1263 replies to this topic

[Atak Snajpera]

I will say it again and again.
Heat damage at 150% percent is ultra unrealistic!
MECH MUST TAKE DAMAGE FROM 110%!!! PERIOD

Here is example
My CPU shuts down at 100 C in order to avoid damage to internal structure.
So this means 150 C would kill internal structure in blink of the eye.

In MWO computer shuts down your mech at 100% even if internal components/structure can survive up to 150% percent!
This only shows that "engineers" in mechwarrior world are R_e_T_A_R_D_e_D. They basicly waste 50%. That extra 50% means longer fire / more damage to enemy mech.

PPC boating should fixed by restoring previous HEAT LEVELS for that weapon! Do not waste your time for some new hard to understand heat system!!!!

KEEP IT as SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE !!!

Edited by Atak Snajpera, 15 June 2013 - 04:34 AM.

[Necroconvict]

Well we know it won't be exact to table top, but each weapon causes a certain amount of heat. Using Jump Jets, also causes a certain amount of heat. Moving, hopefully at different speeds will also cause a varied heat level. (as in table top there is Walking speed, and Running speed for 1 heat, and 2 heat generated.) You add them together, to see where your heat ends up. For table top, as there are pauses, it is really easy. Here online, it has to be a pain to actually code that kind of stuff in. Your heat sinks in table top absorb how much heat you create each round.

So if we look at the Quickdraw 4G from the basic handbook, it has an LRM 10 (4 heat) SRM 4 (3 heat) and 4 medium lasers (3 heat each, 2 are rear facing) it has 13 single heat sinks. If it fires all of its weapons that is 19 heat, if it is running, that is an additional 2 heat, for 21. Subtract the 13 heat produced because of heat sinks, and it just went over on heat by 8. Per table top it looks like 30 over is max. At 8 over heat your heat sinks, you just lowered your ability to aim, and slowed down your movement distance/speed for the next round. Going hotter eventually gives massive negatives to moving, and to aiming your weapons, as well as chances to shut down, and cause any ammo that can explode to explode. At 30 heat over your cooling ability you shut down guaranteed.

Now here we add in override, and that's cool. We should just suffer from taking engine damage... or since we still don't have engine damage I guess structure damage from running such high heat. I would think at 10 to at most 15 over (putting your heat at 40 - 45 past your heat sinks) should constitute as some form of engine/structure damage. A few times doing that and BOOM! Firing 4-6 PPCs at 90% heat, is gonna feel real good for both players.

Edited by Necroconvict, 15 June 2013 - 08:13 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

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.

Then figure out why people alwas want to use the same damn thing and remove that reason.

Why do people always want to boat?

Because it's simple.
- All weapons fire at the same time.
- They have the same projectile speed or beam duration.
- If you fire them together, you hit the same spot with every weapon and can deal massive damage.

Options:
1) Remove / Limit Group-Fire.
You don't fire weapons together any more, at least not for single shot projectile weapons (AC/s, U/ACs, PPCs, Gauss). When a weapon of the restricted type is fired, all other weapons of the restricted type immediately go on a 0.25 cooldown.
Fixed Problems:
* Single Spot Damage

2) Standardize Fire Rates / Recycle Times (this means Cooldown + Duration)
Boil it down to 2 to 4 fire rates, ideally so that the highers are multiplies of the faster ones.
Say, one weapon fires every second. The next every 2 seconds. The next type every 4 seconds. Most weapons are already operating in these ballparks, and those that do not often suck.
Fixed Problems:
* Mixing weapons screws up weapon rotation

3) Standardize Projectile Speeds and Beam Durations
Boil beam duration down to two types. 0.5 seconds beam duration and 1 second beam duration.
Boil Projectile Speeds down to 3 types. Fast (Current AC/2/PPC Speed) and Medium (Current AC/10 Speed), Slow (SRM). Maybe a 4th for LRMs, since LRMs don't need lead.
* Mixing weapons screws up lead times and time to hold on enemy.


You can still build a Dual AC/20 boat. But you still need to fire each seperately, so no 40 damage alphas anymore. ANd if you mixed an AC/20 and 2 Large Lasers, you would probably fire on a 4 second cycle, so the weapon rotation is easy on your kinetic memory.

Quote

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.

The operative word for me here is "currently in the game": I want a solution that's reasonably future-proof, and if I can already dig out a list of mechs that could be problematic in the future, I see this just as not future proof.

And I also find it extremely questionable if you say that a slot normally holding a Large Laser should be completely incapable of carrying a PPC.
If you downgrade a weapon in one hard point, you need a way to upgrade it somewhere else. If you can't do that, you end up under-weight and undergunned. That basically means taking away a huge amount of customization, and all because the game system can't handle 4 PPCs in one boat?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 June 2013 - 08:50 AM.

[Marchant Consadine]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 June 2013 - 12:13 AM, said:

Sorry but no. 100% is an absolute value of whatever the total is. There is never such a thing as more than 100%.
*snip*
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using percentages greater
than 100%. Whether this makes sense depends entirely on the context. *snip*

Contradict yourself much? The latter is actually exactly what I was trying to say to you.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 June 2013 - 12:13 AM, said:

Now, this may seem off-topic. But it's not.
*snip*
If its still over your head, go back to school.

Yes this is off topic. I'm already back in school, should be getting my masters in math around this time next year.

[MustrumRidcully]

Kattspya, on 15 June 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Who in PGI thought it was a good idea to bring in more variables when you can't even balance what variables you have? This is already as complex a balance job as any game I've ever played and you think more complexity will help with balance? That is maybe not insanse but just very inept. Have you learned nothing? Do you know nothing?

Game Design by Jon Snow?

[Five by Five]

Eliminating group fire just shifts weapon usage towards fewer heavy weapons and away for many light weapons. Take 2 PPC vs 4 medium lasers. There's a 1/2 delay in chain fire right now, but even without that, there's still the difference between 2 trigger clicks or 4. At the moment, you can do 20 in .5 seconds with 2 PPC in chainfire, first fires +.5 and the second fires. How long does it take to get the same damage out with the 4 medium lasers in chain fire mode?

Well, you still have an alpha strike,.... but who wants to alpha medium and LRMs when your target is at 125 meters? And heck, I often fire my LRMs chain fire anyway.....

And if they eliminate the .5 second wait between weapons in chainfire, well lots of folks can always write a macro to press the trigger in what ever pattern and spacing they want,..... sucks to be new, not script, or not have access to something that makes macros easy.

I still like the make the shutdowns last longer so they are an effective time-out penalty.

The weight balance is a great idea, and would likely work well in full pug matches, but if there are a couple of 3 or 4 player pre-mades dropping, then it becomes a lot harder to balance the weight lower. What happens when 4 guys drop together with 400 tons? Doable, but if it is feasible depends entirely the make-up of the players and groups dropping into matches.

Ever heard of the book Nudge , rather than trying to shove a solution, instead find ways to nudge the behavior in a different direction. Find something like XP, GXP, or CBill bonus for weight killed (weight deferential killed, you light they heavy) or lack of weight dropped with into game, to encourage greater use of lighter (lights and mediums) mechs. I'm grinding for C-Bills at the moment,..... do I take my founders Jenner or founders Atlas,.... which one is going to get me more C-Bills quicker? Start to see why there are so many assaults running around?

Edited by Five by Five, 15 June 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[AndyHill]

Removing group fire would probably encourage people to use the bigger weapons more, but I don't know if it's necessarily a bad thing. The smaller weapons (med laser) tend to be more efficient as far as tonnage and heat go anyway, so they have some advantages. With no group fire, the cooldowns should probably be much longer (for example closer to the 10 seconds in the TT game) so that 9MLAS boats for example would still have a reason to exist.

Of course, weapons like the AC20 could fire a stream of 5 or 10 rounds, PPCs would have beam duration and so on. But even if the real pinpoint alpha power would still be in AC20, I think it would be a step towards the right direction, because it's a close range weapon with a built-in drawback right there. Gauss would be the evil outlier, but I bet it would be an easier balancing problem than anything based on what we have at the moment. At least it might be more of trying to get a single weapon to fall into line instead of trying to make a myriad of different combinations not break the game when fired in unison. Even if as unbalanced as the current game, at least gameplay would be a good bit less instant alpha-oriented and the battles would last longer with 'mechs falling to bits a bit more like in BTech fluff.

[Hythos]

http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_energy says hi!

Energy can not be magically created. Heat, is energy. Efficiency is one thing, but the inverse of what you (PGI) is proposing would be true: The proposed heat-scale would be normal. As such, firing less than the maximum (under the new rule), would generate less heat per weapon.

In your example, firing 9ML would generate 56 heat, at ~6.22 heat per weapon. The only justification (while heat is currently 4?) would be to declare that firing less than X-amount becomes more efficient, thus dropping the heat-generation values to the currently fixed values. Else, I can not support their argument and Heat-scale Changes need to be dealt with in another manner, so saith, Physics.

Edited by Hythos, 15 June 2013 - 12:05 PM.

[Lord Rip]

Kunae, on 11 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

10+10+15=35, NOT 25.

And being pin-point, it is high.

Not to mention that the 6 ML alpha has MUCH less range.

[Lord Rip]

How about limiting group fire to only smaller weapons and large weapons in the SAME location?

[ToxicSocksWarrior]

Come on!!! I'm right here. What are you waiting for, Nerf me, Do it now!!! Come on... Come on! Do it! Come on... Nerf me! I'm here! Nerf me! I'm here! Nerf me! Come on! Nerf me! I'm here! Do it now! Nerf me!

[Nik Reaper]

ToxicSocksWarrior, on 15 June 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Come on!!! I'm right here. What are you waiting for, Nerf me, Do it now!!! Come on... Come on! Do it! Come on... Nerf me! I'm here! Nerf me! I'm here! Nerf me! Come on! Nerf me! I'm here! Do it now! Nerf me!

It's such an obvious trap , they are not falling for it ... need more bait X) .

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

ToxicSocksWarrior, on 15 June 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Come on!!! I'm right here. What are you waiting for, Nerf me, Do it now!!! Come on... Come on! Do it! Come on... Nerf me! I'm here! Nerf me! I'm here! Nerf me! Come on! Nerf me! I'm here! Do it now! Nerf me!

Do it Bennett! Throw away that chicken-**** gun. Nerf me with a knife.

[Deathlike]

Splitpin, on 14 June 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Totally agree Dino. Why does weight continue to be ignored in all these discussions? To me weight is the most and first fundamental balance in the game. We can argue back and forward for example trying to justify the existence of the Awesome giving it tweaks and quirks to make it viable whereas it's whole reason of existence is that it carries a sh*tton of energy weapons while being the cheapest Assault in terms of weight. Give that 10 or 20 tons back to the rest of the team and it starts to make sense. Balance, it's a concept involving weight fundamentally.

Are we talking about weight balance in terms of team construction or weight balance in terms of weapons?

If it's the latter, you're not going to convince people of it (plus it breaks all stock considerations). Personally, I can't see that changing ever (plus it annoys TT fans like mocking their dice rolls).

If it's the former, it's doable when tonnage limits were instituted in league play in older MW games for obvious reasons to address this. Technically, it can't hurt this game too much by attempting it, but there should be more effort into buffing the med class because if we knew the distribution of players of the chassis weights they have been fielding, they are well north of 65 tons average.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 June 2013 - 04:43 PM.

[Necroconvict]

Nik you can't repost that crap, it gets me to excited, now I have to change my shorts.

[cyberFluke]

Erm... Random thought... Why not simply remove *all* convergence from weapons, unless chain firing? Seriously, would that not fix our problem here?

I must be missing something...

[Goldhawk]

After reading this tonight I guess I understand why tonight everyone has been running a PPC stalker. I have a vague idea of what much of the techno babble means, but essentually, the possible heat scale goes up to 150%, Multiple weapons will be tougher to boat, and the Ac/20 rat builds that propagate many matches will not be addressed. Crazy thought, if the heat scale exceeds perhaps 120%, the mech goes boom.

[DeaconW]

Goldhawk, on 15 June 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Ac/20 rat builds

What are those?

[Dirus Nigh]

I think this is just bad idea all around. You lowerd the heat on PPCs and large lasers now you are giving a gimicky heat tax because people started boating those weapons.

Why not raise the heat back to the closed beta levels? PPCs 10 heat, ER PPC 13 heat, LL 8 ER LL 12 (or was it 10-11).

What exactly is the shut down threshold on mechs? is it 30 plus number of heat sinks over 10? why not make it a flat number across the board? say 30, 35, or 40.

Why not try this first instead of creating whole new complicated systems just so you can punish boating. Why not implement heat effects like speed reduction, target computer delays, and reduced torso and arm movement?

Explain to me why this is necessary.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 15 June 2013 - 08:13 PM.

[Dracol]

Dirus Nigh, on 15 June 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

I think this is just bad idea all around. You lowerd the heat on PPCs and large lasers now you are giving a gimicky heat tax because people started boating those weapons.

Why not raise the heat back to the closed beta levels? PPCs 10 heat, ER PPC 13 heat, LL 8 ER LL 12 (or was it 10-11).

<snip>

Explain to me why this is necessary.

Increasing heat on said weapons would affect all builds whether or not they carry multiples. IMHO, it seems PGI is happy how non-boated builds are performing.

In order to maintain the non-boat performance, an adjustment directed specifically at boat builds is required.

Edited by Dracol, 15 June 2013 - 08:20 PM.