1263 replies to this topic

[Clideb50]

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?

Well PGI was considering giving 'mechs unique quirks and such. Is it possible to incorporate the heat penalty into the quirks?

[Dryer Lint]

Regulus1990, on 13 June 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Well PGI was considering giving 'mechs unique quirks and such. Is it possible to incorporate the heat penalty into the quirks?

That's not making them quirky, that's just making them suck.

[Horation]

If this heat penalty for multiple weapons of the same type actually makes it in, I know that I will be asking for my money back. I sunk $200 plus for a battletech game. Every "FIX" brings it further and further from the franchise.

Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

The Eula does not remove consumer law in each country.

I refuse to be shat on any further.

[Victor Morson]

C12AZyED, on 13 June 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

This is most definitely a step in the right direction, I'm glad they are taking measures to address high alpha boating. So far, I agree with the method of implementation, we'll have to see how it goes but I'm all for it.

Did you read the thread at all? Did you agree or disagree with any logical arguments made as to why this is the single dumbest idea in the history of bad balance decisions?

I see these kinds of posts pop up and I can't help but honestly believe that people glance at the OP, and if they don't like "boating" they merely react positively without really analyzing it.

I rarely say this but if you think this is a good idea in any way, shape or form.. you're wrong. There's dozens of opinions on how to fix all these super-high damage builds (mine is simply put freaking weight limits in), and this.. this doesn't even touch what it's designed to do and fails on every other level.

PS: Making the Gauss multiply heat is stupid and even more convoluted, I wish people would stop suggesting it. This proposed system is not worth trying to "fix." It's fundamentally flawed, like trying to add onto a building with a destroyed foundation. It's just not worth it.

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 June 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Horation, on 13 June 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

I refuse to be shat on any further.

Incompetent balance decisions don't deserve that much rage.

Honestly I'm not even mad (I will be however if this thread is ignored and they go ahead with this plan), but all concern I show is merely not wanting PGI to, again, murder their own freaking game because they refuse to open dialogues with the best players to talk balance stuff, and keep making decisions combined in apparently misread metrics, forums whining and internal testing bubbles.

Their view of how things work and how they ACTUALLY work are far separated right now.

[Gaden Phoenix]

PropagandaWar, on 13 June 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

While it’s cool that they are taking strides this seems like an exploitable solution. Instead they should take a page out of TT where it regards heat and the effects it has on a mech. Albeit not mimicking it entirely as this is a completely different animal. Once a mech starts hitting a certain percentage stuff should start happening such as: *At 85% heat crosshairs start to blur and cockpit gets fuzzy. Getting hot in that mech. *At 95% heat Electonics is acting wonky Weapon convergance cease to exist starts acting normal again when it drops back to 50 *At 85% heat Mech Slows down movement by 20% (including Torso). The mynomer is getting sticky and electrical currents are not getting from point a to point be quick enough. *At 80% heat Weapon recycle time slows down by 10%, at 90% heat recycle time takes 30% longer. *At 95% 2% chance of heat sink malfunctioning When shutdown takes place or override more drastic things occur. Shutdown have a 5 percent chance to blow a heat sink or slow movement down by x percent and /orweapon recycle time. On Overides or heat threshold over 125% there should be a 25% chance to lose multiple heatsinks, blow engine, Have weapons malfunction and possibly fuse Torso.

THIS DO THIS PGI. I am a strong supporter of making heat matter. I think the new heat changes are a step in the right direction but .... increasing heat generated by boating, I think, is not the best way as people will find ways around it.

What PropagandaWar says make so much more sense. Also add a chance of ammo exploding at 90% and all is good

Also what the heck is wrong with the editor, I cannot quote without all the formatting getting stripped off....

Edited by Gaden Phoenix, 13 June 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

I'll just skip the pathetic attempt to suggest that I obviously must be mentally inferior for not agreeing with you.

Well as long as you're acknowledging it.

Quote

Such a system would, in fact, be successful... at limiting. But that's about it. It wouldn't remotely create a diverse game where people can pick mechs because they like the mechs and play them in a style they want to play. They would be forced to pick a mech already pre-selected to be the style they want, if one even existed. To a certain extent that can be said of the current system, but in a much more variable way. Let's take the K2 as an example. By the current system I could run:

• Standard-type load; 2 big energy, 2 small energy, 2 MG(?)
  
• Big energy load; 4 big energy
  
• Mixed load; 2 big energy, 2 medium ballistic, and maybe squeeze in 2 small energy
  
• Ballistic load; 2 big ballistic w/ maybe some number of small energy back-up
  
• Ballistic load 2; 1 big ballistic, 4 small energy back-up
  
• Mixed load 2; 1 big ballistic, 2 big energy

Standard type is worthless.
Big energy load is what the vast majority of people use with either quad LL or quad ppc.
Mixed load is worthless.
Ballistic load is only used with AC40, and it's purely inferior to the jager with the same build and has vanished from even vaguely high elo.
1 big ballistic and 4 small energy backup is worthless.
Mixed load with 1 ballistic and 2 energy is worthless.

Oh look, you listed the only three K2 builds anyone ever uses, quad PPC and quad LL which most people think is exploitative and above the power curve for heavy mechs, and you listed the AC40 build which vanished a month ago since the jager does it better in every way and which is thought of as the stupidest and most exploitative build in the game.

Quote

Those are just off the top of my head, and each one has options within it. By the system you encourage you could run

• PPCs
  
• Large Lasers

Funny, that's all you listed too. You just pretended more builds were viable because the only way to support your theory is by playing pretend.

Quote

Yeah, I think I already covored which one of us knows what diversity is.

You're either ignorant or lying to prove your point. There is no middle ground here.

Quote

You don't cut the available options in half, you cut them to almost nothing. The choice between Medium and Small Laser isn't a real choice. MGs would be MGs, with no options at all. Maybe we'd get to choose between Gauss and AC20 on the few mechs that could carry them, and had the crits for a AC20. Or if we're lucky, we could downgrade to a smaller AC, but that's just a direct downgrade of the mech, since we couldn't upgrade somewhere else to balance it back out. The same goes for sticking a small energy in a large energy slot. Downgrading in one place without the ability to upgrade in another leaves no viable options. So it really does stick everything into something very close to no significant options at all. If the options aren't significant, then they're not real options, just window dressing.

What are you smoking? The choices are cut exactly in half. Under the LL is the med, med pulse, small, small pulse, flamer, and tag. The LL and above is the LL, Pulse LL, PPc, and ER PPC. The same goes with what is equivalent to and above and below the ac5. Same with the LRM 10 and SRM4 and their place in the middle of their respective weapon range. You have literally no leg to stand on here. None.

Quote

Not even remotely true. I already covered the differences in limitations, so I won't repeat it. The fact of the matter is plenty of people don't use the same cookie-cutter builds. Your ill-conceived notion would take away all their fun, sometimes goofy, personalized builds in a vain effort to force more variety on power-games. Which proves that either you haven't a clue about the psychology of power-gaming, or are being deliberately obtuse in your refusal to acknowledge it.

You didn't cover anything. You lied about what is actually used in this game. You conflated what is possible with what is viable and therefore what is possible with what actually occurs. Possibility isn't reality.

Quote

So you take away all these options, and the power-gamers will diversify into using a broad spectrum of mechs (notice I don't say 'builds', because that no longer has significant meaning)? Wrong. Despite your attempts, there would still be a given mech that would stand out as the best at what it does, for whatever reason. Now there would probably be a few such mechs, to fill different roles, but these would be the only mechs such players used. Don't delude yourself into thinking they would use other mechs, because they only want to accomplish one thing. And with no significant choices to make in load-out, there would be no question as to which mech for a role was the best. All you will have accomplished is to consolidate the power-gamers into fewer mechs and ruin any chance for enjoyment among those that enjoy customization for it's own sake.

Except hardpoint sizes removes every exploitative mech build from the game instantly. SRM spam a1? Nerfed. Quad PPC stalker? Impossible. Tri PPC/goose highlander? Impossible. LRM 60 stalker? Impossible. Ac40 jager? Only available on one in four variants as opposed to being literally the only jager anyone uses. Will power gamers gravitate to the most powerful mech builds? Naturally. But that mech build won't universally be the 4 ppc stalker anymore, and even if there is a "most powerful variant" the distance between it and the rest will be greatly reduce. That directly increases the viability of other mechs and therefore directly increases the variety in the game.

This forums architecture is awful. If can't handle long posts with large quote strings without exploding.

Continued after deathlikes post.

Edited by Shumabot, 13 June 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 13 June 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Did you read the thread at all? Did you agree or disagree with any logical arguments made as to why this is the single dumbest idea in the history of bad balance decisions?

I see these kinds of posts pop up and I can't help but honestly believe that people glance at the OP, and if they don't like "boating" they merely react positively without really analyzing it.

I rarely say this but if you think this is a good idea in any way, shape or form.. you're wrong. There's dozens of opinions on how to fix all these super-high damage builds (mine is simply put freaking weight limits in), and this.. this doesn't even touch what it's designed to do and fails on every other level.

PS: Making the Gauss multiply heat is stupid and even more convoluted, I wish people would stop suggesting it. This proposed system is not worth trying to "fix." It's fundamentally flawed, like trying to add onto a building with a destroyed foundation. It's just not worth it.

I wouldn't worry about his comments. Once the same builds are more or less still out there aka "nothing's really changed", then we'll see more threads spawn because it wasn't correctly dealt with. It's that simple. Let the clueless think they are right, and then they will cry because they didn't read into it in detail like most of us (even if our responses are not entirely rational or optimal).

Edited by Deathlike, 13 June 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[Shumabot]

I can finally continue this without the forum exploding.

Quote

Don't pretend you have a clue about balancing games, because you don't even have one about what that means. Balancing isn't accomplished by pigeonholing. Since any options at all invariably create at least the illusion of imbalance, there can never be a perfectly balanced game that has any options, whatsoever. The key is simply in bringing it close enough that, though the power-gamers may still be power-gamers (you can't change human nature), the non-power-gamers still have a reasonable chance. And the current balance isn't as far off that mark as it's made out to be by the doom-criers.

If you could strawman any harder a lion and a tinman would show up at your doorstep. I haven't pigeonholed anything, I've fixed boating instantaneously, removed the majority of the games most exploitative builds, and by the very nature of those two acts I've encouraged a massive increase in visible diversity in this game. What I did was ensure that the 3 catapault builds you listed that no one in their right mind would use because the builds are idiotic would actually be viable and see some use. You keep falling into the logical fallacy of infinite choice, when presented with infinite options people don't make those decisions in a way that is representative of the whole of their choices. People follow the logical path that grants them the most specific advantage. The more options you present the more clear the path to the top is because the more the systems structure can be manipulated.

Quote

Yes, there's a few crappy weapons we all know about, and Small Lasers that will never be more than filler. On the other end there's really just PPCs. As a weapon they're probably very slightly too good, but it's really only in multiple (4+) that it's enough to stand out, and then only because of convergence. How scary would a 6xPPC Stalker be of it was lucky to land 2 in the same location? Most mechs could take a couple shots without major worry, and those that couldn't shouldn't be giving him a good shot and/or are small enough that some might miss altogether. it could still unload serious damage, but it's a weapon-intensive Assault mech, so that stands to reason. The same goes for the the other large weapons, such as dual AC20. Without instant pin-point convergence it's painful, and should be, but not immediately deadly.

Convergence helps to make those weapons powerful, perhaps overly so, but it's not what makes boating the superior way to play. If you nerf those weapons you'll just see a return to boating UAC5's or boated streaks, or boated large lasers, or boated LRMs. Every single powerbuild this game has ever had has been a boat of some form. That's not because of convergence, and blaming it on convergence shows how little you've actually thought about this.

Quote

It doesn't even have to be cone-of-fire. A slight delay in convergence would allow accuracy at the cost of time. 6xPPC or 2xAC20 could still unload hell on a single location, but they'd have to remain exposed to do it, making them more vulnerable to return fire, in exchange. This would make them more balanced with more varied load-outs, which are already less pinpoint. It would be harder to one-shot anything, especially a light (on which convergence would be difficult), but that same light would have less convergence, as well... unless he wanted to leave himself open to retribution. It puts everything on a much more even balance, but without removing the ability for people to play the way they want to play.

That only really nerfs the ac40 jager. The stalker can already fit 3 PPCss in a horizantal line on one torso side, and given the fact that you just nerfed everything else in the game simultaneously it's not really very hurt by it. Hell, it could just fire them in sets of two or three and avoid the nerf entirely. This also does nothing to fix boating since that stalker with its boated PPCs is still better than a stalker with a mixed loadout in every way.

Quote

That's the definition of diversity (as applied to this case).

Yes, nerfing the awesome more while exchanging the ac40 jager for the ac40 cat is truly bringing variety to a game with 4 viable builds in it. You exchanged one build for another, did nothing to the other three, and nerfed the entire game simultaneously while adding another feature that will drive new players away.

You're so good at this. So incredibly good at this.

Quote

Or it could just be that you want everyone pigeonholed because you like the idea of stock-only, and want to force everyone to play very close to that with you.

Your solution is bad. You're ability to understand my solution is bad. You're capacity to understand how the mechanisms in this game interact are bad. You are only capable of repeating the same illogical mantra and hitting me with ad hominim. You are not worth talking too. You are the EXACT REASON this game is going to crash and burn.

Edited by Shumabot, 13 June 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[soarra]

Anders, on 13 June 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Mr. Lord Psycho:

Please direct your Mk. I eyeballs to this post:
http://mwomercs.com/...38#entry2443838

We here at The Word of Lowtax thank you for your post. We here at the Word of Lowtax realize that you have limited entertainment destinations and appreciate that you're spending your entertainment electrons on us. Please continue to choose the Word of Lowtax in your future holiday destination spending! We are grateful for your out of the box, blue-sky thinking, and appreciate you touching base with us here at the Word of Lowtax. We hope to synergize our efforts to achieve quantifiable paradigm redefinitions in a future collaboration soon.

Robotically Yours,
Anders

Public Relations Officer
Director of Man/Bird Relations
Loremaster of Word of Lowtax
Veteran of the First Round of the Run Hot or Die Funzies Tournament
A Draaaaaaagun Slayer, Victor over the "4 time crowned Champion from the day."
OpFor Veteran of Second Round of the Run Hot or Die Funzies Tournament
Survivor of the Great Market Collapse of September 18, 3049
Bro-Bots with Mech Romney, Member of the 53%
Commissioner of Entertainment Electrons
A [REDACTED] Asset
Oft Imitated, Never Duplicated
Crackin' Turtles since 3049
Master of the Trial of Walter
Marik Militia Masher
'Mechstradamus
Campaigning in the Inner Sphere for a better Capella
Survivor of the Festival of Artemis
Survivor of the Festival of Artemis 2: Electric Boogaloo
Survivor of the Festival of Artemis The Third: Lurmpocalypse Now
Survivor of the Festival of Artemis IV: Making a Bigger Problem to Fix Another
Podcasting Propaganda Information directly to your Neurohelmet 24/7/365
ilKhan of Clan Moderator-in-Exile
"The Goonders"
Recipient of the First ever "Community Contributor Award" - "The December Star of 3049"
Brought Order to Chaos
Anders Actual. Copy.
Schedulepower > Firepower
The Morning Sun, Vanquisher of the Horrible Midnight!
Krazy for Kaetetôã
Solaris Ranger Danger Wrecker
Rocked the Scorpions like a Hurricane
The Word of Lowtax: Pay to Win since 3049
Survivor of Excess Radiation
Communicating with Keys (my keyboard to be precise)
Hellish Hound Hacker
Never forget: 03/15/3050
Squawking is not a Crime
Poptarts are a Sometimes Food
Bropocalypse Now Battalion - "The Fist of Lowtax"

anyone else think the game in general would be better if TK'ing these trolls would give you bonus c-bills

[Tarl Cabot]

Actual Heat Scale And Cap - Tested Via Testing Grounds?


Through testing, what I have observed is in the above thread, the information I have obtained on the heat scale through testing. (I am not perfect though).

The break down is that the heat scale (shown in PCT in game) has a base of 30pts. Each additional HS, be it SHS or DHS, increases that heat scale by that many points, including the internal engine heat sinks, 10 for SHS and 20 when upgrading to DHS (each additional DHS is 1.4).

Quote

Corrections

Both Forest Colony, SHS and DHS 10 only in 260 standard engine The percentages is approximate with margin of error.

10 SHS - Forest Colony- Standard 0% heat standing/running 4%
4 PPC / 4% running / Fired 84% (79.xx% + 4%) / Cool down 38 secs
4 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 79% / Cool down 32 secs
3 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 59% / Cool down 24 secs
2 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 39% / Cool down 16 secs
1 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 19% / Cool down 8 secs

10 DHS - Forest Colony- Standard 0% heat standing/running 3.5%
4 PPC / 3.5% running / Fired 67% / Cool down 18 secs
4 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 63% / Cool down 16 secs
3 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 45% / Cool down 12 secs
2 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 31% / Cool down 8 secs
1 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 15% / Cool down 4 secs

Forest Colony (20 total DHS - 10 in engine, 10 external) used 325 XL- Standard 0% heat standing/running 3%
4 PPC / 3% running / Fired 52% / Cool down 10 secs
4 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 48% / Cool down 9 secs
3 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 36% / Cool down 7 secs
2 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 24% / Cool down 5 secs
1 PPC / 0% standing / Fired 12% / Cool down 2.5 secs

As expected, cool down for the DHS is 2x faster than SHS, as expected. If you take the SHS, it would appear the 100% heat scale is set at 40pts. The DHS heat scale appears to be set at around 50pts (base 30 + 20 more points from the DHS in the engine).

Take/Add 10 additional SHS would put the Scale at the 50pts mark while 10 additional DHS would be at 64pts mark (30pts base + 20pts additional internal DHS + 14pts from 10 external DHS).

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 13 June 2013 - 05:32 PM.

[Porgon]

Why are you nerfing the 4P, it really doesn't need a nerf.
A alpha generates between 40 - 50% heat as is, so you'll get one or two alphas in, and then have to retreat to cool down

What's the point of this nerf? to reduce it to one alphastrike?

are medium laser boats actually that dominant that it's causing a concern? as opposed to oh - say

the continued domination of gause and PPC snipers? most of whom will only carry one, maybe two of either - so this nerf won't touch at all.

[Asmosis]

sC4r, on 13 June 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

at first the 150% seems to be a bit too much... now only quad/hexa LL/PPC reach that much heat but i believe they set it so high because of their heat penalty... so if you fire ehm 3 ppc you get 24 heat... fire 6 and its 48+20 seems enough for mech to kick the bucket imediatelly from 0 heat

though i believe this way of doing it is not the best idea out there but who knows we ll see if it works

for mg,flamer YES MORE BUFF
for streaks i hope this will address the thing of ssrms hitting ct exclusively

I get the impression the only reason it is there is to prevent that specfic type of build (4-6 ppcs or similar future energy weapons like heavy plasma etc) from being alpha'd at 80-90% heat.

Maybe weapons that require heat should simply have a chance to misfire/backfire when used about a certain point close to threshold? I'd think starting at 90% would be good, since any lower and your just penalising people who can manage heat. something like every % over 90% has a chance for the weapon to misfire damaging your mech instead of the target.

[Lindonius]

Shumabot, on 13 June 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Welp, this games dead in the water now. The heat penalty mechanic is complex, pointless, utterly arbitrary, stupid, and illogical. Will you start making random and stupid exceptions when mechs like the black hawk or masakari show up so that their stock builds don't detonate? All you had to do was implement hardpoint sizes, it's a golden bullet for boating, increases variety, and makes different mech variants stand out from eachother strongly.

Instead you took the laziest, stupidest, and most controversial solution just to punish the 4PPC stalker. The highlander uses 3PPCs and a gauss rifle, lets be honest, this is a nerf to the 4ppc stalker and the 4ppc stalker only. You could have adjusted its hit boxes, made it larger, changed its hardpoint layout, there were a million things you could have done. Instead you just went with an awful and arbitrary mechanic that I trust you'll do exceptionally poorly explaining to new players. This company is lazy and lacks any sort of forethought and that has never been more visible.

This is. Quite simply. The best post on this thread.

[Khobai]

Quote

This is. Quite simply. The best post on this thread.

Agreed. This is an all-around terrible balance decision.

1) It prohibits customization which is bad
2) It excessively punishes mechs that are SUPPOSED to have 3 PPCs (Awesome)
3) It doesn't address the real problem which is pinpoint damage being excessively high

The problem isn't that a Stalker can have 4 PPCs. The problem is that all 4 of those PPCs hit the same spot. That is what you need to fix. That has always been what you needed to fix. It is THAT simple.

Edited by Khobai, 13 June 2013 - 05:56 PM.

[Vermaxx]

Let's try the Novel Idea of taking out everything PGI chose to do and see how the game runs:

Crit system

Item hitpoint system

Autofire weapons (MG, FL) instead of everything in the game having cooldowns

Engine modifications (It's great but is literally the source of most cheese)

Engine LIMITATIONS (If you're going to open Pandora's Box, you can't put a flow restrictor on it)

Hardpoints (They're generally acceptable, but too arbitrary. Hunch 4G has three ballistic, all other AC20 mechs have two at most and usually one)

Every missile patch ever

ECM, SERIOUSLY ECM

CONSUMABLES, COME ON...MAKE THEM WORTH PAYING FOR WITH MC OR REMOVE THEM


So, yeah. This heat proposal is right in line with the past.

[Syllogy]

In my opinion, the Heat Penalty changes only nerf energy builds. AC20's and Missile Boats don't yield enough heat to suffer from any incurred penalty.

Frak this change.

[Goose]

[skips 45 pages of discussion]

I get Teh Devs feel there's positive nuance to be achieved by assigning two new stats to all weapons (namely OPCount and Penalty Schedule), but I have to say I view this as a negative.

From here on in, there will be lobbying from the public for all kinds of crazy numbers: Three 6-racks are too much, but four 4-racks are fine; five small pulses should heat like 7, but seven small pulses should heat like 12; three Gaussi sho8uld heat like 4 AC/20s; etc., etc., etc., drek, etc.

Furthermore, linking OPCount and Penalty Schedule to the .5 second delay for chain fire will just encourage "Teh Haves" to come up with yet another macro; "Teh Have-Nots," whom can't keep up with fabbing macros as things are, while it's just a thing for boating AC/2s, will just leave …

I believe a flat reduction to the Heat Threshold (or whatever it's called) is a better solution, as it at lest appears to be an organic mechanic which would encourage chain firing. The guys whom can hold lasers on-target will have to do so more, while the others will look for another avenue to get Alpha …

Wait …

(That I suspect chain fire would be better if it took the longest cycle time of a weapon on the link, and fired everything on said link in evenly divided intervals derived from this number, is another issue. ;-) )

[Vermaxx]

Syllogy, on 13 June 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

In my opinion, the Heat Penalty changes only nerf energy builds. AC20's and Missile Boats don't yield enough heat to suffer from any incurred penalty.

Frak this change.

AC20s will count as a high damage alpha, and will also feel this love. MISSILE BOATS yadda yadda yadda.

If you built either one of those flavors right, heat is still an issue. After this change, you will most definitely feel the love tonight.

[Victor Morson]

Shumabot, on 13 June 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Except hardpoint sizes removes every exploitative mech build from the game instantly.

As I am loathe to point out.. no it doesn't.

There's really three 'mechs people use big guns on: Highlanders, Cataphracts and Stalkers. Maybe Atlas sometimes, Awesome others and the Victor is looking good.

Anyway, back to my point: You could run every "problematic" build we have now in MW4's system. It does nothing to solve this either. Honestly as I've said over and over the only reason I was in favor of hard point sizes was specifically to give PGI tools to add more flavor to variants, and it had nothing to do with boating.

Hell, 2 ER PPC & Gauss was the go-to-typical build for Novacats and BKs for the longest time. Some 'mechs are designed to boat and will always boat, just how it is. Your rose colored glasses might be clouding the fact that there were a ton of boats in MW4. Again, the HP system wasn't there to really stop boating, it was there to add flavor to the 'mechs and make one 'mech with energy hardpoints different than another, for example.

The only suggested "fixes" have to do with reticule inaccuracy based on the same number of guns fired, and it only applies if you think pinpoint damage is the one and only problem and not the fact that we have so much tonnage we're seeing what amounted to MW4 "Everybody in a Daishi" pub servers. You can nerf alphas all you want and that won't change.

EDIT: If they want to add more heat penalties, more power to them. I'd love an engine slowdown (including torso movement) at hotter temperatures and stuff. That would change the meta and would stop gimmick builds pretty much cold, without any of this oddball, horribly planned per-gun-heat-stacking stuff.

People would change their builds organically then because they are under performing, not because some totally arbitrary heat stacking system was added on that won't even effect builds who run high-synergy weapons instead of the same one.

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 June 2013 - 06:19 PM.