1263 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

Milt, on 12 June 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

kind of like JJ shake PGI couldnt balance a wobbly table

Well, a Wobbly table is, inherently, unbalanced. Doh!

[MajorChunks]

I'm going to chime in again: I honestly think that imposing a weight cap on drops will do more to help the game than heat penalties, provided suitable PPC nerfs are implemented (speed? heat? both? who knows!). I mean, boaters gonna boat, right? Even firing 4 PPCs and overheating instantly from zero heat will still be worth it if you're a good enough shot, despite horrid DPS. The boom-headshot potential is too enticing.

Obviously the system will have to be somewhat flexible when Lobby comes around, since you can't guarantee that everyone's bringing a light with them into the dropship. Abuse cases can and will happen. But the majority of random drops should see a huge improvement in match quality, and in the number of poor, poor mediums running about merrily.

Systems will be gamed either way. What we need to do is pick the system that honestly makes the most long-term, sustainable sense.

Now, if the weapons-fired limit is on a mech-by-mech basis, then that actually might add a cool level of mechlab depth to differentiate one chassis from another, and might even satisfy the 'hardpoint size' crowd a bit - provided the values are exposed and easy to understand. But global values are just going to be far too hard to balance in the long run.

Unrelated: Soy, dude, if you like every post in the topic, doesn't that invalidate the point of the like button? I'm sure everyone appreciates it, but still...

Edit: Aw, I shouldn't have said anything. Now he didn't like my post lol.

Edited by MajorChunks, 12 June 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[ArmageddonKnight]

1st of. ITS ABOUT BLOODY TIME ! ..thankyou !!

Now.

Gauss doesnt need penalties, u can only ever use up to 2 and they are fragile as glass and weighs more than a AC20( its got enough penalties already bassicaly)

AC20, does need a penalty, thye are not fragile and can fire for to long without a break compared to other 40 dmg alphas.

Treat PPC & ERPPC as one type .agreed. Heat penatly amounts agreed. Remember the AWS 8Q is designed for 3 PPC's u cant penalise that, so starting at 4 is good.

Medium lasers at 6. Not sure i like that. Think about it, it means the Cicada can still run around with 6 medium lasers alpha'ing away doing silly dmg for their weight class. I think 4 or 5 would be better.

AC2's dont penalize them please, they are way to hot as it is.

LRM's hard one this due to the many combination of lrm 5's to lrm 20's. I think, if u can, u should penalise after a certain figure. Like for example anythign above the equivalent of LRM 40 should start getting penalized for alpha firing. Though tbh most cant fire more than 40 at one go anyway and they start chaining. so maybe it shuld be lower or the time threshold increased to 1 second for LRM's. Same for SRM's.

I think the 150% threshold for heat damage is to high. 130% sounds more reasonable. Only high heat alpha boats will ever hit 150% and even then only if they are hot already. I know this is thing u want to discourage BUT u also want to make heat/ high heat a thing for people to be thinking about al lthe time for that added presure

EDIT: i forgot to add that fi the stacking penalty goes in WITH the 150% heat damage threshold then it makes more sense, as a 4ppc or 6 ppc setup would be dealing FAR more heat than currently and would likely break 150% heat threshold easily. I havnt done the math, i cba tbh right now, but it seems plausable. however nether of these changes will affect the 3 ppc+guass setups, so see below for my preference.

Finaly, I think the idea is good but i would much prefer if it was possible to do this not only on a per weapon bassis, but also per mech bassis aswell. So that mechs designed to use certain weapons would have the penalties altered/reduced.
So for example PPC's. U COULD put the penalty in at 3 so that the Highlander build that people love is hit by the penalty BUT make it so the AWS 8Q is an exception to the rule due to its design. Same goes for the Hunchback 4P and medium lasers, set the penalty at 4 or 5 with the exception of the Hunch.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 12 June 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Demosthones]

We should base it off tonage as well as what weapons they are boating. We see more asaults than anything else because you can fit more weapons on them. We should take a mechs tonnage and the type of weapons its boating into account when applying this heat scale.

For example: If you are in an assault chasis the limit for ppc is 2 not 3 etc etc. This will create a movement back to mediums and increase the variety and compositions of drops.

Edited by Demosthones, 12 June 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[kuangmk11]

Demosthones, on 12 June 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

We should base it off tonage as well as what weapons they are boating. We see more asaults than anything else because you can fit more weapons on them. We should take a mechs tonnage and the type of weapons its boating into account when applying this heat scale.

For example: If you are in an assault chasis the limit for ppc is 2 not 3 etc etc. This will create a movement back to mediums and increase the variety and compositions of drops.

How does that make any sense? Maybe lights shouldn't be able to carry any weapon over 5 tons. This will create a movement back to mediums and increase the variety and compositions of drops.

[Wintersdark]

They're currently limited in mech quirks - they can only affect twist/yaw/acceleration/deceleration. Bryan, I believe it was, discussed this elsewhere (ask the devs?) when inquiries where made about potential mech quirks.

This may change in the future, but I imagine we're not going to see mech quirks bypassing this system for specific chassis (and, given how slowly mechs are gaining quirks, do you think that would really be the way to go?)

[MojoFlow]

Not sure if this has been suggested yet or not, but was discussing this with some teammates on another forum.

To prevent/mitigate the effects of boating. What if you have tweak convergence in the following manner:

Fire weapons from same hardpoint: Weapons impact on reticle
Fire weapons from multiple hardpoints: Weapons impact spread out from reticle, across multiple panels.

The 'spread' could increase as the number of hardpoints fired from increases.

I think this would be a good solution, causing more intelligent weapon grouping and controlled firing.

[Falcore]

I had a follow up question, are heat penalties specific to a mech or just a weapon system?

[Crockdaddy]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 11 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

This heat penalty system sounds great, but it appears that it won't do anything to deal with dual AC/20 boats or dual gauss boats. Does PGI not feel that dual ac/20 boats or dual gauss boats are an issue? or is other balancing in the pipes for this? How about 4 lrm 15's?

I'd continue to prefer a system that stacks heat based on the damage output of the alpha rather than the # of weapons fired as the big instant alphas of same weapons are the continued problem rather than the # of weapons - like 9 small lasers.

Also 150% is way too high. Whats wrong with 100% and forcing mechs to be built for more heat efficiency rather than just DHS in the engine and then as many guns as you can cram onto the mech?

Maybe I am in the minority here, but when I see a boat ... I instantly think shooting for the shoulder to pop the XL engine. There are counters to much of this. I do like the idea of suffering a heat penalty (damage over time once you exceed a heat threshold ... but I think you will need to lower the damage threshold quite a bit lower than 150% ... I would start at 125%. However I don't have any telemetry data to make an appropriate observation.

[Demosthones]

kuangmk11, on 12 June 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

How does that make any sense? Maybe lights shouldn't be able to carry any weapon over 5 tons. This will create a movement back to mediums and increase the variety and compositions of drops.

That is rediculous. The problem is assualts boating large amounts of PPC. People are complaining that the heat scale does not affect the HGN-732 and 4 ppc stalkers because they can have 3 ppc 1 erppc. I am providing a solution. The fact that it will create a movement back to mediums is a bonus. I like mediums. I however do not like people quoteing me then attacking a tertiary point I made while ignoring the main idea.

[Victor Morson]

Havok1978, on 12 June 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

i have a BlackJack with 2lpl's and 4medium lasers, lplandmedium laser paired in both arms 2 mediums in the torsos. it works pretty well.

1arm is a group the other is a group and the center is a group...

but its a fraken mech i guess...

pass the popcorn plz...

You're right, that's not a Frakenmech. It's just a bad one.

Seriously, LPLs are crappy (and apparently needing a nerf by the bizarre logic in the OP).

[HammerSwarm]

Remove the cone of fire for machine guns, make it a ballistic weapon and not a laser(hit scan).

Damage is about right, but you need to fix the variable nature of the cone. Some dev said that they were working away from random number generators. How is the cone of fire not a random effect?

[Derffe]

Well I guess that settles the Large Pulse Laser vs. Large Laser debate for me. No more whup-whup...for now anyway.

[Victor Morson]

Capt Cole 117, on 12 June 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

Have two weapon groups or more then one type of laser will not "decimate them."

You have two possible outcomes:

1- Yes, it does, in particular if they lump weapons of the same category together (Small Laser, Medium Laser, etc. count as 1). Firing in two groups on a ridiculous .5 second delay is a huge nerf.

2- If it doesn't and it forces mediums to diversify weapons to get around it.. why? Just.. why are we doing this? Are people really going to be happy if something is carrying 3 medium lasers, 3 small pulse lasers and 2 medium pulse lasers? It does absolutely nothing to the overall alpha strike, so you are artificially forcing people to run stupid setups like that.

Again, lots of 'mechs carry 4-6 energy hardpoints, which is where this ridiculous idea begins.

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 12 June 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

You're right, that's not a Frakenmech. It's just a bad one.

Seriously, LPLs are crappy (and apparently needing a nerf by the bizarre logic in the OP).

I used to run the build he did on a BJ-3, and I found that brawling with a BJ is a terrible way to go (at least the BJ-1X has speed, the BJ-1 with the AC20 can be reasonably annoying). I improved the stock build of the BJ-3 by changing the engine and increased the DHS on it and it ran that much better. I actually was surprised it worked out like that (I also had to move the PPC over to the same side despite the asymmetric nature of the change, it worked out better for me).

Edited by Deathlike, 12 June 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[Victor Morson]

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

this does not compute

0.5 secs is too damn high!
/sarcasim off

0.5 seconds is an eternity when we're talking a 3 second recycle. This adds up to a 16.5% drop in alpha capability. That is huge.

Deathlike, on 12 June 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I used to run the build he did on a BJ-3, and I found that brawling with a BJ is a terrible way to go (at least the BJ-1X has speed, the BJ-1 with the AC20 can be reasonably annoying). I improved the stock build of the BJ-3 by changing the engine and increased the DHS on it and it ran that much better. I actually was surprised it worked out like that (I also had to move the PPC over to the same side despite the asymmetric nature of the change, it worked out better for me).

2 PPC and 4 Mediums is a far, far better build.

[Victor Morson]

ssm, on 12 June 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

It's too late to rewrite entire mechlab. Also - how MW4-style mechlab would prevent boating?



You can argue that Annihilator is bad example, but as far as I remember you could do things like that with lots of the mechs. In MWO those that couldn't boat would still be useless, and we'll be back to square one.

I have 0 problem with boats, but people who remember MW4 as having no boats is insane. The hard points helped make 'mechs more unique (the main reason I agree with you guys and I pushed for them early on) but they in no way ever stopped boating.

I mean look at some of the better designs (From the Mercs era, your experience in other eras may differ):

Novacat - 7 ER Large / 3 ER PPC / 2 ER PPC 1 CG
Black Knight - 5 Large, 5 Medium / 4 PPC
Wolfhound - 3 Large, 3 Medium
Ryoken - 4 Large

... want to talk missile support? Try the 5 CLRM/20 Daishi. Or the 2 Gauss, 5 Large Laser build. Want to talk IS again? The mainstray unit of the IS was a 2 PPC, 1 Light Gauss Uziel or a 1 PPC, 2 Light Gauss Uziel, too.

To be honest boats haven't been a real problem since MechWarrior 3. In MW2-3, there were NO hardpoint restrictions, which resulted in every single 'mech just being a skin and there being actual cheese builds because TT construction rules need HPs as bad as the MechWarrior games do, to be honest.

There is no boat you can make in MW:O I would call cheesy (Gimmicky maybe, but that's to imply it's inferior past the one thing it does well); in MW2 you could literally have 18 small lasers if you wanted, so yeah. That is cheesy.

EDIT: I can't forget to mention that due to MW4's coolant system - free heat removal at the tap of a button - you didn't actually need to watch your heat. For example that Wolfhound would have been junk without coolant flush. Anyone complaining about MW:O coolant flush needs their head checked, because it's not even in the same ballpark galaxy.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 June 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[Tombstoner]

I would like to point out that your changes to the heat system dont affect the mercy hero mech and in fact illustrates exactly how to work around the heat gimmick.

3 ppc and 3 ulta- ac-10's. 60-90 alpha or 120-180 damage to the CT in 4 seconds.

your player base is not stupid. we will figure out how to exploit your game system for maximum cheese: g15 macro ... done

Please implement a skill based COF and be done with it. any solution you come up with needs to take into account 12 vs. 12 and clan tech. avg player life expectancy will drop once you add in those two things. you built yourself into a corner at that point.

The CT is flat out way to easy to hit. learned that in closed beta well over a year ago.... i expect that once the clans hit and unless you do something radical like nerfing clan erppc's to 12 damage vs. 15 from TT.

Increasing armor levels are going to be needed just to extend match times.

Edited by Tombstoner, 12 June 2013 - 12:47 PM.

[kuangmk11]

Demosthones, on 12 June 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

That is rediculous. The problem is assualts boating large amounts of PPC. People are complaining that the heat scale does not affect the HGN-732 and 4 ppc stalkers because they can have 3 ppc 1 erppc. I am providing a solution. The fact that it will create a movement back to mediums is a bonus. I like mediums. I however do not like people quoteing me then attacking a tertiary point I made while ignoring the main idea.

You're main idea is to nerf assaults because they are assaults. My sarcastic reply was to nerf lights because they are lights. The problem is the high heat threshold and lack of heat penalty to begin with. The weapon type shouldn't enter into it.

[Galen Crayn]

The Large Pulse Laser. One of my favorites. The only mechs able to handle their weight and heat are assault mechs. In one build i like i have 3 LPL and an AC20 on an atlas. The heat is nearly the same as a ppc, has lower range but a faster fire rate. So for this niche you could use now the LPL. Perhaps 2% of the player will ever use it. With the fix you want to do the heat goes up to 8.5... Wait, 8.5?????? Who would ever use a weapon with heat 8.5 that fires 300m and only do 10.6 damage??? Its worse than before... I would never use it and replace it with PPC`s. If you want to change something, make them better not worse. And if not, let them as they are, because then the 2% can still use it. After your fix NOBODY will play them.

Edited by Galen Crayn, 12 June 2013 - 12:53 PM.