1263 replies to this topic

[General Peron]

Damage over time when exceding 150% heat? Make them explode like mechwarrior 3

[WolvesX]

2 points:

• I really want to know why in the world you can even think of nerfing LPLs
  
• I really want to know why in the world you can even think of such a bad heat penalty system.

------

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

[Victor Morson]

Weaselball, on 14 June 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

No penalty at 3 PPC's? This seems a bit odd to me, as the problems really start at 3 (3ppc gauss highlander, etc)

Paul, I'm calling it right now, if you go through with these changes as-is, you will still see a lot of 3PPC + Gauss builds in the game. 3PPC Gauss Atlases, 3PPC Gauss Miserys, 3PPC Gauss Highlanders, let alone the 2PPC Gauss Phract's.

The high-alpha with PPC meta will not change at all with a 3 PPC soft-cap for heat penalties.

Here's my suggestion on how to get a larger change-up in the Meta, while buffing the Awesome (an assault that needs a buff) in the process. Note: This does not address anything aside from the PPC heat-penalty scale:

Setting PPC's at a base of 2, then adding some penalties at 3+ is what you need to do. Then, additionally, allow the Awesome battlemech to have its PPC limit start at 3. While I doubt this will get people to start jumping ship over to the Awesome (it's still a walking barn) it WILL make people who pilot it feel a little more special.

The Awesome, imo, should be the premier energy / PPC boat. Right now the Stalker outclasses it in this aspect in every possible regard. This change, while not addressing the Awesome's core fault (its girth) will at least make the mech a little better, or at least a little more unique.

TL;DR:

Set the PPC/ER PPC base-cap at 2, scaling higher with the 3rd shot.
Allow the Awesome to fire 3 without penalty, scaling higher with the 3rd PPC / ER PPC.

Or they could forget the OP ever happened and just assign the Awesome a "15% less heat from energy weapons" quirk that would pave the way for more interesting quirks to save bad variants and chassis.

It would be far less a waste of time than programming this alpha strike system that nobody at all wants.

Weaselball, on 14 June 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

Additionally, Paul, you can change the heat-scale on specific weapons with each individual chassis as needed, via that mech's "quirks." So the Awesome chassis as a whole could have its PPC heat soft-cap start at the 4th ppc (allowing it to fire 3 like normal), or allowing, for example, Stalkers to fire 4 large lasers normally, where as other mechs can only fire 3 before incurring heat penalties, or allowing Catapults to fire 4+ SRM6's (after a buff to SRM's of course) without penalty, where as other mechs can only fire 3 before penalty. Etc etc.

Again, we can have this kind of quirk without this system. Just a flat bonus to specific weapons for specific variants. It's been suggested a ton of times, and is popular each time.

It really does open the door, too. You could give specific Catapults a faster missile lock time, maybe give the Wang a faster ballistic recycle, etc. There's tons and tons of options that these kinds of quirks could really do awesome jobs at.

Again though, they don't need to be tied to a seriously flawed, broken, backwards system like the OP.

[Wolke]

The imagined heat penalty system is just as bad as expected.

You have a whole set of problems in MWO right now.

Pinpoint Damage Alphas, not enough variance in DPS between close range and long range weapons, etc.

All you are going to affect with a heat penalty system is reducing the overall DPS. Pinpoint Aphas are still possible and the longer the engagement range or the more readily cover is available the better of a choice it becomes (over higher dps staggered firing).

On top of that it is an completely arbitrary, opaque system that makes no sense even fluff wise.

You DDevs simply have to come to terms that some choices you made in the past were not good for the game and you have to be willing to adjust even core features, like the way the aiming system works, or your decision to increase the damage being dealt over X time compared to the distance mechs are supposed to travel in X time.

Maybe I am wrong about the whole situation and the game is not really hurting and you are very happy about how everything is shaping up. Fine then, I will simply stop playing and supporting you. But if not, then you won't fix this game by implementing some mumbo jumbo system that only complicates things and ignores like 90% of the issues.

And don't even get me started on CW. Zero information. Nothing. I bought this game for CW, for the great battle of the houses. For players having to make choices about which mechs and which loadout to bring, about costs associated with attacking and defending something, about people not wanting to lose their mechs, but making an effort to get out of the fight only badly damaged. About weighting objectives and their gains against expected damage to your assets and costs caused by it to your unit and house.

From all that I have seen in the past year I am not putting any hope into CW anymore. None. I only hope you get your act together and finally turn this into a good, fun Mech combat game.

Edited by Wolke, 14 June 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Sprouticus]

Shumabot, on 14 June 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

People are opposed to it because it's an awful idea. The 4 ppc stalker doesn't need to walk fast because it's NOT MOVING. The Jenner F, Hunchback 4P, Every quickdraw, the awesome, and a load of other mechs that require hot running and lots of speed to be even as non viable as they truly are would be destroyed by this.

Why is it that everything you people suggest makes the problem worse? And yet you ***** about my solution, which none of you can even come close to presenting any realistic criticism of.

I think you underestimate the value of torso twist. If they slowed arm, twist, and speed, all 3 based upon heat, you would see a difference.

Victor and I disagree on the value of the heat penalties, but I think we can both agree that OTHER heat penalties are good as well.

[Victor Morson]

Cybertek, on 14 June 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Love this much needed change. It will bring a variety to the game play. I like the idea that some versions of mechs should be different limits as they were designed to be fired that way. As some people have mentioned. I like my 4 LL Stalker, and my other boats, that I use but this will make it much more interesting. Also cause people to go to mechs that could withstand a higher number of similar weapons being fired.

Looks like another person saw "Nerf alphas" and immediately posted without reading the thread or thinking it through...

[Shumabot]

Sprouticus, on 14 June 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I think you underestimate the value of torso twist. If they slowed arm, twist, and speed, all 3 based upon heat, you would see a difference.

Victor and I disagree on the value of the heat penalties, but I think we can both agree that OTHER heat penalties are good as well.

The real problem is that any nerf that hurts the overpowered stalker hurts other mechs much, much worse and doesn't solve the original problem in any meaningful way.

[Victor Morson]

Shumabot, on 14 June 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

Because "customization" in MWO means "how many of a single gun I can fit on this mech". And if that "custom" mech doesn't pass a certain bar it gets sold as vendor trash. That's 90% of this games mechs. Customization is worthless WHEN EVERYONE ALWAYS USES THE SAME DAMN THING.

First off: The Awesome 9Q is a not something that "won't be in the game for years." Some of the others, like the Warhawk, would not surprise me if they appeared in the first round of Community Warfare, too.

Second off, I do agree with your last sentiment. But I think doing anything with alphas is the wrong way to fix it. I am positively not opposed to more heat penalties in general, but I don't think they should be tied to a set number of weapons on a build.

I'm all for more damage past the heat threshold. I'm all for 'mech effects the closer you get to 100%. I'm OK with tons of this stuff, but with at the end of the day a new hardpoint system won't solve this.

Why? Because there will always be a handful of variants designed for boating the kinds of guns that started the complaints in the first place. Which isn't that much different than it is now. People will just find the hard points that allow the biggest boat, and bam, right back where we've started.

Thus I don't think hardpoints will solve this issue. As I've said before I'm not opposed to overlaying hardpoint sizes onto 'mechs, but for the sole purpose of adding more flavor to those 'mechs. There's a lot of variants that are flat out bad, so giving them extra hardpoint capability would rescue them. I'm a big fan of bringing all variants to a useful state.

So yes, I agree, not setting HP limits was a bad idea but it in the end has nothing to do with the conversation we're having right now, not really, as long as the end of the day these common, canon variants can still take the exact kind of firepower we're seeing on a Stalker right now.

I get the feeling that people have a hard time making peace between BattleTech and MechWarrior: Online, sometimes; I think a lot less people would be complaining about 4 PPC Awesomes, for example, because they've got it in their head the Awesome is "supposed to do that" so it's OK, but somehow it's a horror if a Stalker does. I still want to see the Awesome regain an edge myself, so I get where you're coming from on one level... but getting mad that a 'mech that typical doesn't carry multiple PPCs carries multiple PPCs in a game where other 'mechs in the same weight range can also carry multiple PPCs... yeah. You see where I'm going with this.

Sprouticus, on 14 June 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I think you underestimate the value of torso twist. If they slowed arm, twist, and speed, all 3 based upon heat, you would see a difference.

Victor and I disagree on the value of the heat penalties, but I think we can both agree that OTHER heat penalties are good as well.

I'm not sure which part we disagree with each other on, but I fully endorse slowing movement & twist near 100%, which means pilots pushing into the red line would have to think about doing it, and coming out of a shutdown with a gimmick build would be even more disastrous.

I am 100% behind more heat penalties, just not tying them number-of-guns fired.

Shumabot, on 14 June 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

The real problem is that any nerf that hurts the overpowered stalker hurts other mechs much, much worse and doesn't solve the original problem in any meaningful way.

The irony is the only reason the Stalker is "over powered" is that it's guns are high mounted. That's it, really. If the Awesome had high mounted guns, people would use that, too.

I personally am still not a fan of the Stalker over the Highlander even without jump sniping myself and I don't really buy that Stalkers are OP. Very, very good 'mechs for sure, but not really OP. They only hit marginally harder than a 'mech 15 tons lighter.

The 6 PPC build is actually terrible, too. Honestly the thing that would bring it's downfall with no further chances is when they put PUG VoIP in, because if you have even a few people dog piling one, it won't last 30 seconds.

[Victor Morson]

You know, another heat penalty I'd be good with is a convergence hit based on your heat level. Again, borrowing a page from the source material and bringing it over here.

Lots of people want convergence nerfs even though I disagree with the way they've suggested it so far, but this would force snipers to cool down more between shots without removing the player skill aspect that is important. If you want 100% accurate fire, you can still have that, but you've got to make sure you're running cool.

Sure, twin Gauss would get a lot more popular if you did that, but given the 'mechs that carry Twin Gauss I would be cool with that.

[Shumabot]

Quote

I get the feeling that people have a hard time making peace between BattleTech and MechWarrior: Online, sometimes; I think a lot less people would be complaining about 4 PPC Awesomes, for example, because they've got it in their head the Awesome is "supposed to do that" so it's OK, but somehow it's a horror if a Stalker does. I still want to see the Awesome regain an edge myself, so I get where you're coming from on one level... but getting mad that a 'mech that typical doesn't carry multiple PPCs carries multiple PPCs in a game where other 'mechs in the same weight range can also carry multiple PPCs... yeah. You see where I'm going with this.

The Awesome can have 4 PPCs now, and it's an awful build. This whole debate is set around the awesome and that's silly, the whole debate should be set around what created balance, variety, and reduces the commonality and efficacy of "extreme" builds. In my opinion hardpoint sizes does all three, and it does all three in a way that new players and veterans can understand easily. It removes the worst of the most exploitative builds currently in the game, and in my view there are very few mechs with canon builds that could be considered as bad as something like the 3ppc+goose highlander or the 4ppc stalker we have currently. Most of those mechs are clan mechs, and by the nature of clan weapon are already broken within the metagame anyway, so I'm not sure they even matter in this discussion since they're going to have systems in place to keep them in check.

Quote

I'm not sure which part we disagree with each other on, but I fully endorse slowing movement & twist near 100%, which means pilots pushing into the red line would have to think about doing it, and coming out of a shutdown with a gimmick build would be even more disastrous.

I am 100% behind more heat penalties, just not tying them number-of-guns fired.

I don't understand why this is such a popular idea. Of all of the games most powerful builds few are really effected by this suggestion in a material way, but an awful lot of less powerful builds are. This would stratify the power curve and push ac40 jagers, 6 streak cats, lrm 60 stalkers, D-DCs, and highlanders even farther up the totem pole. It would practically remove lights from the game entirely, as most have no choice but to fire until near shutdown then run away while they cool off. It's how they're meant to function.

Quote

The irony is the only reason the Stalker is "over powered" is that it's guns are high mounted. That's it, really. If the Awesome had high mounted guns, people would use that, too.

Well, no. It's guns are high monted, it has the right number of slots in the right places, it's side torsos are tiny in frontal view which is the only view that matters to a sniper so it can XL safely, and it's frontal profile overall is the smallest of all of the assaults. It has every advantage a mech can be given by it's art design, high mounted hardpoints are just one of them.

Quote

I personally am still not a fan of the Stalker over the Highlander even without jump sniping myself and I don't really buy that Stalkers are OP. Very, very good 'mechs for sure, but not really OP. They only hit marginally harder than a 'mech 15 tons lighter.

The 6 PPC build is actually terrible, too. Honestly the thing that would bring it's downfall with no further chances is when they put PUG VoIP in, because if you have even a few people dog piling one, it won't last 30 seconds.

The stalker is the cream of the crop, it's hitting power is not the only reason why. It's advantaged in every category. Also, I agree with you entirely about the 6PPC stalker, it's a red herring.

[Five by Five]

Extended shut down periods are (could be) a fairly huge penalty. I've seen a lot of suggestions around making mechs sluggish as their heat goes up,... we've had that before in previous titles,.... nice touch of realism, but it won't counter the hot high alpha builds. And, I don't think you should pay a different heat penalty for firing 6 PPC at once versus firing 3 twice with 1/2 second between (same for 8 medium lasers vs 4 twice with a 1/2 second between.)

But, I don't at all like the current ability to alpha a energy boat when you are already at 90% heat, shutdown, and be able to restart just as quick as the little restart animation plays,..... that just ain't right,....

Extend the shutdown time exponentially as the heat goes over 100%. call it heat effects, call it a decrease in cooling system efficiency, but use this as a metric, if a stalker is at 95% heat and fires 6 ERPPC's leave it shut down for at least a minute.

That's 7.5% of the entire maximum length of the match. That is ample opportunity for the other team to kill the mech, deprives the team of the hot mech a player for a very long part of the match and effectually gives the other team a numerical advantage for a long time. Add a little graphic so the shutdown pilot can see how slow he's cooling down, so he'll know it was because of his heat, and folks will learn pretty quickly, or die often.

Shutting down can and really should be a bigger deterrent to overheating, the restarts are just way to quick right now. Granted for a minor overheat, current shutdown/restart time is just fine, but for a massive overheat,.... way too quick.

As far as the damage at 150% heat regardless of shutdown/running state. I don't like. If you are over 100% heat and running, you should be taking damage, but if you are shutdown, then it is up to the other team to kill you (why take potential damage points away from the other team, leave the overheated guy shut down and let the other team kill him!).


**EDIT: Think of the hockey penalty timeout box. Having a player (multiple players) in the timeout box doesn't guarantee the other team will score, but it sure does give them a lot more opportunities! (and makes it much harder for your team to score!)

Edited by Five by Five, 14 June 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[G4M3R]

Just make it over 125%, you die. Serious.

[Nik Reaper]

Hm ,reading this a specific conflict seems to be outlining it's self with out being cleared up.

The first thing most would agree is that a good , fun competitive game is based around counter play. For that to work there must be time and opportunity to counter an action , wich you don't have if a single mech can core you out in 2 shots.
So the first question should be how much upfront damage to a point do we actually want to be available, everything short of the 6 ERL nova from MW3 could fire an alpha even if it needed to shut down after it. ( personally I wish the lowered the heat capacity to about 2/3 ~ 1/2 of what it is now )

So balance could be enforced by limiting what weapons you could equip. PGI stated that random cone of fire "diminishes skill" so we can't get that and heat really isn't the main issue here even if it seams it is.
At some point we will get an assault with 3+ ballistic slots and a 3 gauss will not have much of a heat problem to deliver it's damage , even the 3xAC20 while hotter will rip mechs apart even if it has to shut down for a bit after a shot. That and in a year or less there will be 2-3 UAC10 on macros on assaults .

Balancing can not be done just by heat penalties and a cone of fire is out of question so creating artificial weapon restrictions seems the only solution to limiting high alphas, even as that solution is so very bad...

So to reiterate , if it can fire all loaded weapons at once and not blow it's self up doing 50+ damage to a point we seem to have a problem.

The after effects of the said alpha less relevant because players will find a way over, it unless the shutdown period was 6-10 times longer or it would force permanent damage at witch point everybody would complain. So what would we find acceptable more , having forced restrictions or sharp, sharp limitations and penalties on heat management ?

Edited by Nik Reaper, 14 June 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Deathlike]

fil5000, on 14 June 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

"You people". Good work on criticism there, guy.

This thread seems endless at this point...

[Soy]

Soy Likes This!

[WolvesX]

The only thing that matters to me now is:

Will this heavly flawed crap of a system come on the 18th.

[Five by Five]

Soy, on 14 June 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Soy Likes This!

Okay,..... that was kinda good ...

(not sure about the link,... haven't looked yet)

[Ragnar Darkmane]

WolvesX, on 14 June 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

The only thing that matters to me now is:

Will this heavly flawed crap of a system come on the 18th.

I hope not... I hope not...
Otherwise I would have to sell all the LPLs I still have lying around in my mechbay....

[Kobra Kommander]

HORSE S##T, lets just nerf anything that's effective, and not tell people that teamwork defeats any mech build. TEAMWORK WINS MATCHES! not 1 guy with a stalker who is completely useless against 2 lights up close.

[Dino]

I think the proposed heat stacking changes are convoluted, do not properly address the problem at hand, will add an unnecessary load on your balance team to maintain and manage, and have many foreseeable (and likely additional unforeseeable) negative side effects. This has all been described multiple times in this thread so I will not rehash them, other than to say I AGREE. (side note: I also agree that overheat penalty threshold should be lower, ~110%)

I firmly believe the current game-play conundrum has developed due to three significant design changes, and one lingering problem:

1) There is no longer any form of weight balancing
2) PPCs were buffed to counter their most significant downside; that downside was eliminated, and the pre-buff state has not been restored
3) SRMs were overtuned
4) There are still several weapons that are clearly inferior to the current staple weapons

Fix this, and you fix your game. No need for convoluted heat rules.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a sniper mech. There is nothing wrong with people being able to build a 4 or 6 PPC stalker, a splat-cap, a 9 ML hunchback, or an AC40 Jager. There is nothing wrong with an assault being more devastating than a medium. These things make the game more interesting and fun - it makes the scouting role important, it makes developing strategies for dealing with various threats a fruitful endeavor.

The problem is, people want to win, and there aren't any limits to what a team can place on the field. Given such, the best way to stack the odds in your favor is to to drop in the heaviest mech you can field. Since assaults and heavies naturally field heavier arsenal, and have trouble protecting their cap if they over extend from their base, this leads to this long range, stagnant, trench warfare we are seeing. And since this is what you're expecting the other team to do as well, you put together your heavier arsenal to cope with this meta best. End result? Many games with 1500 tons of mech playing a game of poke until one team does something wrong out of desperation or impatience, or the balance of attrition has shifted in your favor enough to go in and slaughter the survivors. Another fraction of games where there is a significant weight imbalance. And a final, fun but uncommon, fraction of games that go the way the developers envisioned - with balanced teams and a variety of chassis playing out in less predictable ways.

So... keep tweaking the underpowered weapons up. Tweak the PPC & ERPPC down, and implement SOME form of weight balancing. I personally think a distributed weight cap of 65 tons/player for any group drop would be sweet, and bring out a lot of team variety. But really, this doesn't matter so much how it's accomplished, just that something is done (release lobby mode?).