50 replies to this topic

[Pater Mors]

I don't think it's comprehensive enough. As much as simplicity might appeal, this is not a simple game and fixing it's problems can't be done with simple solutions. All it would do is change the meta slightly but you'll still see plenty of boats and plenty of high damage Alpha's.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

Pater Mors, on 20 June 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

I don't think it's comprehensive enough. As much as simplicity might appeal, this is not a simple game and fixing it's problems can't be done with simple solutions. All it would do is change the meta slightly but you'll still see plenty of boats and plenty of high damage Alpha's.

The incremental approach worked very well for LRMs and imo for MGs as well.
Why not try this as a first step towards balance before suggesting that we take a hacksaw to the system or adding a whole new resource management scheme?

[Lightfoot]

I think MechWarrior invented the term Alpha-Strike, so forget taking it out. Alpha-Striking has drawbacks, normally your mech will shutdown and there is weapon spread if the target is moving. If the target is shutdown because it is a energy boat, let's say, well an alpha-strike will take it out because there is no weapon-spread on a stationary target.

MechWarrior uses hitboxes instead of fuzzy aim mechanics. If convergence is a major problem (ask the Devs) you fix it by shrinking hitboxes or perhaps overlapping them. That way you get the reward for good aiming, but the survivability of fuzzy aim/poor convergence. Be careful with this though, you're not going to like how much longer Assaults last compared to lighter mechs with any reduction of convergence.

PPCs are used frequently, but I promise you they are just barely viable compared to lasers. I can take less tonnage and heatsinks and get a 20% damage buff by using lasers instead of PPCs right now. I would remind you that in Closed Beta no one used PPCs except on Patch day and we had no long range game. It was more like huggy-mechs with massed AC20's and Medium Lasers.

[Pater Mors]

Duck Butter, on 20 June 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

The incremental approach worked very well for LRMs and imo for MGs as well.
Why not try this as a first step towards balance before suggesting that we take a hacksaw to the system or adding a whole new resource management scheme?

Oh I totally agree with that. I just think the solutions to the problem are deeper than the few mechanics changes listed in the OP. Heat, for a start, needs a huge overall and that is certainly not simple.

[Purlana]

Lightfoot, on 20 June 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

PPCs are used frequently, but I promise you they are just barely viable compared to lasers. I can take less tonnage and heatsinks and get a 20% damage buff by using lasers instead of PPCs right now.

Sure if you get into range and hold your laser on the target 100% of the time.

Or you can Alpha your PPCs and then duck into cover / torso twist.

Edited by Purlana, 20 June 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

CancR, on 20 June 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Maybe if you are really, really, really bad.

Seriously? Are you sure that is your counter-argument?

1) You're completely ignoring that match-making will try to match the teams in a match so that the chanes of winning or losing are 50 %. That doesn't mean you won't meet a lot of bad players - you could be the one guy raising the average of the team so it is considered equal to another set of mediocre players.
2) You're suggesting that good players are less affected by R&R than bad players. That will not just apply to stock mechs. That will apply also when they use the boats and all the mechs you consider cheese or FOTM. So you're suggesting that you're fine with good players using boats and cheese or FOTM?
3) You seem to be unwilling to consider that a good player could also use Premium Time to boost his C-Bill income, so that even against another good player, he will have a monetary advantage that he can turn into a competitive advantage by buying gear that is more expensive to maintain.

So what is the fracking point of Repair & Rearm? It doesn't seem to be fighting imbalanced builds with repair cost, because you just said that good players will be less affected by it, and even less if they also spend money on the game? Is that really what you want?

Is this the game you envision?
A game where Premium Subcribers and good plaers are raising the average of the team ELO so the can compensate for all the players that can't afford good mechs, plus all the farmers that intentionally use cheap mechs and the cheapest method to make more money without losing it until they can finally afford the mech they really want to play?

Oh the fun you'll have when one of your team mates is just running around, shooting at every enemy mech once, and then hiding behind the back of the Premiums to survive for a bit. The games where both sides have taken heavy losses and one player decides he doesn't need a costly repair bill and just retreats in a corner to let the enemy cap his team to the win, whiule you sit frustrated in your spectator seat after you sacrificed your mech in a vain attempt to turn the tide of the battle in your favor...

I say screw that. We don't need that.

[MustrumRidcully]

Voivode, on 20 June 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

PPC / ERPPC back to original 10/ 15 heat. Not even sure why they changed it. Also, if you shut down while boating ppcs, let the heat deal damage to the PPCs so you can literally disarm yourself by alpha striking all the time

1) PPC and ER PPC haven't been at 10/15 heat for a very, very long time.
2) The mathematical stupidity of the conversion of the game had to lead to such practical changes
Look back at the world of single heat sinks in Closed Beta.
TT:
AC/10 deals 10 damage in 10 seconds for 3 heat and 12 tons. YOu idel ytry to remove all heat from a weapon when making a mech, so each point of heat means you try to equip 1 heat sinks. (On your final build, you don't have to compensate all the heat that you could accumulate - but being 2-6 heat sinks short is pretty much the only thing you'd risk unless you have a very, very speicalized build in mind, and it doesn't matter how many guns you have - the final difference between heat gain and heat dissipation should not be in that ballpark). Add 2 tons of ammo for the AC/10 to last a match. You're at 17 tons.
PPC: deals 10 damage in 10 seconds for 10 heat and 7 tons. If you consider the heat cost - 17 tons.
Balanced. Not perfectly so, but reasonably so.
Then came along MW:O.
PPC fired every 3 seconds now. So you produce 33 damage and 33 heat every 10 seconds. Suddenly the PPC is a 40 ton weapon system. Quite a step up... And also not equippable on any realsitic mech configuration.
AC/10 fired every 3 seconds. So it produced 33 damage and 10 heat ever seconds. Let's add 2 tons extra ammo for MW:O. Even with that, the AC/10 is only a 26 ton weapon system. 14 tons of difference for the same final damage output?

And we haven't even talked about the ER PPC yet. The heat requirements on that weapon were so ridicilous...

In the world of DHS, the heat cost are effectively halved, so we'd be with the PPC as a 23 ton weapon system and the AC/10 a 21 ton weapon system. (Except the AC/10 now also got a recylce rate boost, so it has a better DPS and deals mor edamage in 10 seconds, and this distorts the comparison..)

But that's not all that changed with DHS. The heat capacity is higher, and the dissipation is higher. One could say the capacity has reached a critical threshold. Now the cap is high enough, and the dissipation is high enough, that you can reach enough damage before overheating that it can take out mechs or at least severely cripple them, and the next chance for firing your weapons is not so far away that you can't risk it.

If the heat capacity was lower, and the heat dissipation was higher, people would find high alpha builds often impractical, as you overheat on an alpha, but they would find chain-fire builds and mixed weapon builds reasonably effective - you have to cahin fire to avoid overheating by alpha, and you need reasoanbly amounts of heat sinks (amounts that are close to the table top suggested number of sinks, on which all the weapon weight and heat stats were balanced around) to compensate your heat. A stock Awesome 8Q could sustain his fire well, but alphas would still not be advisable for him.

[Voivode]

Duck Butter, on 20 June 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

The incremental approach worked very well for LRMs and imo for MGs as well.
Why not try this as a first step towards balance before suggesting that we take a hacksaw to the system or adding a whole new resource management scheme?

Yes. I prefer PGIs approach lately to changing weapons. The sweeping changes they've done previously (SRMs from 2.5 to 1.5, LRMs from 1.8 to .7, PPC / ERPPC heat from 10 / 15 to 8 / 12) have proven disastrous. The little incremental changes demand a little more patience but I think they really allow the game balance to come together more cohesively.

[Lostdragon]

Voivode, on 21 June 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Yes. I prefer PGIs approach lately to changing weapons. The sweeping changes they've done previously (SRMs from 2.5 to 1.5, LRMs from 1.8 to .7, PPC / ERPPC heat from 10 / 15 to 8 / 12) have proven disastrous. The little incremental changes demand a little more patience but I think they really allow the game balance to come together more cohesively.

That works great when the problem is a weapon. There are a lot of weapons like SRMs, MGs, Flamers, and LBX that need this sort of attention because they are not very good.

So that leaves us with the good weapons like Gauss, PPCs, and AC20. Now the question is are these weapons overpowered or is there a problem or problems with underlying mechanics or systems that make these weapons too good?

I think the answer is mostly the latter and the main issue is the ability of heavy and assault mechs to mount 4+ of the heaviest, hardest hitting weapons and then fire all of them at once into the exact same spot.

So how do you deal with this? I think there are a lot of potential solutions. If I were running the show the first thing I would do is add some sort of convergence system or cone of fire based on movement and heat. That addresses having 4+ heavy weapons doing pinpoint 40+ damage alpha strikes. If this is having too much negative impact on lights or something it can be adjusted and tweaked with things like efficiencies and/or quirks.

The second thing I would do is implement a static heat cap of about 30 and increase heat dissipation and heat penalties. This would make it much less appealing to fire multiple alphas back to back and would encourage using balanced builds that can manage heat.

After those systems are in place then I would do individual weapon tweaks to balance their heat, damage and DPS. Obviously any of the numbers from the heat cap to convergence penalties to weapon heat can be tweaked to bring things in line.

I have given this a lot of consideration and I think an approach like this is the best say to move the game forward and address the root of the problems we are facing now. I am encouraged that PGI seems to be taking these things more seriously but I have concerns about their approach, especially the alpha heat penalty for x number of weapons where x is some number they pulled out of their ***.

It is definitely a complex problem and I hope they are able to solve it in a way that doesn't alienate the players or go against the spirit of MW and BT. I have a lot of fun playing MWO and I hope that continues for a long time and that PGI makes a lot of money off the game. I want to continue playing MW games for as long as I can move a mouse or hold a joystick.

Edited by Lostdragon, 21 June 2013 - 06:33 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Purlana, on 20 June 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Sure if you get into range and hold your laser on the target 100% of the time.

Or you can Alpha your PPCs and then duck into cover / torso twist.

Lasers have about a 1 second burn, not a problem in average combat ranges, plus if your opponent has PPCs, you win on damage per ton/heat. The only reason you take PPCs over Lasers is Range. Since we don't know what map we are dropping on PPCs are a wise choice. If I knew I was not dropping on Alpine, Tourmaline, or Caustic Valley, I would take Lasers every time. Unless the mech had few or missing hardpoints, then you are forced to use PPCs.

I just see PPCs as great balancing for the Mechs since any mech can use them with a few exceptions. Not every mech can take ACs, Gauss, or Missiles so without PPCs you would invalidate alot of the current mechs. On the Battletech balance wheel it's AC's that are way overpowered in MWO anyway. ACs get all the DHS 2.0's they need to run cool (except boated AC2's), fire at double normal rate or more, never overheat or run out of ammo if you bring enough. Now that is true OP-ness.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

edited post to reflect new ideas