1263 replies to this topic

[Corvus Antaka]

MaddMaxx, on 12 June 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

That can't be right?

When one player yelled at a Newb, simply for being Newb, the Newb responded that he was giving it 110%.

Was he lying to the other player?

yes in fact he was

Seriously though, if PGI wants 150% to be the nuke cap, why not just make 150% the actual visual bar? but then that would be too high again. the 100% we have now is plenty, as witnessed by the fact that only 2 of my mechs have more than engine heatsinks slotted in them and are packed with guns, really no reason to push the heatcap past the 100% we have now except for the fact that people can't pace their shots or build balanced mechs.

[Maxx Blue]

Ok, after reading more comments and finding the answers to my initial questions, here is my stance:

SSRM: Ok.

Flamer/MG: Ok. Would have liked the cone of randomness to go away, but whatever.

Pulse Lasers: I can get on board with normalizing them. I'm not sure it will make them any better, but they will at least be more consistent in their tradeoffs versus standard lasers. I would still like to see beam duration reduced.

Heat Damage: Ok. Would have liked to see damage kick in lower than 150%, but I suppose it is better to start conservative and work that number down rather than risking too big a swing of the nerf bat.

Heat penalty: Nope. No thanks. Unless you are going to set limits at least per-mech and preferably per-mech-variant, this is a big DO NOT WANT. You just can't get fine enough control by setting one limit for everything, and if you did set limits per-mech, it would be difficult to make those limits obvious to players, and wouldn't actually stop anyone from getting one-shot kills with a 6 PPC stalker. They will certainly get less cheese-kills in a match, but it will still be massively un-fun for that one or two people they murder in one click. THAT is the problem you need to address. If your heat penalty solution doesn't drastically reduce the possibility of one or two shot kills on anything bigger than a spider, then you are not addressing the right problem. This proposed change doesn't address that problem.

[Gallowglas]

Tennex, on 11 June 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

The threshold should be set at 1. any weapon fired, after 1 should induce a heat penalty. although very minor. like 0.5 heat penalty or something (and varying based on weapon) this would feel much more fluid and intuitive in my opinion.

I agree with this. Personally, this is how I envisioned it would work. It seems more scalable and less arbitrary. However, I'd agree that we can test things and see how they go.

[Salticidae]

Truesight, on 12 June 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

As i get it is that those heat penaltys are per chassis i.e. the AWS 8Q can fire 3 PPCs without penalty, while the AWS 8V will get a penalty at say 2 PPCs, because the standard layout only has 1 PPC on that mech. Stalkers could also be penalized for the second PPC because none are there per default.

If done right, this could bring back chassis to the Battlefield which we do not see at the moment, much like the Torso twist and acceleration, ...

These guys are talking about 3rd person view and making the the UI easy for new players to learn the game, are they really gonna have to remember which mech can fire more weapons then the other? just to let you know there are 76 different mechs in the game right now. could you remember?

[Aim64C]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 June 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

What does this help? The canon Assault Mech that uses 2 AC/20s is the King Crab. And it uses 2 AC/20, an LL and an LRM (20?) launcher. That's even deadlier than the AC/40 Jager and Cats. That mech won't need an XL Engine even, and has lots of extra armor.

It's also an assault mech.

Quote

If the AC/40 mech is overpowered (and I might actually disagree on that), then restricting the AC/40 to a small number of mechs does nothing to help the problem. As long as overpowered game elements exist, they will be played, and they will be played a lot, and underpowered or "balanced" mechs will be played less.

The AC40 Jager isn't necessarily a problem. The AC40 cat is more of an example of unintended consequences.

The point is that you could remove those builds from the options yet allow them to carry other ballistic elements greater than a machine gun.... and you can put a machine gun in some place and know it's not going to turn into a gauss rifle.

Which is largely why the hardpoints of assault mechs generally suck, currently.

Quote

Hardpoints are primarily a cosmetic tool, and a tool to make different mechs feel different.
PGI already solved the "cosmetic" problem of AC/20s on K2s and Jagermechs. I hope they'll do the same for all mechs and all weapon types.

Bluntly - that's ********, and why there is little variance among the chassis that are being played these days. You -can't- opt for a small bank of medium lasers where that large laser used to be. May as well make it a PPC. You can't do medium lasers and machineguns for brawling (or whatever crazy idea you came up with) in an Assault. Well, at least, if you want to be effective. You could swap out the large laser for a medium laser... but you hurt yourself if you do.

If you've got an energy hardpoint on an assault - it's going to a PPC or large laser. Unless you're just filling in gaps in your tonnage distribution and have run out of criticals for double heat sinks, or something.

Bagheera, on 12 June 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

Okay, I know everyone hates the Jager because it can carry 2 AC20s, but look at the damn design. Sorry dude, but there is just no "hardpoint size" argument to be made about the Jager here. Never was, never will be.

Honestly, couldn't care less what mech we're talking about. The point is that the AC20 is a large ballistic weapon - any mech with one ballistic hardpoint can theoretically mount this weapon (spare for some lights).

Yet, you can't put 2 AC2s in the same place of that AC20.

You can go bigger - but you can't go the other direction. If it's a small laser - it can become a PPC. If it's a PPC, it can only become one small laser - because two would be too much for the mech to handle.

Quote

It has the slots to fit them, and the arms are basically nothing but guns on a single hinge. In fact, there is (later in the timeline) a dual-gauss Jager in canon. This is one that people are just going to have to deal with.

Then make its arms in the hardpoint system big enough to hold AC20s.

The point is that the hardpoint system could be designed to allow an AC5 and an AC2 without permitting an AC20, if one wanted to preserve distinction between the variants of the Jager.

Quote

FFS, the AC40 isn't even a good build unless you're pug-stomping. Stop trying to change the entire game over a one-trick-pony build.

Perhaps you should re-read my posts. Then realize why my instinct is to insert a derogatory remark, here.

[Truesight]

Zyne, on 12 June 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

These guys are talking about 3rd person view and making the the UI easy for new players to learn the game, are they really gonna have to remember which mech can fire more weapons then the other? just to let you know there are 76 different mechs in the game right now. could you remember?

If they do it "across the board" for all mechs, would this be a good solution? I do not think so. Sure you have to find a way of telling people how the mech will work out with different loadouts. This is up to PGI.

But if every Mech has the same limits... I do not like it this way.

[Jman5]

• SSRMs: I'm glad you guys are addressing the core issue with streaks. Great change (I think).
  
• Flamers: I don't know whether this is good or not. You have to be real careful about how you buff this weapon.
  
• Pulse Lasers: No comment. We'll see where you take them once you give them a post patch pass.
  
• 150% heat: I'm confused about this one. Do you mean 150% heat based on the adjusted gauge on your mech? Or do you mean 150% heat based on real values? For example, on a heat nuetral map, I can fire 3 SRM 6s for what should be 12 heat and yet rack up 20 heat.
  
• Heat Penalty: Hard to say until I see the full weapon list. At the very least, I would suggest you combine similar weapon types together. ER PPC and PPC,. ER large laser with Large laser, various LRMs and SRMs.

[Malyshus]

I think that this fix only focuses on specific weapons (PPCs & ML), something could be implemented that is much more effective on a broad scale that helps to prevent High-Heat Alpha strike builds.

I believe that leaving the dual AC20 / Gauss out of the conversation is fair as these weapons weigh a considerable amount more (14 & 15 tons respectively) than ML, LL, and PPCs; especially when you consider the amount of ammo needed to effectively utilize it on the battlefield and the quantity critical slots consumed by these weapons.

Here's my idea:

1.) Heat Management
Generating excessive heat within the pre-established time parameters (1.25 seconds) creates penalty, this time value is selected as lasers generate heat continuously through the 1 second 'burn' time.

Q: What is 'Excessive Heat'?

A: Excessive Heat - I believe this should be based on the heat threshold of each mech. So, instead of getting penalized for firing 'Y' Weapons of same type simultaneously, you get penalized for generating X% of your total heat threshold (referred to as THT from here on) within 1.25 seconds.

2.) The Penalty
You've exceeded X% total heat threshold in rapid fashion, prepare to suffer! For demonstration purposes I will use an arbitrary value for X (40%) here, it is not necessarily my intended value for implementation, but it's not far off, as this would make Tier 1 somewhere around 3 ER PPC's fired simultaneously with 15 DBL HS, so it is quite foreseeable that a Stalker with 20-22 DHS could fire 3 PPCs with no penalty, but that 4th might start doing dmg.

1.) Penalty Tier 1, 40%-47% THT

You've melted a Heat Sink, congratulations! Now you've effectively reduced your heat dissipation and lowered your THT.

2.) Penalty Tier 2, 48%-55% THT

You've now damaged your internal structure and armor (in addition to Tier 1 penalty).

3.) Penalty Tier 3, 56%-65% THT

Yeah, wtg buddy, that'll cost you an additional Heat Sink, do critical damage to components, structure, and armor, and is likely to cook off your ammo. Enjoy!

4.) Penalty Tier 4, 66%-75% THT

Total penalty of 3 Heat Sinks, damages structure, components, armor, engine, etc. You've considerably lowered your THT, doing that again will kill you more than likely.

Over 75% THT = One crispy pilot served fresh to the enemy team.

3.) Overheating
I agree that 150% is far, far too generous of a maximum heat level before penalty kicks in, Exceeding 125% and you're cooked, over 105% THT and you start damaging components on the mech, so this should be the last ditch effort of a pilot who is almost certainly dead but attempting to save a teammate.

[Gallowglas]

Milt, on 12 June 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

i would expect this change to go into full effect regardless of what the community thinks, PGI has shown a total disregard to the communities opinion, in fact i wish they wouldn't bother adding a topic like this. i think i'll go outside and talk to a fence post instead of trying to make any kind of suggestion on these forums anymore

This ENTIRE balance pass is BECAUSE of community feedback. There's also not one concise, unanimous opinion about what the "fix" should even be. Heck, some don't even agree that there SHOULD be a fix.

And then we have the example of what happened with consumables. PGI came up with a solution that the community hated and they changed it to address our concerns directly.

Apparently you have a different kind of fence post than I do.

Honestly, give them some time to iron out the kinks. It may still not be what everyone wants, but give it time to play out and TEST whether it improves things. I think it's a step in the right direction even if I think the idea needs some tweaking.

Edited by Gallowglas, 12 June 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[John Norad]

It sounds a bit artificial and arbitrary, while other solutions with a more sound reasoning would be possible.

But it's better than nothing.

[IceSerpent]

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.

1. They don't need to rewrite the entire mechlab - just add a "size" parameter to harpoints, so it would be "energy hardpoint (1 crit)", "missile hardpoint (2 crits)", etc.

2. Annihilator is not a very good example, but it still shows you how - see those torso ballistic hardpoints being smaller than arm ones? You can do the same to any hardpoint. If you limit all of them to 2 slots, you can only boat AC10s, which is what Annihilator is designed for. In MWO with this sort of system in place, ANH-1A would have 4 ballistic hardpoints in the arms (limited to 7 crits each) and 4 energy hardpoints in the torso (limited to 1 crit each, maybe 2 crits if you want to allow large lasers on it).

[Rascal2pt0]

Heat penalties for more than X weapons seems like a terrible idea, and effectively nurfs heat efficiency values. I like the damage by heat over X threshold like 150%, but placing arbitrary heat penalty's based on weapon count seems like a bad decision.

This also is a case of changing 2 variables at once and then trying to see what effect it has....

[Koniving]

SmokinDave73, on 12 June 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Garth we only have your word on that, I am yet to see any tangible evidence that any of the community's feedback is taken into account.

I have tangible evidence. I've said in several occasions that during the Earthquake simulator it was possible to continue to do precise bullseye shots since the crosshair never moved, and therefore the screenshake for jumpjets could not be enough on its lonesome to balance poptart sniping.

Earthquake simulator. Skip to 38 seconds. Watch the precision of my shots even as the cockpit rocks all over the place!


The result? Crosshair moves too and your shots fire off center when jump jetting.
While rather simple, I'd say that's tangible enough.

Of course, it's usually not when one person says it. It's when many, many people say it.

Edited by Koniving, 12 June 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[Wrayeth]

I'm glad something's being done. Much as this was fun, it's more than a bit broken...



4 PPCs, 1 gauss (3 tons of ammo), 16 DHS, and a 325XL engine.

[Glythe]

Please set the threshold for PPCs to 1 for ANY heavy or lighter mech. Set the threshold for Assaults to be 2.

It is THE most boated weapon in the game and the big offender.


Also we need to see weapon heat penalty thresholds on our mechs in the bay when you change it.

[Corvus Antaka]

I dont like the large/pulse laser changes. simply cutting the beams duration to .5 and .25 respectively would give these weapons brawling viability and help deal with light mechs in close. the large pulse change seems completely non-sensical, thing is already barely used, and you are making it worse?

[Koujo]

I don't believe medium lasers and such should be penalized. It's the insta damage weapons such as PPCs that are the worse offenders. A heat threshold penalty of 110-120% should be enough to address PPC boating without making the game overly complicated.

[Salticidae]

the hard point system is the problem, not the people making mechs with the system. they need to cap the crit slots for each hard point a stalkers arm could have 3 energy slots
Example:

Stalker left arm:

1 energy (3)
1 energy (2)
1 energy (1)

The number () is the max crit slots the weapon can have, so he could have this

Stalker left arm

ERPPC
Large laser
medium laser

Or...

larger laser
larger laser
meduin laser

I think this is the easiest solution, it could be perfected with time this is just off the top of my head

[Milt]

the heat solution is overly complex. boating shouldnt be a bad thing, some mechs are designed for it. its the high alpha high heat builds that arent sufficiently penalized for it that are the problem. make the solution simple and elegant. just force players to be more mindful of their heat. its a cornerstone of the franchise

[AndyHill]

Boating is not a problem. The fact that boating is absolutely the most effective way to build a 'mech is. And that's because boating enables you to fire a pinpoint alpha in the most effective way possible and pinpoint alpha is precisely the thing that screws up the balance between the tabletop game and a 'mech simulator.

I commend you (PGI) for recognizing the issue and trying to do something about it.

However, I believe that the suggested way will be a disaster. It is an amazingly complex way to try to solve the issue and will leave you hunting for new balance for every 'mech build every time there is a small change in any weapon. This is whack-a-mole -balancing in its purest form and will lead to a game that is impossibly difficult to balance or even understand. And it will not even really fix the issue it's targeting.

You want people to chain fire more? I know I do, and unlike most here, I think smaller 'mechs should be affected as well. The right solution is maddeningly simple: remove group fire entirely. Pinpoint alpha striking is such an enormous benefit over group firing that any other way to approach the issue will simply leave you (PGI) whacking mole-of-the-month -builds forever, leaving only devastated ruins of weapon balance behind.

Removing group fire will
- Make the battles last longer
- Balance sniping and brawling
- Give you the ability to do proper heat penalties, since there's no more instant 60+ heat on the scale
- Make poptarting more challenging without making people sick
- Make boating a non-issue since you don't get the pinpoint alpha advantage anymore
- ...leading to more balanced and varied setups
- And if you balance the weapons to be a little too weak currently, make your design clan-proof
- Allow for longer recharge times for weapons, which improves heat balance closer to TT

I know there are some rather elegant solutions out there, but I think this is the simplest one and probably the most effective. I also know that the arbitrary per-weapon penalties will not solve the problem, but will create unneeded, unwanted and just the wrong type of complexity to the game.