1263 replies to this topic

[grayson marik]

stjobe, on 12 June 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

So, I've had a chance to sleep on your suggestion about boating penalties, and it's still horribly complex, doesn't do what it's intended to do, and actually punishes the wrong 'mechs and builds.

So here's what needs to be done; it's a two-step process that will involve some developer time and some testing time, but the benefit is that you'll get a game that's easier to balance, lets people build whatever builds they want, and that has heat management and aiming as major skills.

Step 1: The heat system
* Halve heat capacity
* Double heat dissipation
* Optionally: Remove or severely decrease heat cap increase from heat sinks.

I think most of us are familiar by now why this is a good idea, so I'll just say that it puts the amount of heat your alpha can generate without penalty much closer to BattleTech, and encourages both sustained fire over alphas and a diverse weapons load-out. As an added bonus, it also makes stock 'mechs much more attractive.

Step 2: The weapons
Rework all ballistics to fire in bursts of 1 second or thereabouts. After all, they're AUTOcannons and MACHINE guns, right? Something like this (example numbers to be tweaked after testing, of course):

AC/20 - 4 rounds of 5 damage in 1 second, reload time 4 seconds.
Gauss Rifle - 3 rounds of 5 damage in 0.75 seconds, reload time 4 seconds.
AC/10 - 4 rounds of 2.5 damage in 1 second, reload time 2.5 seconds.
AC/5 - 5 rounds of 1 damage in 1 second, reload time 1.5 seconds.
AC/2 - 4 rounds of .5 damage in 1 second, reload time 1 second, or continuous fire.
MG - 4 rounds of 0.25 damage in 1 second, continuous fire.

LB-10X - can have the current mechanic of 10 pellets at once. It'll make it unique, and the pellet spread should keep it from being too powerful.

PPC - Re-implement as a beam weapon. It was never a projectile weapon to start with: "PPCs fire a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target" (sarna.net).

This will remove all pin-point damage from the game without adding RNG spread or messing with convergence, it actually adds an additional element of aiming skill for getting all your damage on-target, and in conjunction with the heat changes will make a game that's much, much closer to BattleTech than the current abomination of high-heat pin-point alpha strike point-and-click game play.

grayson marik, on 11 June 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

Hmm sounds at least as a method... even if a clunky one.
Why not simply going the battletech way? Something similar like the TT heat penalties?
First reduced speed, then speed +aiming then shutdown and damage, risk of ammo explosion etc. etc etc.

It appears to me that TT already has a complete set of heat rules, that would just need to be translated to MWO almost 1:1 and it would be fine. And it would actually make more sense than just putting a weapon stacking penalty on top of everything...

As the fight about numbers in this thread shows, some number penalty on top of boating causes a lot of grief and unforseen consequences for some mech chassis, which makes it alsmost impossible to ballance against all current and upcoming weapons, modules and mechs in the game.
Also a blind change of convergence would have more impact on mechs, which spread the weapons far away in their hardpoint layout over those, who have them close together.

After all, there is to say:
What is needed, is an easy to understand and generic approach to the problem, preferably one, keeping the spirit of battletech while solving the underlying problems.

So i would propose a mix of the 2 quotet suggestions: include some heat effencts from the TT rules, that will challenge the pilots and rise the immersion.
And fix the heat system in a way, that will reward fire discipline over alpha spamming, but will also be logical enough to support further tech inclusions into the game.

As far as I worked through the thread ( which was hard work this morning), those 2 suggestions above got no general critism as many of the numberjuggling suggestions did. Only some minor suggestions how to do things slightly different.

Also those 2 suggestions are the alsmost only ones that are macro resistant. All the "put a cap on boating with a penalty and a fire delay" suggestions are target to macro programming !

And while I understand how much fun it is to tear appart an other posters flawed math with own examples ... I sincerely request, that we should stop the number juggling and support the 2 suggestions quoted above.

( And for those who might go now like: "Aaaaawwww you are pushing your own suggestion you a..hole!"
Yes of course I do. if I wasnt the opinion that it would be a good idea, i would not have posted it in the first place.)

Edited by grayson marik, 13 June 2013 - 10:04 PM.

[Leviticas]

Banditman, on 11 June 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

I don't think that your reasoning for the ML limit is a strong one. You are basing a balance point for the entire game around one single variant of one single mech. That doesn't seem like a great idea to me. I am not arguing for an increase or decrease to the ML limit, only saying that I hope more analysis went into that number than simply to say "Well, the 4P has six energy HP's in it's hunch".

I agree when you limit the weapon type in a mech you don't give it a lot of options. another point to be made is would this affect the small lasers as well? I mean its not the amount of damage as it is their rate of fire that make it so deadly up close. I don't think that medium lasers should be penalized in this variant as you don't have the options of any other weapon type in this. i understand the ppc and the er ppc boating. when looking at the range and damage it makes since. ppcs have a max range of 1080 m and do ten damage and ERs even further with no minimum thats 60 damage while medial lasers are half that in all aspects while it take 9 med las to get 45 damage per alfa and that if you can maintain it on the target. ppc if you hit you hit with all 6. that other thing is if this does go through will you be looking at the same thing for the large and ER large? i can see them switching from ppcs to large, which is fine with me because i don't suffer the full damage from a laser then a PPC. Another point is on the hunback 4P that pod is fairly large and very easy to take out. Unlike a starker where it is much harder to take out the weapons. Once that pod is out then you lose 2/3s of your weapons. you can also stick a larger engine for better heat management when it comes to a stalker. you can put HS in the engine itself and outside the engine saving space. in the hunchback 4p you have to get the largest engine a 260 standard(which is the highest engine you can place in it) and use any extra space for more HS. in my 4p i have 18 HS that means i have 8 external from my engine and still only have a 1.14 heat efficiency. I have learned to deal with it but when i hear of 6 ppc stalker carrying all that fire power and having a higher Heat efficiency than me it makes me wonder if penalizing the medium laser is a good way to go with this.

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 13 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

The problem is instead of having it removed after those threads go up, they'll just endlessly make it horrible to better to horrible again for three to six months if trends hold, and ultimately leave it in a "Begrudging compromise." I would rather every single man hour from this stupid system be put into something relevant: They always say they don't have to adjust all the weapons, and using coders time to that instead of.. this, would be very very wise.

When Paul/PGI sets its mind to doing stuff... it gets done, to the community's detriment. Unless someone provides Paul a logical discussion (which might mean taking away whatever he is smoking), it's not happening.

[ClanKiller]

Penalties for anything is dumb.

People boat because it is the most efficient use for that particular mech, There is no reason to have varied weapons in this game. In TT you got infantry, tanks, and aircraft to contend with. Here only mechs. No one is going to shoot a gauss or AC20 round at a light tank normally.

I do like taking damage for heat over 100% of maximum. Damage should start at 101% and continue until under 100%. The damage should be cumulative up to the internal structure / engine of center torso.

In the future, how about the chance for some cool reactor meltdowns with a damage radius, Would make that cored mech a little less appetizing at close range.

[Erwiin]

I've entered this conversation late and I can't be bothered reading all the previous post.

Why are PGI bothering to mess with the heat effects of weapons... again? Why not just scrap the coolant modules? If you get rid of them, people will no longer run high-heat setups on their 'Mechs.

Simple really.

[Miken]

I think PGI need to replace heat penalty by scatter penalty, in the new gameplay update...

Edited by Miken, 13 June 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

I have no idea how new players with trial mechs will break into this game with the current mechanics.

[BafGandalf]

ClanKiller, on 13 June 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Penalties for anything is dumb.

People boat because it is the most efficient use for that particular mech, There is no reason to have varied weapons in this game. In TT you got infantry, tanks, and aircraft to contend with. Here only mechs. No one is going to shoot a gauss or AC20 round at a light tank normally.

I do like taking damage for heat over 100% of maximum. Damage should start at 101% and continue until under 100%. The damage should be cumulative up to the internal structure / engine of center torso.

In the future, how about the chance for some cool reactor meltdowns with a damage radius, Would make that cored mech a little less appetizing at close range.

If we start doing explosions and stuff, i would really love to see a "highlander" mech doing "death from above" and landing on any mech's cockpit.

Also,does anyone feels that this type of builds will be the most common as this patch comes out?

- Flamers "boats" (increasing overheating threeshold at a brutal rate, while waiting for the energy boats to autoexplode when alfa-ing)?

Also, if this is a way to make us all spend flushing coolant upgrades. I guess doesn't feel the right way to do it , IMHO.


Regards,


PS:sorry for the double post.

Edited by BafGandalf, 13 June 2013 - 11:05 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Shumabot, on 13 June 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

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.

Have you?

What does your system do with these stock mechs?
Warhawk (4 Clan ER PPCs): http://www.sarna.net..._%28Masakari%29
Hunchback 4P (8 Medium Lasers): Oh, wait, this is already in the game.
Awesome 9Q (4 PPCs): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Awesome
Devestator (2 PPCs + 2 Gauss Rifles): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Devastator
King Crab (2 AC/20, 1 LRM15, 1 LL): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/King_Crab
Longbow (2 LRM20, 2 LRM5): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Longbow
Nova (12 ER Medium laser): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nova
Supernova (6 ER LL): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Supernova
Yeoman (2 LRM15, 2 LRM10): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Yeoman
Thunder Hawk (3 Gauss Rifles): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder_Hawk
Emperor (EMP-6S; 2 LBX-20): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Emperor
Annihilator (4 LBX-10): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Annihilator
Nightstar (2 Gauss Rifles, 1 ER PPC): http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nightstar

Do you want to forbid these variants ever to become part of MW:O?

And what about Omnimechs. They're supposed to fully customize their podscape as they see fit. Even if you ignore the OP nature of Clan Tech and nerf them to IS levels (I am all for that), you still have ultimate flexibility, no hard point limitations at all.

Why do we even have to go with a solution that lowers the amount of builds you can make? It's not that 6 PPCs are inherently superior to a mixed long range weapon loadout in the table top. It's only due to convergence and lead times that 6 PPCs are better than, say, 2 AC/10s and 3 Large Lasers.

Why can we not look into this more? Why do we have to lower the fun of customization?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 13 June 2013 - 11:15 PM.

[stjobe]

Gaden Phoenix, on 13 June 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

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

Get a better browser, it's IE10 that's the problem.
I recommend Chrome, but there's plenty of alternatives.

[Black Templar]

keith, on 11 June 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

like norm PGi goes to an extreme to nerf something instead of going to root of the problem. if there was a weight balance system for game types, u would not seem many heavy energy boats. now 6 ppc mech= insta shut down= extreme over kill. could have gotten away with making something like +10-15 heat so mech was unusable in combat, much worse fate then shutting where it cools faster.

i agree. the 6PPC stalker not even a common build and it runs insanely hot. instead of a nerf to boating across the board the matchmaking system could be the solution here. PGI could also look at mechs individualy and limit the amount of "big" weapons certain variants can boat. boating has always been part of the mechwarrior franchise and the proposed fix is just clumsy.
to my mind the heat system is in need of a revamp:
+ more heat equals less dissipation, acceleration, overall movement speed and torso/arm twist rate.
+ in addition weapons like the PPC receive a global "overheat" cooldown when fired in too rapid succession (they are firing hot balls of particles after all, so their barrels should be hot after 2-3 shots).
+ make other weapon systems like pulse lasers and srms more appealing. atm PPCs are just too good to miss out on.
+ remove the random jamming mechanism from the UAC/5 and make then "overheat" like PPCs
+ remove the JJ shake and instead increase their cooldown and recyle time. make them generate heat.

i am in favor of giving control to the players. the proposed "fixes" only reward the new players. instead you should reward smart players overall.

Edited by Black Templar, 14 June 2013 - 12:41 AM.

[WolvesX]

I think we can agree on:

LPL needs no nerf.

Heat Penalty System is just bad and a bad idea and badly tought trough.

------

GODEMPEROR OF BIRDLAND

GRANDMAJOR OF KTOWN

VOICE OF THE VOCAL MINORTY

FIRST PRIMUS OF JETTISONED COMSTAR

BEARER OF THE GRANDPOTATO OF TROLLING IN GREEN

GRANDMASTER OF THE STEIN OF STEINER

[Sephlock]

Tennex, on 13 June 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

LPL are hardly used as it is and you are going to increase its heat by 1...

It's okay. In a few months we'll get a patch that will ... probably... make them useful.

[AndyHill]

What bothers me perhaps the most about this convoluted heat punishment thing is that it's such a pure example of whack-a-mole -balancing. Nerfing SRMs didn't make SRM boats more balanced on the field, it made them disappear. JJ nerf didn't make poptarts more balanced on the field, it made them disappear. When something is nerfed like this, people just move on to the next best thing and the flavor of the month cycle continues with true balance impossible to reach.

To me it seems that everything, especially desperately convoluted and poorly designed balancing measures, leads to the source that is a fundamentally unbalanced game design. Depending on the level of convolutenerfing for lasers, the next big thing will be PPP+Gauss combinations and laser boating stalkers. After those are convolutenerfednerfed to oblivion the next big thing will be gaussboats with the recently released Victor leading the way. At this time PGI's number crunchers will notice that nobody takes the big energy weapons anymore and they get a huge buff. Guess what that will lead to. Everyone will be totally surprised by the results ... except some thousands of people who play the game and discuss it on the forums. The same people who have recognized the true issues long time ago.

PGI, please stop and think for a moment. The suggested fix is the purest form of complexity adding whack-a-mole -balancing that will not bring any kind of a true solution for any of your/our problems. I know it sucks to have to go back to basics and rethink the entire game mechanic from the ground up, but the sooner you do it, the less it will suck. Had you done that during CB, you would've had some 8 months of time to work on actually balancing the thing and the real release date would be much closer now.

[SirLANsalot]

AndyHill, on 14 June 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

What bothers me perhaps the most about this convoluted heat punishment thing is that it's such a pure example of whack-a-mole -balancing. Nerfing SRMs didn't make SRM boats more balanced on the field, it made them disappear. JJ nerf didn't make poptarts more balanced on the field, it made them disappear. When something is nerfed like this, people just move on to the next best thing and the flavor of the month cycle continues with true balance impossible to reach.

Hate to sound like a nutjob myself, but I know WHY these things keep happening, because the SAME thing happened in EvE Online (and is still happening). A particular group of people, who shall be not named, but they know who they are and they know I have called them out on this before. These people do nothing but abuse the system, in every way, whether that be though normal game means, or by aimbots (or a combination of both). These people will find an exploit and use it over and over and over again until they are caught (reference EvE online Faction Warfare exploit). They also fake ALOT of stuff, making it SEEM like there's hundreds of people crying about this or that issue until the devs cave to it (again reference EvE Online Super Capital Nerf). In games like this and many others where you can make accounts for free, or for very cheap, its not very hard for one person to make 5 or 20 accounts. Play them, post with them ect, so each one LOOKS like a legit person, but in reality there all just one guy. Get a group of people doing this, and you can easily artfically swell numbers in any way you want.

I have warned PGI about this back in close beta, and for the most part they do things that "people" cry about. Like 3PV, Polls are useless here for the very reason I stated above, however PGI has the REAL hard data on there hands. You can cry about it all you want, but you are just a very noisy minority, and in this case, the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease.



As for the main topic, anyone with half a brain and about 30 min could figure out a way to get around that so called heat penalty. I posted the proper way, back in post #180 (pg10 I think) that actually fixes the very issue at hand, and without any way around it. It also doesn't touch what doesn't need to be "fixed" (HBK-4P) as medium lasers are meant and made to be boated, intentionally, but large energy is not.

[Victor Morson]

Asmosis, on 13 June 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

while i agree the proposed suggestion is a bad idea, its certainly not going to kill the game. it only affects a few mechs (hunch and stalker mostly) so a lot of people are overreacting with the game dead/quit/qq posts.

It starts impacting 'mechs at 4. Meaning every single light is already impacted unless they are given an exception. Many carry 6. So you just screwed some Cicadas and stuff, on top of the Hunchback, Blackjack, etc.

All to get at a 6 PPC Stalker that's a giant pile of crap anyway. Merely lowering the heat threshold would make it even worse, there's no need for any of this other stuff.

[Victor Morson]

SirLANsalot, on 14 June 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

It's always amusing to see someone buy into the myth that somehow everything they've ever done is "system abuse" because they operate within the rules of the system. I know a LOT of people hate them, including people I like, but so much of it based on a snowballing legend it's not funny.

I can absolutely, also, guarantee they do not make up the majority of this thread. They've definitely posted here, but you know what? They offered collected data and stats to help make better decisions. Hardly sounds like the boogeyman everyone believes them to be.

It's kind of like when they troll people by getting the other team to kill an ally. Can you really blame them if the other team is that lame and stupid? But yeah, I don't want to derail this into a goon debate at all, but I can honestly say as someone who has never been apart of either Goonswarm or Word of Lowtax that the worst aspects of their reputation are pure bull.

Sure they find the most "broken" (powerful) meta and run with it until the world catches on, but it's not their fault it's broken in the first place. The whole goal of customization is to build the most powerful, badass 'mech you can after all - the whole point to drop command is to field the best force you can for the game you're playing. Too many people believe in leading forces comprised of 'mechs that would work in the game they WISH they were playing, and that is why they will always lose.

Also last time I ran into them, they're not running much different than any other 8 man group. Pretty typical top-tier designs.

EDIT: Also goons aren't a hive mind. I've hit more than a few WoL groups that don't know the difference between hilarious good natured gimmicks or light "trolling" (usually gimmicky designs and chat jokes) versus just being belligerent and dickish. It's more or less a banner for a number of smaller groups, and like with any collection of groups, you have diversity.

As a whole though, you definitely need to stop blaming them and seeing shadows of their involvement where there is none.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 June 2013 - 01:59 AM.

[Victor Morson]

SirLANsalot, on 14 June 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

As for the main topic, anyone with half a brain and about 30 min could figure out a way to get around that so called heat penalty. I posted the proper way, back in post #180 (pg10 I think) that actually fixes the very issue at hand, and without any way around it. It also doesn't touch what doesn't need to be "fixed" (HBK-4P) as medium lasers are meant and made to be boated, intentionally, but large energy is not.

Also do I really need to break out the list of canon variants that boat large energy? Like, oh, the iconic Warhawk or the Awesome we already have? I don't get why people think large energy isn't "supposed" to be boated on some totally oddball reasoning.

My problem (broken record) is that there's no weight caps. If a massively powerful energy/ballistic boat is on the field like a Highlander or Stalker, it should be super rare in the first place. 2 'mechs or so in 8 mans, maybe 3-4 if they go to 12, in general - I'd be OK with different kinds of drops too, of course.

If you bring the number of guns on the battlefield down, suddenly all this pinpoint alpha anger is a minority opinion because mediums will dominate a field where assaults are rare.

[ChallengerCC]

Realy nice changes! We will see how it works. But i am confident.

[Solis Obscuri]

Going after five-PPC Stalkers doesn't fix anything. The dominant alpha boats are (and long have been) HGN-732 and HGN-HMs, and Cataphracts with 2-3 PPCs and a Gauss Rifle.

The heat penalty doesn't fix anything anyway, since the point of these high alpha builds is to put massive damage instantly into a very small target area. What you need is a divergence system for heavy-weapon group fire, which addresses systems like the AC/20, Gauss Rifle, and PPCs.

If you break the advantage in alpha-striking heavy point-damage weapons, people will have to adapt. As it is, they will only have to hit override slightly less often.