1263 replies to this topic

[Lex Peregrine]

I still think the best solution is a MW4 style mechlab for the weapons.
The classic mechlab is good for pen and paper, why are we still using it in a digital world?

[Salticidae]

THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THE PROBLEM IS TO CHANGE THE HARDPOINT SYSTEM, back to MW4, there is no way I should be seeing spiders running around with PPCs the weapon just would not fit

[Havok1978]

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...

Edited by Havok1978, 12 June 2013 - 02:00 AM.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Victor Morson, on 12 June 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

Back to the topic at hand, the nerf only hurts the 'mechs that aren't the problem. It does nothing to the best 'mechs and everything to those that need, if anything, buffs.

Through all of the barely coherent whining and vaguely related arguments I have yet to see this most fundamental issue addressed.

[fil5000]

Also, can anyone think of a problem anywhere that's been solved by making the problem more complex?

[Capt Cole 117]

Victor Morson, on 12 June 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

There are a large number with 6 and it will decimate them.

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

[Der Hesse]

Not sure what to say about the S-SRMs.I didnt think that they were overpowered. A medicore skilled Pilot will primary target and hit the CT with all other weapons and death by being cored is the absolutely Standard. So if a weapon denies you to target it at CT and hits mainly other Bodyparts its just useless except for new Players.
People just tend to not understand that the "no-Need-to-aim-ability" of some weapons doesnt mean an advantage alone. It also means a strong disadvantage that gets stronger with higher skill of the Pilot. This Counts not only for S-SRMs but also for LRMs.

Pulse-Lasers need a reduction of beamduration, not adjustments on heat or damage. Otherwise you are just balancing them until they are nearly the same as normal Lasers.

Heat Damage at High Heat Levels: Very welcome, but not enough for my Opinion. But better trying it with some small changes then one big overreaction. PGI did learn here!

Heat Penalty: Meh...not a good solution. Most boating was no Problem. Only high-alpha-builds are and those wont get a slightest nerf by those Changes.
At least you should let PPCs and ERPPCs count as the same weapon. Otherwise you will just have 3PPCs + 3ERPPC-builds (Not that those things ever were a real Problem in my Opinion).
Seeing Laserbuilds get nerfed hurts a bit, since lasers never seemed overpowered to me (not even LL). Also People will just move to builds with a mix of Lasers and Pulse Lasers or different sizes of Lasers.
Really anoying would be a heat Penalty for LRM-boats, because atm you have to boat them to be useful. Otherwise the OP AMS will shoot them all down. Not to mention all the other Counters. I guarantee you, if that happens LRMs will again be out of the game.

Overall i think these Changes wont improve the Game. Instead they will complicate the game and make it less enjoyable. The only Players that will really get hurt are new Players that need the aiminghelp from Missiles and use builds like 6 PPC Stalker for that one big boom before getting ripped apart.

[grayson marik]

dyndragon, on 11 June 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

The post Paul made unfortunately doesn't tell us what they were specifically trying to tweak and fix, so I'm going in with these assumptions:

• Trying to fix focused damage problem with boated weapons
  
• Trying to fix high heat alpha builds that have no real disadvantage, other than periodically shutting down (non issue at range)
  
• Trying to balance heat and damage output in a way that is not too complex so they can code it and meet the release date, and still makes sense to players.

I'm aware of TT rules, and I believe it was said before that the TT rules for heat penalties were too complicated. This proposal, however, I think is even MORE complicated, and I can't imagine being in PGI's position and having to balance all the different permutations of chassis, weapons, heat thresholds, etc. This is pure craziness. And then when the clans show up?!


My feedback is this:
The TT rules are simple, easy to tweak (and hopefully easier to code), understandable, and should deal with all 3 assumed points. You don't even need to implement ALL of them to gain the desired effects and fix the parts of the game that have issues.

Your proposed changes are (my feedback and opinion, again) opaque, add complexity to the game (with your system, you are implying that we are going to have to refer to a forum post that tells us chassis+weapon combination=heat penalty because there's no way in hell I can remember all that), and introduce "fictional" heat that does not necessarily make sense when IN the game. Again, your approach seems to be the untested sledgehammer method, whereas I think the TT heat penalties are more subtle and don't cause anyone to absolutely stop their playstyle now, and it affects ALL mechs equally.

As I recall, TT rules go something like this:

At:

• >X% heat, aim suffers slightly
  
• >X+Y% heat, aim suffers more, speed reduction
  
• >X+Y+Z% heat, aim suffers even more, even more speed reduction, random damage to random internal
  
• >X+Y+Z+T% heat, all the above, plus more movement or rotational penalties with random damage to random internal, chance to blow ammo (hey, make CASE more of a strategic and important decision!)
  
• >100% heat, chance to blow ammo, shutdown but can be overridden
  
• etc....to >125% heat, chance to meltdown core
  
• >150% heat, BOOM (I wouldn't actually suggest this as part of the MWO though--well, maybe a chance to explode outright).

Aim penalty could be illustrated by a flickering HUD, or, just use that random divergence you introduced with JJ in increasing amounts. That fixes point 1, not for the first shot at 0% heat, but it won't let someone continuously abuse it. In my opinion, this balances the player ability to place shots where he wants them, but not abuse the system to do it repeatedly.


High alpha builds can no longer just alpha strike with no risk, other than minor damage, nor can they alpha strike with 100% precision. This deals with point 2 regarding no risk heat management.

The TT rules are a simple set of rules that apply the same EVERYWHERE, and, at least having never seen the source code of your game, should be a simple routine to code since it does not require complex logic and knowledge of what kind of mech + what kind of weapons+ timing of weapons, etc etc to code. Just "if heat > x%, increase weapon divergence, slow mech y%, etc." It's a gentle tweak that can be illustrated easily without reading manuals or memorizing formulas through HUD warnings ("WARNING: Heat at X%, with illiustrative effects that demonstrate what happens to your mech--ex. HUD flickering, reticle expanding or swaying, flashing speed indicator to show you aren't running at max speed, so forth). This should maintain the spirit of point 3.

I seriously hope you reconsider this, or else I think you will be drowning yourself in whack-a-mole balancing everytime some new tech or chassis is released. Or, you'll be dealing with obsolete weapons and chassis that are never used because of some heat penalty issue.

THIS!

You are right!
Not only are the TT heat penalties a stringent and easy to understand way ( even for the so loved casual player) to reward good heat management while punishing bad heat management, no matter which constellation of weapons is used.
They also transfer rather nicely into a video game, much nicer than the armor - weapon - convergence problems MWO still suffers from.

Also this system would be the only rightful implementation! Sorry PGI: What you suggest is just a half baked hotfix, not a solution. It barely scratches the problem at hand!

[Havok1978]

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."

this does not compute

0.5 secs is too damn high!
/sarcasim off

[Capt Cole 117]

fil5000, on 12 June 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:

If PPC boating is a problem, then make PPCs heavier, or hotter, or slow the projectile down, or make the cycle time longer.

What if you don't want to nerf mechs with one or two ppcs, only mechs with 6.

[Steadfast]

Streak changes look nice on paper, lets see how they work out in the field (well, all the changes will have to be tsted by the gameabuser... I mean by me and my fellow boate... pilots).

Are LRMs working the same way? I honestly do hope so.

Boating changes are to low imo. you can still fire 2 alphas with flush 3 without fear of getting internal damage.
Make the overheatdamage to internals 125% and if its to low, step it up in 5% steps.

Also, I personally do not like thebandaid feel of the more heat while boating. I'd guess it would be better to adjust the heat of the offending wepaons now after HSR is as it seems successfully implemented.
Before HSR it was right to lower the heat on certain wepaons due to the fact that in order to damage with those weapons, you had to boat them (some ppcs hit some not, it was weird back in them days...). Now its just a slugfest sadly.
What the ultimate solution against boating one FotM Weapon will and can be is beyond me in a system that allows to configure your 'mech freely.
thankfully its not my job to balance those ^^
My take would be anyways to make 'mechs stock by default and only allow higher ranked pilots certain modifications (and even there just small ones) but well... I guess that train has left the station, given the current state of pilots who love to modify their mechs (wich I loaht, but well, to each his own ^^).
Cheers
Daniel

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

fil5000, on 12 June 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Also, can anyone think of a problem anywhere that's been solved by making the problem more complex?

Any problem that's solved by delegation. That's not really the issue at hand, though.

[fil5000]

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

What if you don't want to nerf mechs with one or two ppcs, only mechs with 6.

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.

Edited by fil5000, 12 June 2013 - 02:19 AM.

[Steadfast]

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.

Yeah and exayctly that is the problem. The "People" will than boat the other weapons.
I am glad I don't have to balance this nightmare ^^

[fil5000]

Steadfast, on 12 June 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

Yeah and exayctly that is the problem. The "People" will than boat the other weapons.
I am glad I don't have to balance this nightmare ^^

But there's nothing inherently wrong with "boating". I understand why people don't like the six PPC stalkers, because you can blow someone apart in two volleys which isn't fun for the other guy. The answer to that problem isn't "NO TAKING LOTS OF THE SAME WEAPON", it's addressing the specific problem that boating PPCs causes. The streakcat/splatcat got nerfed without making it so running all SRMs was a thing you shouldn't do, it got nerfed by adjustments to the damage that SRMs do and changes to how Streaks lock on - both of which were mechanics already present in the game.

I'm also glad I don't have to balance it, but if I DID, I'd use the variables that were already there instead of adding more.

[Rubidiy]

Reno Blade, on 11 June 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

I'd like to have an exponential curve that starts early and rises pretty high at the end.

I disagree. Your 'mech initially has some dissipating capabilities. It can handle some reasonable amount of heat within these capabilities without any penalty. Only if weapons start generating heat per second, that your cooling system cann't handle, you start getting heat penalties, for a mech itself and everything around it becomes hot.
That's why there should be a border (like 3 PPC at a time) beneath which your cooling system works normally and does not get any penalties.

Edited by Rubidiy, 12 June 2013 - 02:39 AM.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

DocBach, on 11 June 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

I was about to post this - if PGI doesn't think dual AC/20 boats is bad now, have they started internal testing on Ultra AC/20 boats?

there are some future mechs builds around dual UAC/20 ie. Hunchback IIC

Edited by JudgeDeathCZ, 12 June 2013 - 02:37 AM.

[Demuder]

The 150% threshold, although a step in the right direction is too forgiving. Make it 125%. A forced shutdown right now is almost insignificant and few builds would put the mech above 150% in the first place. Make pilots really think before going into that alpha that will cripple or kill their target.

The multiple weapon heat penalty is also a step in the right direction, however, it does nothing to the most popular instant pinpoint damage builds, like AC40s, 2x(ER)PPC + Gauss or 2xGauss. It will in fact make them even better against other builds which will suffer even small consequences from the change.

I would suggest you take a look at this solution by Homeless Bill. It is a bit more radical but it is simple, elegant, lore friendly and above all, easily tuned after you deploy it, no matter what weapons and mechs you plan adding to the game in the future.

[ssm]

Lex Peregrine, on 12 June 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

I still think the best solution is a MW4 style mechlab for the weapons.
The classic mechlab is good for pen and paper, why are we still using it in a digital world?

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'm pretty sure that heat penalties proposed by Paul are really aimed not at Swaybacks and 6xPPC Stalkers, but at upcoming Clan Mechs - Novas, Masakaris etc.

Dunno, but maybe it'll work?

Edited by ssm, 12 June 2013 - 03:02 AM.

[icey]

just want to go on the record to say that i think this is a bad change.

we have to wait months for weapon balance changes as it is with the limited set of variables we have already - adding two more just complicates things and makes balance even messier.

how about just instant damage (heatsinks, weapons and structure) for going over 110% of heat capacity, and revert PPCs to their original 10 heat - problem solved.

Edited by icey, 12 June 2013 - 03:02 AM.