176 replies to this topic

[Kaldor]

Skyfaller, on 12 June 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Umm..that's basically what I'm suggesting is done to the DHS.

The only problem I really have with it is that its so far from canon, the purists will b_itch about it forever. Im not one of those people. You are also creating a separate system that likely needs to be built from scratch. What me and others have suggested is a simple numbers change. Another consideration is that doubles are supposed to be an upgrade, not a sidegrade. The other thing is that some mechs physically have to use singles to make their builds work. My Commandos come to mind with this as I have crit slot issues with them as I need to use FF and Endo to make the build work and heat is not as big of a concern.

Skyfaller, on 12 June 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Actually yes you do. The only reason you claim you're a good shot is because you're using high damage instant application weapons like projectiles and PPCs. There is no way you can come here and claim you can keep a large laser aimed at the RT of a mech for the duration of the lase as you move and it moves. This 'good shot' of yours is literally your misconception of the results of game mechanics stacked to favor your not-so-skillful ability to click when your aimpoint is at a certain location. Why? Because 4 PPCs (as an example) hitting the same armor section (even if they miss the armor spot you were aiming for) still apply significant damage to the enemy mech and greatly contributes to its destruction.

I never said that I could do that with a LL, but Im pretty sure I can hold it for at least 50% of the duration on a single location at 500m. The only time I would retract that statement is when shooting at a light from a long range, as would most of us. Ballistic weapons are somewhat easier as they front load, but even that is tough when trying to hit a specific location from outside 500m. Basically what Im saying is dont penalize me when I have someone dead to rights, and then suddenly I get a flier because the game decides I should miss. I miss well enough on my own.

The other side of the coin is that is will really hurt bad players, and I see plenty of them. You know, the guys that are running mice with DPI set way too high, or a really cheap joystick, or maybe they are just bad. When they finally do get their shot, then they get a flier. What do you say to them? QQ MOAR?

Skyfaller, on 12 June 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Heat is indeed half of the problem. Tell me though, do you think the PPC/AC20/GAUSS boating would be effective if they didn't all hit in one location? Again, these are all instant-damage application weapons not lasers that deliver damage over 1 second time. They would not plain and simple.

For example, if I use the jager-DD macro on a 6 PPC stalker...making it so that when I click all 6 ppcs WILL fire ..but they will fire 0.3 seconds apart... here's what will happen:

Heat-wise the six PPCs firing so close together means the stalker will still generate the same total heat as if all were fired at once (give or take 2% due to the added up delay). So no real change to heat as an issue there.

Damage wise however.... instead of all six slapping 60 damage into the CT of the moving enemy mech, the 0.3 delay makes the PPCs hit the CT, the LT, the arm and probably the last 2 ppcs in the firing sequence will miss. Using this macro effectively makes the 6 ppc stalker into a useless pile of junk because it cant dump all damage on one spot in one hit. Thats why BOATING and ALPHA striking is all about.

This is the CORE REASON for the game's current issue with boated weapons. Heat issues come into play AFTER the pinpoint fire problem... because it enables multiple such pinpoint hits to be fired before heat shutdown. That is why heat mechanics need to be changed at the source: The heatsink heat cap and dissipation rather than applying heat penalties or changing heat costs of weapons all over the place.

We agree here, the heat system is currently f_cked. The difference of opinion is how it should be changed. The system I suggest kills 2 birds with a single stone as it forces people to NOT alpha fire as they dont have the capacity for it, and if they go over capacity, they need to take a penalty such as damage. Alpha needs to be an emergency or an every once in awhile thing, not the norm.

Roland, on 12 June 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Oh, I'm a big fan of the shooter aspect of the game, and I like being able to headshot mechs on a fairly routine basis.

But at the same time, I also realize that it's a core source of frustration for a large portion of the player base.

Even if they introduced some mechanism by which my weapons spread if I fired a bunch at once, I'd still be able to adapt and be effective.

Headshots are wonderful. I love being called a cheater. See my comment about randomizing shots above though.

[Damocles69]

If they are so dead set on this approach it needs to be done on a per chassie basis. Some mechs are simply designed to be boats. Let them boat the weapons they where deisinged. To boat. Awesoms(ppcs or missiles) HBK+4P(lasers) Jaggermechs(ballistics) stalkers(lasers and missiles) lets celebrate what makes certain mechs unique instead of making cookie cutter builds for em.

Example- the catapult K2
Let it fire 2 ppcs and 2 laser weapons without a heat penalty. Once they start mounting excessive amounts of either of these weapons cause heat penalties. In addtion, if it mount 2 AC20s there should be heat penalties as this is the Jaggermech's job. Gauss throws a wrench into this plan because it is already so low heat but this is a start

[Roland]

Quote

My apologies, my posts are intended to be read and interpreted by those posessing sentience.

Is this like when you claimed to have an IQ higher than my cholesterol?
(which means either I would have exceptionally awesome cholesterol levels, or you would be the smartest human being on earth, given that the average cholesterol for most people is around 200)

Quote

the 6PPC stalker may not be able to put all 6 of his PPCs on the component he is targetting (he already can't, normally) - but he is still going to be able to put a good spatter across a target at 800 meters (not that he's been doing much movement).

As we've seen before, you don't really seem to grasp what good pilots are able to do.

A good player most certainly CAN hit a specific component of your mech at long range. At 800m, a good pilot can definitely do more than simply hit you somewhere on your mech. Perhaps you aren't able to do this, but OTHER folks can.

Simply spraying that damage all over his mech, especially if the different weapons hit DIFFERENT locations, would constitute a huge reduction on that mech's combat effectiveness.

[Aim64C]

General Taskeen, on 12 June 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

There never will be a more restricted hardpoint system to the person that mentioned it earlier as a "fix." That would mean the modelers are currently and have wasted their time making all hardpoints 3D modular based on the weapon that is placed there. This is slowly being added to the game. Basically you have to tell the Devs to "Hey, stop working on 3D Modulation, and then make more hardpoint restrictions, and also scrap all that work you already did for 3D Modulation."

No, it doesn't mean their efforts have been wasted.

It means PGI was incompetent and stupid for not seeing the obvious outcome of their poor decisions. It means they ignored the obvious when they decided to embrace the extremes of hardpoint abuse and decide to spend resources "making AC20s from a machine gun look right" - when they should have been questioning that to begin with.

They should be more worried about making a game that is suitable for release. Eye-candy can be introduced just before the official release (which is going to have to be pushed back, at this point, ... though I really don't know what would make it a real 'launch' ... it's not like waves of new people are going to be joining up - we're looking at about all the player base PGI can expect to support at any given time).

There is a reason Mech 4 abandoned the old critical system as it became apparent in MechWarrior 3 that infinite customization and the growing multiplayer aspect of games made for impossible weapon balance scenarios. If you nerf weapons so that their extreme-boated solutions aren't one-shot kills (or damned near) - then you make them next to useless when employed more moderately (rather than a weapon that should evoke a bit of caution even if it is only mounted as a single).

[Aim64C]

Roland, on 12 June 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

As we've seen before, you don't really seem to grasp what good pilots are able to do.

*rolls eyes*

Quote

A good player most certainly CAN hit a specific component of your mech at long range. At 800m, a good pilot can definitely do more than simply hit you somewhere on your mech. Perhaps you aren't able to do this, but OTHER folks can.

"Can" and "should be expected" are two different things. Perhaps my own wording was at fault as I was considering more specific scenarios.

The nature of 3d weapon convergence (even if it is pinpoint) when the components are converging from separate firing locations is for them to not hit a 3d object evenly as they strike areas that are not aligned with the plane that served as the convergence point.

This affects different chassis differently (both firing and receiving) - but the point is that you'll often get one or two PPCs of the 6 that like to spatter about on other sections - particularly at closer ranges, where the shots simply can't converge on the same section of armor due to the separation on the firing chassis.

Quote

Simply spraying that damage all over his mech, especially if the different weapons hit DIFFERENT locations, would constitute a huge reduction on that mech's combat effectiveness.

A good pilot should still be able to get solid center-mass shots, which is distributing that damage across the torso sections. Less insta-lethal - but still more effective than an LRM60 barrage at the same range.

[Ningyo]

I do agree with you mostly, although whether it would be a problem for some weapons depends on the number allowed before a heat penalty (4xUAC/5 before penalty would allow you to burst fire 2 continuously I think, so only 3 UAC/5 builds would be hit.)

I agree with convergence.

On heatsinks I agree except I think Single heatsinks should only raise heat threshold by 1-1.5, not 2. you can put a ton of them on a mech and would end up with truly insane heat thresholds in some cases (4ppc Atlas with 40 single heatsinks type builds)

[Galenit]

Jasen, on 12 June 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

The game sucks, will always do so as long as amateur gamers are in charge of balance.

Wow, there are profi-gamers?
You can make money with playing mwo?

Time played help to understand some mechanics of the game,
but reading the spreadsheets can do the same for some.
As there are people out there that never will understand anything,
no matter how long they play or look on the spreadsheets.

Balancing in games is done with spreadsheets, math and graphs,
then you test "the feel" of it ingame.

Edited by Galenit, 12 June 2013 - 07:25 AM.

[Skyfaller]

Aim64C, on 12 June 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

It's due to the ****-poor hardpoint system that already contributes heavily to the "I need to use the biggest weapon I can fit here or I get cheated out of firepower" problem.

Then tell me why are 6 LL stalkers not anywhere near as effective as 6 PPC stalkers? The damage difference is only 6dmg since the LL does 1dmg less than the PPC. 6 damage isn't that big of a deal when you're talking about pumping 54 ~ 60 damage per alpha.

Here's why: The LL is not instantly applied damage. LL's always spread damage across the target (unless both mechs stand still). Why is the PPC better than the LL then? All damage is applied to ONE spot at once. The only thing that makes it deadly is the pinpoint aiming through convergence not the fact that the weapon delivers all its damage at once.

SRM 6's do 9 damage total. The damage applied is instant just like a projectile. Why then does using 4 SRM6's suck compared to using even just 2 PPCs (range differences aside)? The damage is spread around the mech not pinpoint.

Are you understanding the concept now?

Quote

Agree, somewhat - though the main reason this is a difficult concept to balance is because weapons that deal 10 points of damage on contact with the target can be stacked on in numbers that are incredibly high.

Convergence isn't necessarily -the- problem to be addressed, here.

Stacking the damage of those 10 point damage weapons in one location is achieved through convergence.

Quote

I don't see how that's going to fix high-alpha builds. So my 6-Medium Laser Jenner damn near shuts down with a single shot. No biggie - I just run off and wait for the target to forget about me and return.

The 6PPC stalker? Who cares about DOT when you can blast the guy in the face with 60 points of damage before he even realizes he's made a mistake?

If your Jenner used single heatsinks under my proposal, you would have enough heat capacity to fire 2 or 3 alphas but your cool-down time would be horrendously high if you max your heat up. With DHS on the other hand, you could fire only one alpha and then have to wait until your entire heat meter cooled down (relatively quickly) to near zero before firing another.

This is where my 2 suggestions work together: If you SHS your jenner and your 6 med lasers criss cross the target (convergence cone system) for the 2 alphas you can fire off (SHS double capacity bonus) then youd have to run away and wait quite some time before you cool down to the point where you can fire one more alpha. If you DHS it, you can fire the one alpha with the damage (your max heat cap limit) also criss-crossing target (convergence cone system) and zoom off and cool down to fire another alpha in much, much less time than the SHS mech would have to wait. Essentially, you would be delivering the same damage in the same total time with both heatsink systems..the big difference is the SHS allows you to unload both alphas up front and the DHS allows you to cool fast enough to fire the one alpha and then switch to chain fire and keep sustained fire that way..while the SHS jenner would not be able to sustain fire in chain fire mode as it cant cool down that fast.

Quote

Light mechs will be all kinds of gimped, and everything will turn into turrett battles. Anything approaching mobile combat will be reduced to missiles and face-humping.

Why? Because everyone is going to be standing around to make sure their weapons hit.

On the contrary. Lights would get the best benefit from this system. The closer you are the less convergence narrowing you need to ensure you hit the mech (not pinpoint but just hit it). Lights excel at closing in quickly. Heavier mechs since they travel slower would have to either close in with the target while at full speed or slow down to narrow their cones of fire.

Think of it as:

Full speed: cone expanded so at 1km the weapon has very low chance to hit (1~5%)
50% speed: cone narrowed so at 1km the weapon has 50% chance to hit.
25% speed: cone narrowed so at 1km the weapon has 75% chance to hit the mech.

The shorter the range between mechs, the higher the chance to hit when at full speed. As a bonus, this also means the shorter range weapons 'start' with their chances to hit at their max range much higher than the larger weapons with long range start off at. This means a medium laser fired at 270m while at full speed receives a much higher to-hit bonus than an ER PPC at 800m. Simply because at 270m range at full speed the medium laser starts off with a 70%'ish chance of hitting the target.

So yes, this means the long range weapons need to be fire when traveling slow or standing still so they can hit the mech (not a specific armor section) at long range. Short range weapons are practically guaranteed to hit if you 'aim' the convergence cone indicator to encompass the enemy mech because the cone would be narrow enough by then.

Quote

The best way to fix this game is to implement a more sophisticated hardpoint system that prevents the 'boating' of weapons that are oddly placed in battletech, to begin with. The PPC is a perfect example - it's a "small" and very light weapon for the damage it does. That's fine - except that you can put high numbers of PPCs on mechs and make it practical in a design that would have been making very severe compromises in tabletop.

Fix the hardpoint issue. Then we can talk about whether or not other things need to be changed.

The hardpoint issue cannot be solved. It must not. If you start forcing mechs to equip only certain sized weapons you kill off any build flexibility that exists. Mechs would become cookie cutter templates and just plain not fun. No variety.

Even if you did somehow put in a hardpoint limitation system you still will have the same boating problem because convergence still allows all weapons in the mech to hit one location. As long as boating can happen it will. Even if it is mixing medium and small weapons..the added damage applied to one location is the real problem.

[Galenit]

Roland, on 12 June 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Simply spraying that damage all over his mech, especially if the different weapons hit DIFFERENT locations, would constitute a huge reduction on that mech's combat effectiveness.

Thats true,
but its also true that the tt system is balanced about random hit location.

In tt 4 ac5 do 5 damage to 4 locations in 10 seconds.
In mwo the 4 ac5 do 130 damage to 1 location in 10 seconds.
We have double armor but a lot more damage and no spread.

Bringing random hit location would be to much for this game,
but a cone of fire depending on aimtime, speed, enemyspeed and convergence would do a lot.

And no, it punishes not good aim, it rewards it.
No point and click anymore,
you have to hold your aim for a small time to hit the targeted location for sure.

Lets repeat a simple example:
Whats easier to do:
A: Train an ape to press a button when the red circle is over the moving red dot.
B: Train an ape to hold a big red circle over a moving red dot until the circle shrinks to the space of the dot and then press the button.

Edited by Galenit, 12 June 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[Skyfaller]

Roland, on 12 June 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

. A good player most certainly CAN hit a specific component of your mech at long range. At 800m, a good pilot can definitely do more than simply hit you somewhere on your mech. Perhaps you aren't able to do this, but OTHER folks can. Simply spraying that damage all over his mech, especially if the different weapons hit DIFFERENT locations, would constitute a huge reduction on that mech's combat effectiveness.

He can aim for a specific component if the enemy mech is not moving or moving slowly and neither is the shooter. Its called sniping. No pilot however good he claims to be can hit the same location twice from long range on a moving, torso turning target. Variables are too many and luck plays more a role than aiming skill.

The thing is, the 6ppc boat can shoot at max range and the majority of the damage is applied to one armor section. The 2nd alpha may not hit the same location but it is still inflicting very heavy damage to ONE armor location. The mech that is hit in two places by two different six-PPC bursts is now very vulnerable even to laser-crisscrossing damage since he has 2 armor sections that are basically about to fall off. That is the pinpoint fire boating problem.

Now imagine.. heck not imagine just WITNESS in the game now when you see four or five enemy mechs boating 3 ppc or more equivalent of projectile/ppc damage at a couple of mechs on your team as they cross an open area. Your friendly mechs usually end up with one or more armor sections in the red while the rest of their armor is all nice and green. That is pinpoint damage boating problem.

In a scenario where a mech meets a 6 PPC stalker around a corner @200m range the stalker with poinpoint accuracy fire can pump 60 dmg into whatever section it hits. That is an instant red armor section for most mechs..and instant death to others. If that 6 ppc mech on the other hand, fired and the six ppcs hit the mech full on but in multiple locations (convergence cone) then he still is inflicting heavy damage but not fully pinpoint.

Think about it some more. If my suggested system of convergence cone plus torso weapons firing straight ahead plus arm weapons being the only ones that fully converge (can poinpoint when fully aimed) what do you get?

Chassis personality.

Lets take a stalker as an example. The Misery since it has the most unique setup.

The CT energy weapon needs not wait for convergence cone. The laser will fire straight where the torso aimpoint is. The gauss on the side torso too does not have to wait for convergence..but the pilot has to know the round will hit just a little to the side and up from where the CT laser is hitting. The 4 arm mounted energy weapons on the other hand (most likely the 4 PPCs!) when fired at max un-aimed convergence cone would see the ppc rounds hit at random locations (or miss depending on distance)...but if the PPCs were fully aimed the Misery could land 4 ppc+1 large laser (assuming that whats in there) worth of damage in one spot and the gauss round hits just a bit off to the side..which the pilot could adjust by firing the energy weps and then the ballistic by swinging/aiming the ballistic to the same spot the energy weapons hit.

[armyof1]

A couple of things I've read from people against the heat penalty system I think needs to be addressed

1) Just up the heat on PPC/ERPPC
That is not a good idea at all. If I run a 1-2 PPCs on a lighter mech that can't carry the extra DHS I also get punished and a few PPCs is not a problem whatsoever and should not get any penalty.

2) Add convergence issues (again)
Also a bad idea, it was one of the most annoying things when it was around that you can't be able to shoot where you're aiming but have to get past a delay before you can shoot straight. Once again it punishes all kinds of mid- to long-range shooting, whether it's one AC10 or 6 PPC. It was horrible when it was in function before and bringing it back won't make it one ounce better.

There are of course some values that needs to be tweaked and changed around as we get to test how it works, but if done well it can cut down on the worst alpha-blasting and not make individual weapons worse when not fired in huge amounts at the same time.

[Felbombling]

Aim64C, on 12 June 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Then your cone of fire mechanic is not going to be useful in preventing alpha-strike dominance.

If I can still be accurate enough at 150 meters to put medium lasers roughly on the torso section I am pointing at while dashing at over 100 kph with very high angular velocities involved... then the 6PPC stalker may not be able to put all 6 of his PPCs on the component he is targetting (he already can't, normally) - but he is still going to be able to put a good spatter across a target at 800 meters (not that he's been doing much movement).

The highlander is in the same boat with his gauss rifle and ppc complement.

Which means the mechanic is largely useless to address the problem.

If you insert a cone of fire that is useful in addressing the problem, then you are either standing to make your cone of fire useful - or you're just running up, point-blank, and shotgunning away.

You are missing one important point, and that is exposure. Right now a six PPC Stalker, to use your example, can crest a hill, fire, and back off... with 100% pin-point accuracy. The aim-mechanic would create a situation where the Stalker would crest the hill... aim... fire and then back down off the hill. It is the guaranteed pin-point accuracy that is protecting the Stalker and reducing exposure to the enemy. The current pin-point accuracy in every and all situations doesn't need to be maintained for MWO to be interesting and tactical.

[Galenit]

StaggerCheck, on 12 June 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

The current pin-point accuracy in every and all situations doesn't need to be maintained for MWO to be interesting and tactical.

It removes the thinking part and make it just point and click.

[CancR]

They need to bring back death by over heating. When there that fear of insta dying from overheating to many times no one ran a too hot build for very long.

[Megalosauroid]

Making weapons less accurate through randomness will nerf autocannon and make everyone energy boat again. You already cant carry enough ammo to last the full match if you're in the thick of it, and thats while you can aim properly.

[grayson marik]

I second OP's suggestion 100%

[Tezcatli]

I agree with your weapon convergence idea. If you wanna deliver it all in one spot, you should have to sit, wait for your weapons to converge on the same point. At least then they have some disadvantage to doing this because they have to sit still and be vulnerable. Thus giving a brawler a better chance since he can get in closer and move around to throw it off.

Also. I could have sworn I heard it mentioned they were nerfing the AC20 ammo. Reducing the amount of ammo that can be carried per ton. But that might not be true.

However I do like their heat penalty idea. But in the case of AC2s and AC5s, I hope they don't hit them too hard, the AC5 is finally becoming a good weapon.

[Calamus]

Skyfaller, on 12 June 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

So, how to fix the game?

1- Re-work the heatsink mechanics. Make single heatsinks have 2.0 heat capacity and 1.0 dissipation while DHS have 1.0 heat capacity and 2.0 dissipation. The result is those who want to be able to fire 3 or 4 boated alphas before shutdown pay for doing so with a glacial cooling time. Those that pick DHS cant spam alpha because they dont have the heat capacity for it but they can cool weapons quickly which greatly benefits brawling chain fire.

This is an interesting idea. I think it comes too late though, because gaming companies don't usually change their minds once they have announced a change. I hope they read it and give it consideration though.

Quote

2- There is a way to remove pinpoint accuracy while still allowing the player to aim in 1st person shooter. World of Tanks uses it.

Simply put, there is a dispersion cone built into the aimpoint. The longer the aimpoint remains aimed at a certain range the narrower the cone becomes. If the aimpoint is moved around the dispersion cone expands.

This system alone turns MWO arcade into Battletech combat.

There are two ways to implement the system:

A- All weapons use the dispersion cone system.
B- Torso mounted weapons do not converge and instead fire straight ahead while arm weapons have the ability to converge.

Option B would make the game far more BT like as hit dispersion would be highest while still permitting pinpoint accuracy of arm mounted weapons IF they aim at a location long enough to narrow it down to where it has a high chance of both arm guns hitting the same armor plate. It would also make mechs with mobile hands have an advantage..which they did in BT.

I like this idea. Obviously PGI already has something like this with the pinpoint xp perk. It would be interesting to see them revamp that idea to something more like what you're talking about. Of course, with how they have built light mechs, I see what you're suggesting being yet another difficulty with the light mech brawlers. Especially once they increase the speed cap, like they've already announced they will be doing.

[armyof1]

Cone of fire in any shape or form adds nothing to the gameplay, it only add luck to it all. MWO is supposed to reward you not only for hitting a mech but for being able to hit specific mech parts to be most effective. And in all this we're going to put in a random generator is just counterproductive to the gameplay. It'll just end up with everyone aiming center mass and takes away the reward of not aiming center mass since you'll run a much higher risk of missing totally. It might not matter as much in other FPS where an assault rifle has 30+ ammo to spray, reload and spray again. But firing off weapons that take several seconds to "reload" and have them randomly hit or miss? Terrible idea.

[Aim64C]

Skyfaller, on 12 June 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Then tell me why are 6 LL stalkers not anywhere near as effective as 6 PPC stalkers? The damage difference is only 6dmg since the LL does 1dmg less than the PPC. 6 damage isn't that big of a deal when you're talking about pumping 54 ~ 60 damage per alpha.

Here's why: The LL is not instantly applied damage. LL's always spread damage across the target (unless both mechs stand still). Why is the PPC better than the LL then? All damage is applied to ONE spot at once. The only thing that makes it deadly is the pinpoint aiming through convergence not the fact that the weapon delivers all its damage at once.

SRM 6's do 9 damage total. The damage applied is instant just like a projectile. Why then does using 4 SRM6's suck compared to using even just 2 PPCs (range differences aside)? The damage is spread around the mech not pinpoint.

Are you understanding the concept now?

I understood it to begin with.

The current hardpoint system allows 6ppcs to exist. It is the far superior weapon system to fit into that energy hardpoint.

If that energy hardpoint could not fit a weapon as large as the PPC, or could only fit one PPC where two large lasers used to be - things would be different.

Quote

Stacking the damage of those 10 point damage weapons in one location is achieved through convergence.

Being able to deal 60 points of contact damage to begin with should be the first thing that needs to be looked at.

Should weapon damage be reduced?

Probably not - that makes the PPC a weapon that is 'designed to boat' - meaning that you balance around some of its most extreme applications... which makes less numerous applications less than balanced.

Which leads us to why these designs are dealing so much contact damage to begin with... the fact that you can put 6 of these particle cannons on a single chassis. If only a few mechs could mount 3+ - such as the Awesome - things would be back to doing more reasonable damage and the balancing factor to the weapon is its restrictive size (even though the critical system and tonnage are supposed to reflect this - it really doesn't do a very good job in some cases).

The current hardpoint system will always favor the PPC, even under your mechanic. Not only do your lasers not converge properly - but you also have to hold them on target. At least if the PPC hits in a spattered pattern, it is applying all of its damage instantly.

The PPC will always be one of the premier energy weapons - it's kind of supposed to be (like how the Gauss rifle is the creme of the crop when it comes to ballistics).

Quote

If your Jenner used single heatsinks under my proposal, you would have enough heat capacity to fire 2 or 3 alphas but your cool-down time would be horrendously high if you max your heat up. With DHS on the other hand, you could fire only one alpha and then have to wait until your entire heat meter cooled down (relatively quickly) to near zero before firing another.

Which is exactly what I said I'd do - and it wouldn't be a major problem to my play-style. The difference would be in battling another light - where I'd link-fire with less penalty than I do now.

Quote

This is where my 2 suggestions work together: If you SHS your jenner and your 6 med lasers criss cross the target (convergence cone system) for the 2 alphas you can fire off (SHS double capacity bonus) then youd have to run away and wait quite some time before you cool down to the point where you can fire one more alpha. If you DHS it, you can fire the one alpha with the damage (your max heat cap limit) also criss-crossing target (convergence cone system) and zoom off and cool down to fire another alpha in much, much less time than the SHS mech would have to wait. Essentially, you would be delivering the same damage in the same total time with both heatsink systems..the big difference is the SHS allows you to unload both alphas up front and the DHS allows you to cool fast enough to fire the one alpha and then switch to chain fire and keep sustained fire that way..while the SHS jenner would not be able to sustain fire in chain fire mode as it cant cool down that fast.

Your suggestion actually makes a reason to use single heat-sinks over double heat-sinks (since engine heat-sinks make DHS overwhelmingly superior). I'm not entirely against this idea.

It just doesn't change much in regards to alphas that pack the potential to one-shot some mechs. Who cares how long it takes you to cool down if they are still 600 meters out and have had their lance virtually cut in half?

Quote

On the contrary. Lights would get the best benefit from this system. The closer you are the less convergence narrowing you need to ensure you hit the mech (not pinpoint but just hit it). Lights excel at closing in quickly. Heavier mechs since they travel slower would have to either close in with the target while at full speed or slow down to narrow their cones of fire.

I prefer to shoot while moving. It extends my survivability.

I also engage at anywhere from about 200 meters to 50 meters. Even if heavier mechs are suffering some aiming penalties - I don't want to be slowing down. Hell - if anything - the lack of convergence would benefit them when firing multiple weapons (as it would mean I'd be hit more frequently ... which on a light - means I'd probably die more quickly).

If weight of the weapon factored into the system of convergence, that might be better (lighter weapons able to adjust more quickly for convergence) - though I think the issue should be convergence adjustment more than just a random scatter-cone. It takes time for your weapons to crudely and finely adjust to the new distance you've targetted. Fire before they've had time to adjust and they converge in front of or behind the target.

Though that may actually be a worse idea in practice.

The main problem with the system you have is that it would be difficult to implement in a way that works at both short and long ranges. It, also, would still favor weapons like the PPC. Use of weapons at long ranges still has to be worthwhile and reasonably accurate, or the only way they get used is in boated extremes (because then you are just shooting a long range shotgun).

Quote

The hardpoint issue cannot be solved. It must not. If you start forcing mechs to equip only certain sized weapons you kill off any build flexibility that exists. Mechs would become cookie cutter templates and just plain not fun. No variety.

You're deluded.

There is no variability, now - particularly among heavies and assaults. Where two medium lasers could (and arguably should go to round out a design) - a PPC fits in. Where a small bank of small lasers could be - a large laser is the only sensible option (or nothing) as you can only fit one energy weapon to that part of the mech.

Quote

Even if you did somehow put in a hardpoint limitation system you still will have the same boating problem because convergence still allows all weapons in the mech to hit one location. As long as boating can happen it will. Even if it is mixing medium and small weapons..the added damage applied to one location is the real problem.

Lasers address this problem by requiring you to track your target. Ballistics, arguably, should be allowed to have this 'problem' because of the stupidly high critical requirements for even the smallest autocannon (not to mention the tonnage). You have to be pretty close and make considerable design sacrifices for the AC40 to be useful as a convergence weapon, anyway.

PPCs are part of the exception - to both of those, and it is why they dominate the current battlescape.

Addressing the hardpoint system gives you something more reasonable to balance convergence from.