing alphas of the same weapon make no sense. Why should the same weapon create more heat, but stacking different weapons doesn't? It's still an alpha.
  
• It's supremely un-intuitive. There's simply no way that this can be presented to new players in a way that makes sense for them to get into the game, and even very experienced players won't be able to remember separate lists of how many of each weapon can be fired safely, and the penalties per weapon beyond that. Hundreds of extra numbers to be remembered in the heat of combat? Brilliant.
  
• It's impossible to manage, meaningfully, on chassis/variants designed to boat. Even the most skilled players agree that there's a limit to the number of weapon groups that can be managed in combat, and most people agree that it's 3, possibly 4. Breaking the weapons up into meaningful clumps simply isn't realistic from the standpoint of trying to play it. Let's look at the 4P again.
  
  • Group for hunch, because it's safe
    
  • Group for arms, because... arms
    
  • Group for head, because it's locked with the hunch, but not safe to fire with the hunch
    
  • Group for alpha, just in case
    
  • Group for chain-fire, because the number of buttons that need to be accessible while controlling a mech in and heat of combat mean that average players probably can't toggle it, realistically
• The proposed penalties are insane. Firing 7xML or 4xPPC is actually more heat than firing 8 or 5, respectively, now? And it grows exponentially? So the Nova Prime literally explodes if it ever alphas from zero heat?

There are any number of systems that have been suggested that work better, are more intuitive, don't selectively punish valid builds and aren't just so plain stupid. People shouldn't be punished for playing their mechs.


I simply cannot support MWO if it continues down this road. I'm not suggesting that tuning isn't in order, but this is both extreme and ill-conceived. It's based on the lame-brain ideas of people that can't think beyond their current whine to a healthy game where, maybe everyone isn't playing the same stupid builds they want, where every mech has 5-6 separate weapon types, but where people can make the mechs they want to play and enjoy the game in their own way. This move won't satisfy these whining little wretches, it will just encourage them to cry even louder, because they now KNOW it'll get them what they wan't, just like spoiled little children. If this is the path PGI chooses to follow, I can't stop them. It's their company and their game. But I can't support it, either.

I'm not some reactionary threatening to quit at every drop of a hat. I'm not even saying I'll quit now. Not yet, at any rate. As an individual change, it doesn't even affect me much since, out of 31 mechs, only a couple boat much of anything. But it's a step down a road I will not follow. I'll hang out and play for awhile. Get a little more fun out of what I've put in. But I won't spend money. I'm not a huge paying player, but I am a consistent paying player, with 4 Hero mechs and a whole slew of paint colors, camos, and cockpit items, not to mention 27 purchased mech bays. No more.

If PGI chooses to go down the road of catering to the nonsense ideas of whiners, rather than listen to well thought-out, reasonable and balanced ideas, they'll never get another dime out of me. That's not a threat. I'm just one man, and a threat from me not to buy their product is meaningless. it's just a statement. I've been a gamer too long to not understand where that road leads, and I know I won't be playing long if they take it, so I won't be spending money in that short time. And it makes me sad, because I love BT and have really enjoyed my time in MWO, despite never really enjoying previous MW titles. Mostly because they were staying true to the IP (for the most part) instead of just making a generic mecha game with a BT skin.

tl;dr
I'll be buying no more if PGI goes through with this.

[megoblocks]

Hauser, on 11 June 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I really don't know what to say.

Heat penalties for medium lasers don't seem to make sense. There is no mech with medium lasers that is overpowered. Hell, the 4P is the only medium mech that can actually pull its weight.

Disagree on the last part. Both of my blackjacks (BJ-1X & BJ-3) are all energy builds and easily pull their own.

[FunkyFritter]

I'm not a fan of the proposed heat penalty system, it's complex and doesn't necessarily address the issue. A 4 ppc stalker suffers a steep penalty, but a 3 ppc + guass highlander isn't hindered at all.

Boating conceptually has pros and cons, it only becomes an issue when a particular weapon is noticeably more efficient than its competitors. I'd much rather see tweaks to problem weapons than another quirk to the game that new players will have to learn the hard way.

[Otto Cannon]

Ronin Starwalker, on 11 June 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

I think the best approach I've read and heard about is a seperate reticle for each weapon system that will only converge when you stop moving.

The only problem there is that the sniper boats people complain about stand still peeping over a hill to fire at moving brawlers. All it would do is prevent the targets returning fire as they try to close the distance.

[Thorqemada]

Well, the real big Problem of MWO is that a DPS-Setup is inferior to Alpha Striking bcs its so freaking easy to aim and hit.
Their Alpha Strike Mortality Rating is way superior to DPS builds that tend to spread their damage.

Alpha Strike Build:
Low exposure time
Pinpoint Precision
High crit damage

DPS-Build:
High exposure time
Spread damage
Low crit damage

A different Heatscale does not change anything on that.

Edited by Thorqemada, 11 June 2013 - 08:02 PM.

[and zero]

The SSRM fix is terribly foolish. I don't really care enough anymore to type much about it. I'll just copy and paste this, it's still mainly true.

SSRMs invalidate light vs. light gameplay. It is that simple. Take two players of equal skill in light mechs, the one with streaks will almost always win an otherwise balanced fight. They have a set amount of damage guaranteed every few seconds. Even with the significant reduction in damage it is still a major issue. And the way in which pgi is addessing it is asinine. Ssrms targetting random parts?? 1. Ssrms were never an issue against heavier mechs (their tracking/turning ability was still absurd of course). Now they are terrible (or rather, they will be if pgi continues with this crap). Go try to take out an a component on an atlas with a few streaks. 2. Currently streaks really do almost always hit CT on light mechs. More importantly even if they didnt it wouldnt matter. Light mechs are so compact the damage would still spread about the same. The real issue is a weapon that almost never misses. At 150kph, jumping sideways into the air in my spider ssrms should not still be able to follow me 99.99% of the time.

A real solution: simply reduce streaks tracking/turning ability so they can actually be avoided by faster mechs, and also maybe make them aim somewhere around which part you are aiming at like in past games.

Also, why the hell are you working on this complex heat system to "balance" weapon boating when so many weapons in the game are terribly un balanced right now? How does that make sense.

Edited by and zero, 11 June 2013 - 08:10 PM.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

The heat-stacking proposal is very good. Looking forward to it, however, the 150% is just too high. In normal safety protectve systems in major engineering service tolerances of about 20-25% are built in, therefore 120%-125% is more realistic. We want to penalise these boaters right?

[Drake159]

As it has been said before, this may not be the correct solution for the problem. (only time will tell I guess)

My Suggestion:
1. Leave weapon heats alone
2. Cut Heat Cap in half
3. Double Heat Dissipation
4. Mechs using override take damage after 100% (maybe 110%)
5. Shutdown Mechs take Damage at 200%

Result:
-Current Heat cap with 10 DHS = 40 (new would be 20) but the average 6PPC Stalker has around 60 (30 new) with mor heat sinks and efficencies
-A 6 PPC stalker produces 48 Heat per Alpha
Under what I suggested a 6 PPC stalker could fire once bringing it to 160% heat (48/30). If they fire again before cooling to 40% heat they would start to take dmg for exceeding 200%

This could solve the problem as the 6 PPC fire rate would be significantly slowed and the inattentive pilot would easily kill themselves by overheating too much. Maybe even put the Powered down dmg threshold at 175% meaning they would need to be below 15% to avoid dmg if they alpha.

Other high heat builds would be managed in the same manner but no need to adjust individual weapons.

[Sharp Spikes]

Of all possible solutions to boating problem PGI chose to implement the most clumsy and stupid one. Why I am not surprised?..
If "gameplay balancing" will go down this road I'm done with this game.
[wanted to describe some significantly better solutions to the problem here, but there's no point in it]

[ChargerIIC]

Most of the changes seem great to me, except the heat penalty for multiple copies of the same weapon. This is a really arbitary, hard to learn and non-thematic way to nerf the boating. If I'm a new player I'm probably never going to understand why my heat in my 6 medium laser hunchback shuts me down and I'm not likely to believe anyone that tells me since the rule is so out of place agaisnt the others. Most of the rules regarding heat are based on pretty understandable physics - weapons generate more heat as you fail to vent the previous heat and if that bar caps you take damage or shut down.

The fact that a 6 Large laser stalker can generate more heat than one that swap it for 3 PPCs is really odd. Are extended range PPCs considered the same weapon or can I just swap out the 3 PPCs of my stalker build for 3 ER PPCs and avoid the heat nerf rule?

If my mech is mounting multiple AC2s is it also going to be under heat penalty? What about if a Commando 2D uses it's third missile slot?

Most of the changes seem great to me, except the heat penalty for multiple copies of the same weapon. This is a really arbitary, hard to learn and non-thematic way to nerf the boating. If I'm a new player I'm probably never going to understand why my heat in my 6 medium laser hunchback shuts me down and I'm not likely to believe anyone that tells me since the rule is so out of place agaisnt the others. Most of the rules regarding heat are based on pretty understandable physics - weapons generate more heat as you fail to vent the previous heat and if that bar caps you take damage or shut down.

The fact that a 6 Large laser stalker can generate more heat than one that swap it for 3 PPCs is really odd. Are extended range PPCs considered the same weapon or can I just swap out the 3 PPCs of my stalker build for 3 ER PPCs and avoid the heat nerf rule?

If my mech is mounting multiple AC2s is it also going to be under heat penalty? What about if a Commando 2D uses it's third missile slot?

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Koniving, on 11 June 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

You just described exactly what they are. They deal damage in 'pulses' or bursts with the most being 6 spurts, each dealing x amount per 'pulse' where the damage dealt is instant per 'thump' in the pulse. You should try using them.

For example the current (not proposed, current) LPL generates 2 damage per thump/pulse, for a total of 5 'thumps' or pulses spread over 3/4ths of a second. Less than 1 second!

Wrong, do not state opinions as facts. Both pulse and standard beam lasers have the same exact weapon firing mechanic, albeit pulses have a shorter burn time.

Here, review the images in this post here so that you can enlighten yourself. Don't be fooled by the different audio clips used by the pulse weapons. The audio of the pulse laser does not match up with the actual weapon mechanic.

Here is the burn of a pulse laser (Notice the "hundreds" of little dots that fire to make up the continous beam. Note that there is NOT 6 individual pulses.)



And here is the burn of normal beam lasers. (Also note the "hundreds" of small dots that make up the continuous beam).


It is literally the same weapon mechanic with just a shorter burn time. Hence why pulse lasers suck, same weapon with less range, more heat and MUCH more tonnage. Tweaking the numbers will do nothing.

[White Bear 84]

Brown Hornet, on 11 June 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

The heat-stacking proposal is very good. Looking forward to it, however, the 150% is just too high. In normal safety protectve systems in major engineering service tolerances of about 20-25% are built in, therefore 120%-125% is more realistic. We want to penalise these boaters right?

On another note, i dont think this will nerf the 4P - when i run this build i actually NEVER alpha unless it is to take out an enemy, usually when it is safe to do so - having a heat penalty in this case wouldnt be so bad. I do however split my lasers into two groups of 4/5 and fire these simultaneously. Give it a shot. You dont need to alpha to do high damage all the time

Edited by White Bear 84, 11 June 2013 - 08:25 PM.