1263 replies to this topic

[Sharp Spikes]

Havok1978, on 12 June 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

this does not compute

0.5 secs is too damn high!
/sarcasim off

Tenths of second count even in such slow-paced game as MWO. For example: 0.5 seconds is a difference between hitting enemy and hitting (often invisible) terrain hitboxes. If you think it doesn't matter - you don't have a clue about how to play first person shooters in general and MWO in particular.

Edited by Sharp Spikes, 12 June 2013 - 05:06 AM.

[Leafia Barrett]

I still think the cone of fire for machine guns should be removed.
As for the rest of the balance, no comment. I'm not experienced enough to judge the changes one way or the other.

[Cybermech]

"Again, if a player wants to play a 6 PPC stalker, they can freely do so and can avoid heat penalties by triggering 3 PPCs, waiting 0.5 seconds and then firing the next 3 PPCs."

this makes me sad
poxy thing should explode...

[ssm]

Feedback:

1. Damage at 150% heat seems too forgiving, but I think that is just a placeholder for now. Until we get a proper tutorial mode with detailed information about heat scale (afaik devs are working on it) making it lower (i'll personally go with 110%) would punish new players using trial mechs.


2. Heat penalties could be useful in balancing Clan mechs, but I'll wait and see how it'll actually work.

I would rather balance weapons/chassis through quirks - e.g. raise the heat for PPCs, but give Awesomes quirk that keeps their heat at current level. But again - until we get a proper UI with detailed mech descriptions we can't add such important features to mechs without confusing new players.


3. Change to SSRMs looks good, but I fear that it'll make them useless except for 4+ boats.


4. Flamers, mgs - no problem there. I like the way that devs are going with those changes - gradually buffing without huge leaps.

Edited by ssm, 12 June 2013 - 03:28 AM.

[Tenam]

fil5000, on 12 June 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

Make PPCs a ton heavier, or make them take up more crit slots.

The point is that there's already a ton of mechanisms in the game to balance weapons. This proposal is papering over the actual issue, which is that PPCs are so much better than the alternatives there's no reason not to take as many as you can. Make other weapons a better choice and people won't boat them.

I agree with fil ... of all the posts I have read this is one of the first that I have seen that mentions changing crit slots and weight. What are the drawbacks to increasing the ppc's weight and crit slots? .... the reason no one carries more than 2 Gauss Rifles or AC20's is that fact that they are large and very heavy. So if we increased the ppc's/erppc's to say 7 crit slots and weigh 10 tons I am betting we would see a significant drop in boating of them. Could you still fit 4 sure as long as the HP were disspersed. However at a much greater cost that would be at least 4 less double heat sinks and what ever was necessary to accomidate the weight. While still leaving the Awesome 8Q a viable stock mech. This in conjunction with the overall heat penalty of 150% (or whatever it gets balanced out to) seems to be a simple solution. I am pretty sure we can just about all agree that ppc boating is 90% of the issue. And that the 4p hunch and ML's are not as much of a concern. As for the dual AC20 and dual gauss, personally I see boating as 3 or more of a weapon type. So I wouldn't consider these boats per se... I also don't see problems with them because a lot of sacrafice is needed to make it happen. And the are both ammo dependant a ppc is not, so not only do you need 30 tons to fit only two of them (the weight of 4 ppcs presently) ... you will also need another at least 4 tons of ammo to get use out of them. AC 20's range is terrible (that of a ML) ... and Gauss just needs to be grazed in a firefight and not only do you lose the weapon you very well may lose what it's sitting in.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Every time I have mentioned crit slots and weight in the past I was swarmed by angry TT players about breaking stock builds.

[Bloody Moon]

Leafia Barrett, on 12 June 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

I still think the cone of fire for machine guns should be removed.
As for the rest of the balance, no comment. I'm not experienced enough to judge the changes one way or the other.

Nice to see that attitude from a relatively new player every once in a while.

[Winterdyne]

Really don't like the heat balancing. At all.

I run a variety of mechs (hunches, spiders, catapults, highlanders) with all sorts of fits, so I'm not bitching about any articular build being penalised, just that this feels contrived and cheap.

I'd probably be happiest with the following mechanism:

Do damage straight to internals after 100% heat, in proportion to the heat over 100%. Scale the ratio of heat/damage to tune this. Damage should include a critical chance. I want to see ammo cooking off, heat sinks melting into slag, reactors going nova, and generally a bit more care in fire control. I don't think high heat should affect movement unless you actually start taking heat generation from moving into account (which should also probably consider deliberate running under-weight).

Speaking of which, for the love of [insert deity] put weight limits on drops. Not weight matching per se, just a Dropship limit.

The number of boated weapons really doesn't concern me and hasn't since I started playing. If you're scared of splatcats or 6ppc stalkers, try, y'know, NOT STANDING STILL IN FRONT OF THEM.

[arkani]

Heat penalties not weapon specific, but mech specific.
This would give variety/qwirks to mechs and there variants.
This would make way more sense.

Heat over 100% should do damage. Porportionaly, the more over 100% you go the more damage you will get, 150% should blow you up.

Mick Mars, on 11 June 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

As to the 6ml rule, why don't you just make those types of rules mech specific- i.e. for the 4p you can fire 6 at a time, but any other mech the limit is 4. On stalkers, make it 3 ppc at a time, but the awesome 8q and 9m(which are designed to boat ppcs) get a break at 4. I agree with some of the others as to the length of time between shots to get the penalty. Make it longer say to .75-1.0 secs. As far as pulse lasers go, rather than increasing dmg, why don't you reduce beam duration instead?

[HRR Mary]

In regard to balance the proposed fix is either useless or further imbalancing.

=> SSRMs : Two things :
- change is somewhat ok, although i can't figure out why you did not notice that three months ago when the Raven was dominant.
- Stop doing an "Always Hit" mechanism. Give missiles a limited turn radius.

=> 150% of heat scale : not many mechs can get to that threshold, and those who can are Energy based. It will imbalance mechs further, steering towards Ballistics, leading to a predominance of Ballistics boating... Expect GR QQing in the next month.

=> Heat Penalty for boating : Frankly, I'm amazed. From ALL the solutions proposed on these boards, the numerous lengthy discussions weighting pros and cons, you have chosen the easiest, yet totally broken one.
- With that you don't adress "boating", and the pinpoint convergence, allowing AC40, PPC30, medlas 40, etc...
- You choose arbitrarely the threshold number of weapons, apparently on a per-chassis base. So if the Hunchback P can fire it's 6 lasers at once without penalty, maybe the stalker won't be able to do so? how in hell are you going to balance weapons after that kind of randomization.?
- what about a full energy build that contains LL, medLas, smLas ? How do you explain that no penalty is applied ? if you want to further confuse new players, you are about to.
- as numerous people have aleady said, combinations of GR + 2-3 energy weapons will be king, as it is already dominating, yet untouched by that "penalty".


To be honest, it feels like the balancing changes are either not thought throughfully, or two month late and not looking at the current playstyle.

While I have no qualms about the developpers themselves, I think it's time the design/balance/marketing teams admit that they have limited knowledge on this franchise and ask the people around here what to do. We have been discussing the same issues for over 10 to 15 years, over Mw3 and 4, while playing competitively. See the old WebSite : http://www.dropshipcommand.com/ and lookup the usernames on the forums.

You have, from your own terms, a "passionate community", it's time you see us less as customers and more as partners to make this game.

[Icepick]

Idea, probably not new: When a mech shuts down due to overheat, it should remain targetable and on radar. If it is shut down manually, it should disappear from radar.

I am tired of playing the "find the PPC Stalker" game, when after every shot, they effectively stealth out.

[FactorlanP]

I really think that the best solution would be simply to bump up PPC and erPPC heat a bit, and then add the internal damage when heat exceeds 110%.

That leaves the wiggle room for somebody who just barely exceeds the limit, but punishes hard the guy who alphas with 4 ERPPCs from 80% heat.

It is simple to understand. (Don't forget that our newest pilots apparently can't figure out that the feet and torso might be pointing in different directions! How the heck are they going to grasp your proposed mess!)

I expect that it is far far simpler to implement.

It will still allow all of the builds we currently see, but will force the cheese drivers to pay attention to their heat or pay a serious price.

KISS principle.

Keep It Simple Stupid!

Edited by FactorlanP, 12 June 2013 - 04:27 AM.

[z3a1ot]

Damage after only 150% is way to much. Reduce it to 125% at least, maybe even more.

Consider heat penaly after firing more than 2 PPCs, 3 is too much in my opinion, and make time delay from 0,5 to 0,7 at least. Make heat penalty after firing more than 3 Large Lasers. Same for firing more than 1 ac20. For medium lasers i agree after 6 or more.

For ssrms they ought to hit other sections more often, not ct almost every time.

Edited by z3a1ot, 12 June 2013 - 04:27 AM.

[RoloCookie]

I really like these changes and find them very encouraging. I'm not sure about some of the exact numbers, (150% DOES sound very generous) but assuming these are going to get tweaks as well I'm really optimistic about the ideas.

[dyndragon]

I would also refer to this thread's OP for good discussion points. In short, I don't know what this heat balancing act is trying to fix, other than introduce more problems than it fixes.

http://mwomercs.com/...-idea-is-awful/

Edited by dyndragon, 12 June 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Harmin]

Here's my feedback:

S-SRMs: Seems sensible enough, let's wait and see if it will act as intended.

Flamers & MGs damage buff: I found the MG already viable at 0.04 and especially at 0.08... 0.1 sound concerning but happy to wait and see.

Pulse Lasers: That whole harmonisation of pulse lasers on DPS and HPS is imho misguided for it ignores range, crits and tonnage. The LPL will have higher heat than a PPC while being much less range and having a duration ? This will just reduce its use even further. Bad move imho.

Heat Damage at Heat High Levels:
Not going far enough. Someone willfully alphaing at 90% should suffer the consequences. Maybe for such people we could implement a user-controlled switch or slider which keeps the weapons from being fired if that would result in a shutdown.

Heat Penalty:
An entirely new and unproven mechanic when a simpler solution (upping heat for each energy weapon) would have seemed like a better idea. Especially since weapons like the PPC already have below TT heat (8 in MWO vs 10 in TT !). Just put the PPCs back to 10, job done! Why make it more complicated. Just admit that lowering PPC damage below TT was a mistake - we all make mistakes.

That's my 2p.

-Armin

[Slanski]

MustrumRidcully has it right there. It's the breaking of the fundamental heat equation that you're still cleaning up after. Increasing dissipation on mechs by a factor of 2 on basic heatsinks while at the same time halving total heat capacity would bring mechs much closer to a desired state.
I consider 3 PPCs free of heat penalty to be way too generous still. We need not only compensate for the increased rate of fire, but also for pilots aiming capability. You may only get that one good shot while surfing out of and into cover and permitting an unload of perfectly converging 3-6 PPCs on a spot of the pilots choosing is not very "Battletech." I would prefer a more heat intensive environment which requires more discipline and choices from the pilots and favours continuous engagement over run, duck and cover like in a personal FPS.

[Rigiroth]

I like it, but why did the LPL get shafted? A weapon already considered inferior by many gets nerfed...


Also, how will this effect AC2s?

[ssm]

Harmin, on 12 June 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

(...)

Heat Penalty:
An entirely new and unproven mechanic when a simpler solution (upping heat for each energy weapon) would have seemed like a better idea. Especially since weapons like the PPC already have below TT heat (8 in MWO vs 10 in TT !). Just put the PPCs back to 10, job done! Why make it more complicated. Just admit that lowering PPC damage below TT was a mistake - we all make mistakes.
-Armin

It wasn't a mistake at the time - no HSR and bad netcode made PPC unviable then. But I agree, it's time to bring heat back to TT values. Maybe with little love for Awesomes (by quirk or sth)

[Moku]

Stop making the game so complicated and breaking other parts of the game. Just adjust the ppc and erppc heat and see what that does to population without making widespread changes such as this heat penalty thing. This makes the game even more of a mess and complex for new players....

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

Edited by Moku, 12 June 2013 - 04:42 AM.