1263 replies to this topic

[aniviron]

Am I the only one who remembers the thread (jeffsw6's, I believe) which was created immediately after this change was first proposed, and everyone said it was a bad idea and they didn't want it? I believe that the official response was "Woah guys, chill, it was just an idea, it's not final." Well, apparently this means they read all the negative feedback and reasons why this was awful and then said "Screw it, let's do it anyway.

For future reference, to all the people who wonder why a large part of the forums gets defensive and upset when bad ideas are floated our way, it is because they almost inevitably get implemented, even though the community says no.

[Epicedion]

Oh, and not to be too bombastic, but the heat scaling with simultaneous weapons fire would be a rather large headache for anyone trying to monitor their heat and ride the line between combat-effective and combat-dead in the middle of a match. In the midst of watching your radar, watching your target, navigating through terrain, adjusting your speed, and trying to aim, trying to work out what guns you can fire when is already difficult enough. People accidentally shut down all the time, and that's when they already know that Group 1 generates 35% heat so they need to wait until their heat is below 65% to fire. You shouldn't need a degree in Accounting to figure out the heat effect of firing.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Great news, appreciate the changes.

[Deathlike]

For the record, whoever said that the SPL Jenner will be out in force after this SPL buff, is nuts. Medium Laser Jenners has always been where its at.

Maxx Blue, on 11 June 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

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.

1) It's by loadout, not mech variant.
2) Who knows, they usually do a poor job of making things obvious/apparent to the player.

Sharp Spikes, on 11 June 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

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]

The PGI Dartboard of Balance™ would like a word with you.

mwhighlander, on 11 June 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

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.

Oh... well then.

In any case, this is still a really crappy LPL nerf.

[Ralgas]

If it's not going to affect multi weps together....

My HGN-732 thanks you and will continue as was.

[Sharp Spikes]

Quote

The PGI Dartboard of Balance™ would like a word with you.

Dunno what is the "PGI Dartboard of Balance™", but it sounds scary... I don't want any contacts with it

[Deathlike]

Sharp Spikes, on 11 June 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Dunno what is the "PGI Dartboard of Balance™", but it sounds scary... I don't want any contacts with it

The PGI Dartboard of Balance™ is the game where you pick random ideas out of one's arse and see what idea sticks.

Of course, it sounds the same as monkeys throwing at poo at each other, which is more or less the result.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 June 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 11 June 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

Heat Penalty ... I disagree with this as a solution, but will hold off on providing more feedback until I have seen it in action, and see the penalties for all weapons.

My two big concerns are:

1- We have more than enough information to make a judgement. The system is flawed right at it's very core. You don't need to take this to to the prototype stage to realize that.

2- If it gets added, prepare to suffer it for months, if not until next year as they constantly swing weapons back and forth on the modifier scale in ways nobody actually wants. Yes, this is based on track record with horrendous features like this (i.e. Trial 'Mechs, which they are wisey getting rid of.. eventually).

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 11 June 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

Great news, appreciate the changes.

I get the feeling 99% of the people that post this read it, don't think it through and don't read the thread. They see the buzzwords of "NERF" and "ALPHA" and that's where they stop considering ramifications.

aniviron, on 11 June 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

Am I the only one who remembers the thread (jeffsw6's, I believe) which was created immediately after this change was first proposed, and everyone said it was a bad idea and they didn't want it? I believe that the official response was "Woah guys, chill, it was just an idea, it's not final." Well, apparently this means they read all the negative feedback and reasons why this was awful and then said "Screw it, let's do it anyway.

For future reference, to all the people who wonder why a large part of the forums gets defensive and upset when bad ideas are floated our way, it is because they almost inevitably get implemented, even though the community says no.

I believe it was mine. A community moderator came in to assure us it wasn't designed to hurt mediums shortly before all the other threads got locked.. in the same announcement that specifically talks about how it will nerf the Swayback. So I think they were in error about some things.

I had some other people jump on the band wagon too, insisting I was crazy because they wouldn't do that.. despite the announcement pretty clearly explaining yeah, they are.

3 PPCs & Gauss not causing heat but 4 PPCs causing heat alone makes this whole thing hilarious. To be honest, I can say with complete sincerity I have never seen a dev try to tank an entire game's balance around nerfing a single broken element (In this case, the Stalker, and I'd argue it's not even broken in the first place) before.

I mean honestly I am kind of hoping this thread ends with Paul popping in and saying forget this was ever even brought up.

Ralgas, on 11 June 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

If it's not going to affect multi weps together....

My HGN-732 thanks you and will continue as was.

3 PPC + 1 Gauss is fine. 4 PPCs though, they've got to go! Oh and those dangerous Swaybacks, they're unstoppable!*

*Well, were in closed beta almost a year ago. Better nerf them anyway!

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 10:29 PM.

[Nebelfeuer]

Wow - you ruined JJ( and the ability to play them without headaches for a lot of people) totally in an attept to control poptarts and yet instead of coming up with a simple and working solution to controll high alpha builds you tottaly miss the mark?

For the record these heatpenalities would not have a chance to affect a single one of my builds and worse they do not even affect the most of the problematic ones. First ideas are normally the best:

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 wat you should have done since it is excatly what you want to do to make people play more balanced builds and be affected by heat once in a while.

If you want to stick to the sneaky backdoorroad you have taken here that will lead only to new FOV minmaxer builds your limits without penality should be as follows:
light weapons limit (SL, SPL, MG, flamer,LRM5,(S)SRM2): 6
medium weapons(ML, MPL, SRM4 , LRM10, AC/2*): 4
heavy Weapons ((ER)LL, LPL, (ER)PPC, LRM15, SRM6, (u)AC/5*, AC10*): 2
Overheavy weapons (AC/20, LRM20, GAUSS): 1
*AC are in wrong categories due to the way you made them work

Adittinally you should also consider making the CD 1 sec even if that means you have to change your chainfiring mechanic.
and the selfdestruct mecanisem should start sooner then 150%.

If your balancing does not affect typical sniper=highalpha pinpoint builds ( 2PPC + gauss , 3 PPC + gauss) at all and others (4/5/6 PPC) are only affected by a 0,5 sec alpha delay - not to mention the basically unaffected AC and gauss builds - we do not need this unrealistic change at all.
Besides your system does not seem to affect e.g. 4ML+ 2LL alphas since they are not the same weapontype right?
Is one variant of pinpoint alpha differend from another? Either you need to controll it over the board or not at all.

another more realistic approach would be to forgett the above and to assign max alphastrikes that can be dealt per weightclass of mechs without causing a delay or autoswitching to chainfiremode (energy usage) eg lights 15dmg , mediums 20 dmg, heavys 25 dmg and assaults 30 dmg - that way you would prevent high alphas over the board including low heat weapons.

Edit: Oh the noneconvergence while firing multiple weapons would also be a great option.

Edited by Nebelfeuer, 11 June 2013 - 10:40 PM.

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 11 June 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

I get the feeling 99% of the people that post this read it, don't think it through and don't read the thread. They see the buzzwords of "NERF" and "ALPHA" and that's where they stop considering ramifications.

Exactly. They have yet to read HOW it is implemented and doesn't even attempt to consider "how can this be circumvented?" Well, by the description alone, it can be. Of course, I'd rather have someone else who thinks it will "just work" try to justify it (they won't be able to, due to flawed logic).

Quote

I believe it was mine. A community moderator came in to assure us it wasn't designed to hurt mediums shortly before all the other threads got locked.. in the same announcement that specifically talks about how it will nerf the Swayback. So I think they were in error about some things.

Technically, it will and it won't. The commonly found 9 med laser Hunchy will still be alive.. it would simply be used differently by those with high ELO or those that understand the game's mechanics. None of the proposed changes would actually "nerf" the total damage.. it would change the length of time to dish it.

Simply people, it is a terrible nerf, and can be circumvented by the wiser few.

Also, this was the "best way" of avoid all talk of 3rd person. Imagine that!

[Vaan]

Victor Morson, on 11 June 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

My two big concerns are:

1- We have more than enough information to make a judgement. The system is flawed right at it's very core. You don't need to take this to to the prototype stage to realize that.

2- If it gets added, prepare to suffer it for months, if not until next year as they constantly swing weapons back and forth on the modifier scale in ways nobody actually wants. Yes, this is based on track record with horrendous features like this (i.e. Trial 'Mechs, which they are wisey getting rid of.. eventually).



I get the feeling 99% of the people that post this read it, don't think it through and don't read the thread. They see the buzzwords of "NERF" and "ALPHA" and that's where they stop considering ramifications.



I believe it was mine. A community moderator came in to assure us it wasn't designed to hurt mediums shortly before all the other threads got locked.. in the same announcement that specifically talks about how it will nerf the Swayback. So I think they were in error about some things.

I had some other people jump on the band wagon too, insisting I was crazy because they wouldn't do that.. despite the announcement pretty clearly explaining yeah, they are.

3 PPCs & Gauss not causing heat but 4 PPCs causing heat alone makes this whole thing hilarious. To be honest, I can say with complete sincerity I have never seen a dev try to tank an entire game's balance around nerfing a single broken element (In this case, the Stalker, and I'd argue it's not even broken in the first place) before.

I mean honestly I am kind of hoping this thread ends with Paul popping in and saying forget this was ever even brought up.

I think having different kind of weapons combine vs same weapons combination is hard to explain due to the hardpoint system that PGI had implemented and thus we have this situation where we cant favor both sides at all..

If PGI had implement the same hardpoint system as MW:4.. i dont think there is a need for this thread at all and will make players really appreciate the mechs customization more than ever..

[Deathlike]

Vaan, on 11 June 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

If PGI had implement the same hardpoint system as MW:4.. i dont think there is a need for this thread at all and will make players really appreciate the mechs customization more than ever..

That version is borked on so many levels, it's sad. Abusing that game's mechanics was just as easy.

[Victor Morson]

TheForce, on 11 June 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

this is a step in the right direction. i don't think .5 seconds is long enough though.

If the right direction was forwards and the wrong direction was backwards, this change is a flying leap to the left ultimately landing on it's face.

There is absolutely no logic or good reason to do any of this, sans the Flamer/MG buffs and maybe tweaking Streak tracking. I'm still puzzled how something so flawed on a fundamental level even got posted publicly and I'm more than a little alarmed if people handling balance (sans feedback from the upper tier of players) could think this was a good idea, because it shows all kinds of misunderstandings about how the gameplay actually works.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 10:45 PM.

[FiveDigits]

Paul Inouye said:

[...] 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. [...]

Great, you noticed that. So did we.
Why did you ignore the obvious solution of increasing heat dissipation accordingly to maintain sustained DPS numbers?

[Victor Morson]

FiveDigits, on 11 June 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

Great, you noticed that. So did we.
Why did you ignore the obvious solution of increasing heat dissipation accordingly to maintain sustained DPS numbers?

A quote that should have followed:

"... so instead we nerf'ed every 'mech in the game in an entirely new and exciting way. Well most 'mechs. We didn't touch the high pinpoint snipers, but we totally screwed those light & mediums. We like to keep 'em guessing."

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 10:49 PM.

[Deathlike]

The thing about certain suggestions (especially the one about boating weapons in general) is that noone really thinks further than the suggestion they make. People tend to not be CHALLENGED of their views... they just go with the flow, not really thinking of the repercussions or potential UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of a choice. It makes for a great discussion, but the reality is that if noone ever challenges Paul or whoever at PGI that makes the final decision (like, the yes-men that ones Charles Montgomery Burns relied upon in one episode of the Simpsons), then we're going to get screwed.

Well.. we're heading in that direction at this point.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 June 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[Argent Usher]

Dear PGI

I will make it short.

It won't help.

It solves nothing.

Give a good shrubbery each mech.

"Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptangya Ziiinnggggggg Ni!"

Edited by Argent Usher, 11 June 2013 - 10:50 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

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.

That's why the notion of "lower the heat capacity" is always accompanied with "increase heat dissipation". Less alpha, better sustainable damage. Force people to chain-fire (and not launch pinpoint precise alpha after pinpoint precise alpha), without forcing them to just use half the weapons they used to do before.

[Aylek]

Relic1701, on 11 June 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Taking the 4P as the example for the the stacking weapon heat penalties, maybe it could be a mech quirk!

Example, normally you accrue penalties when you fire more than 3 at a time, but the a quirk for the HBK-4P is that it can fire 6, as it was designed for boats.

The same can be said for the AWS-8Q. Traditionally, few mechs sported more than 2 PPCs', so firing more than 2 at a time would give you the penalty, but a quirk of the AWS (as a PPC boat) is that it can fire 3 without the heat penalty.

Oh, and as a side note, personally I feel the the 150% thing is a bit too generous.

I like the changes announced. And I think this is a wonderful opportunity to make each variant slightly more individual by using quirks as proposed in the quote above. This might be a better solution than absolute numbers for weapon stacking.

Edited by Aylek, 11 June 2013 - 10:58 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Paul Inouye said:

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.[/color]

I disagree. Reducing max heat threshold would nerf high heat weapons. Ballistic weapons would become more popular, maybe even more than the PPCs. And this would be a good thing.

And since heat dissipation would not change, this would shift the balance from high alfa to high dps builds. We would even see Awesomes being used once more.

Edited by Kmieciu, 11 June 2013 - 10:59 PM.