197 replies to this topic

[Dude42]

Finn McShae, on 28 June 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

If this is true, I'm glad my "Bad" builds and constantly playing drunk have kept me in the "kiddie pool" area. Much more fun down there.

It honestly is. I remember it fondly.

[Funky Bacon]

3rdworld, on 28 June 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

Explain why you limit the energy so much, but allow machine guns to take up the entire arm. This isn't a personal vendetta against ppcs is it?

I wouldn't call being able to mount 7x Large (pulse included) lasers or up to three PPC's limiting....

Just trying to bring PPC boating onto mechs that should boat them, like... the Awesome. (personally I loved PPC's long before they where "viable")

Also, people would cry if all they could replace the MG's with is an AC/2's or maybe AC/5's.

hammerreborn, on 28 June 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Know what's also an easy fix that doesn't require rewriting the whole game and each mechs loadout potential? Lowering the heat cap so that 4 ERPPCs causes a shutdown no matter what. Then you don't even have to worry about 7 being boated.

Well, chances are they won't do either and just use the band aid "fix" for boating. (who knows tho, it might work. Just throwing out ideas in the meantime.)

[hammerreborn]

Nooooo I lost all my math


Essentially. With the changes I suggested (explode at 120%, all heat sinks = +1 cap, PPC heat +1)....

Doubles Stalker (250 engine + 10 doubles) for 4 and 5 ppcs, 250 engine + 3 doubles for 6

4/5: Has a heat cap of 50 and a dissipation of 4 a second (so 16 heat dissipation between shots)
6: Has a heat cap of 43

PPCs:
Can fire 4 3 times before explosion (third shot is 60 heat, which is 50*120%).
Can fire 5 twice and likely explodes (58 heat)
Cannot fire 6 without exploding

ERPPCs:
Can fire 3 three times before exploding (third shot is 60 heat)
Can fire 4 once before likely shutting down (48)
Can not fire 5 without shutting down
6 explodes instantly


-----------------------

Singles (250 engine + 17 single heat sinks) for 4 PPCs, 250 + 10 for 5 PPCs, 250 + 3 for 6 PPCs

Heat caps of 57, 50, and 43, respectively
Dissipation of 10.8, 8, and 5.2

PPCs:
4 fires 3 times before explosion


Eh screw the rest, you get the picture, singles still suck, but boating ppcs in general becomes basically impossible.
PPCs:
Fires

[Finn McShae]

Dude42, on 28 June 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

It honestly is. I remember it fondly.

Always pugging helps too. Sometimes all of 30 seconds into a match I realize that we are too scattered, bad builds, and all of our assaults are already dead (somehow).. so its just time for the suicide charge. Patience was never one of my virtues.

[Bishop Steiner]

Rovertoo, on 28 June 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

I'm not a fan of sized hard points or Random convergence (Though I do think that torso mounts and arm mounts lacking an actuator should just fire straight) because they limit my freedom to dork around in the mechlab. Well, not the convergence bit, I wouldn't see that as a balancing mechanic but more of an annoyance. (Why does my sniper weapon veer off to the side when I shoot it? That would just be annoying and make me feel cheated. Perhaps it's just me. But I'm glad they stayed away from that.) But sized hard points just seem to be a way to make the mechlab less fun. I love dropping every point of armor and engine rating I can to cram a few ridiculous big guns in my light mech, or seeing what more 'serious' changes I can make, such as what happens when I try a dual large laser mech instead of an UAC/5 mech or something. What I'm trying to say is that sized hardpoints, I think, would create more problems than they would solve. I believe there are less drastic ways to change this 'meta'. Not too long ago nobody ever used PPCs.
Personally, I'm a subscriber to the 'lower heat cap' balancing technique (though it is somewhat drastic) with a greatly reduced heat cap balanced by a greatly increased heat dissapation, to make high heat or large alpha strikes really dangerous, but just as rewarding.

Also, big fan of your artwork!

understandable, but convergence has never been "random", it merely takes a moment for things to line up ,so that if you pop a shot off too fast, after switching targets, for instance, the amount it is off from "center" would vary on the amount of time and where the previous convergence would have had it aimed. (seems more complex than it is).

I also don't go for "random"cones fo fire, but feel that a mech moving 50% or more of it's max speed, or firing beyond it's optimal (aka max damage) range should have a CoF introduced that increases as the range does, or the speed does.

That's called realism, which enhances games for real skill players. Problem is most people on here equate ability to hold a mouse on a spot in a completely sterile environ as "skill".

True skill is being able work around realistic limitations and know when to vary speed, when to hold fire, when to take a shot, etc. Twitch shooting is NOT representative of that, most times.

Oh, and thanks for the art compliment. I might finally add some new stuff if I ever finish getting unpacked and figure out why my desktop bit it.

I definitely respect divergent opinions from mine, so I'm cool if people disagree. I dislike people who just think they have the "one, true answer" and obviously really have never thought through other options. Or who just give scathing d-bags responses to things they don't agree with. So please, by all means, keep bringing your ideas and opinions. Just don't get your panties in a bunch if I don't agree, and I will try to do likewise!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 June 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Finn McShae, on 28 June 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Always pugging helps too. Sometimes all of 30 seconds into a match I realize that we are too scattered, bad builds, and all of our assaults are already dead (somehow).. so its just time for the suicide charge. Patience was never one of my virtues.

hmmmmm.. i like this guy.... don't think I want to see him on my team, but I like this guy.... lol.

[Sug]

hammerreborn, on 28 June 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

Essentially. With the changes I suggested (explode at 120%, all heat sinks = +1 cap, PPC heat +1)....

Or introduce Pilot Damage/Death. I mean, we're hanging things in the cockpit. There's a pilot. If my mech takes two Gauss rounds to the face my cockpit is destroyed and my pilot dies.

Too much heat should kill your pilot. The ambient temp doesn't have to be crazy high to burn your lungs...

In TT your pilot took damage. In the novels people weren't worried about overheating their mechs cause they would explode. They were worried about being baked alive.

Edited by Sug, 28 June 2013 - 02:51 PM.

[Nassej]

To be honest I feel like setting up sized hardpoints is too restrictive and really takes away from the customization of the game but what I had thought about, though a bit convoluted and not new player friendly would be to make the weapons have a heat dissipation size or rate. With simple ratings of size on the weapons of 1,2 and 3. I'll stick with just energy weapons to keep the post short, PPC are 3, LL are 2 and flamers.ML,SL are 1. For a heat increase equation I'll use e^(.2*((Weapons/Heatsize)-1), and that will give us our percent( no going lower than base heat though). So I'll use a stalker for example.


Stalker has heat size of 2 in each arm. If you put a PPCs (size 3) in the arm(size 2) the equation would be e^(.2*((3/2)-1), or (e^0.1), which is 1.10 (110%). Just a little extra heat on the ppcs but nothing major. Lets move to the side torso.

Stalker has heat size of 2 = (2xML(1)) in each side torso, If you were to boat 2 PPCs in each torso, size 6 (2xPPC(3)) the equation ends up being e^(.2*((6/2)-1), simplified to e^(.2*2) which equals 1.49 (149%) which is now considerably more heat.

I feel like this would be the ideal way to go since it doesn't limit what you can put in your mech, discourages boating of larger weapons and still allows mechs that were originally boats to continue to boat to an extent, this also gives certain mechs distinct advantages based on their heat sizes. If anyone is interested I'll elaborate more on my thoughts.

[hammerreborn]

Nassej, on 28 June 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

To be honest I feel like setting up sized hardpoints is too restrictive and really takes away from the customization of the game but what I had thought about, though a bit convoluted and not new player friendly would be to make the weapons have a heat dissipation size or rate. With simple ratings of size on the weapons of 1,2 and 3. I'll stick with just energy weapons to keep the post short, PPC are 3, LL are 2 and flamers.ML,SL are 1. For a heat increase equation I'll use e^(.2*((Weapons/Heatsize)-1), and that will give us our percent( no going lower than base heat though). So I'll use a stalker for example.


Stalker has heat size of 2 in each arm. If you put a PPCs (size 3) in the arm(size 2) the equation would be e^(.2*((3/2)-1), or (e^0.1), which is 1.10 (110%). Just a little extra heat on the ppcs but nothing major. Lets move to the side torso.

Stalker has heat size of 2 = (2xML(1)) in each side torso, If you were to boat 2 PPCs in each torso, size 6 (2xPPC(3)) the equation ends up being e^(.2*((6/2)-1), simplified to e^(.2*2) which equals 1.49 (149%) which is now considerably more heat.

I feel like this would be the ideal way to go since it doesn't limit what you can put in your mech, discourages boating of larger weapons and still allows mechs that were originally boats to continue to boat to an extent, this also gives certain mechs distinct advantages based on their heat sizes. If anyone is interested I'll elaborate more on my thoughts.

I don't like anything where you have to plop down a calculator to figure out. A new user should be able to come in and see exactly whats going on, not have to suddenly realize that when he put that PPC in a medium laser slot he's now exploding.

Unless the UI shows all the increased heat levels and perhaps gives warnings I'm hesitant for these types of changes.

[Bishop Steiner]

on that, we are in total agreement.

[Elyam]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

convergence fix alone won't nerf boating or reward balanced mech builds/diversity. Without diversity, it's a lose scenario for the game, longterm, and negates any reason really for introducing more chassis.

I'm not strongly against it. The weapon-block system used for loadout in MW4 worked well enough as an alternative to the original TT system, and that is a similar iteration of varying hardpoint sizes. As far as chassis, I've always been of the opinion that cosmetics and lore are enough reason to ensure use of differing chassis. However, that's from a participant standpoint. I have to admit that success for the business would benefit from your idea as it would drive sales of more chassis and variants.

[Finn McShae]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

hmmmmm.. i like this guy.... don't think I want to see him on my team, but I like this guy.... lol.

I'll take it. I've found I am a very consistent 3rd or 4th on my team. Unless we get blown out 0-8, then I'm usually the only one with more than 10 points and 100 damage...

[Nassej]

hammerreborn, on 28 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

I don't like anything where you have to plop down a calculator to figure out. A new user should be able to come in and see exactly whats going on, not have to suddenly realize that when he put that PPC in a medium laser slot he's now exploding.

Unless the UI shows all the increased heat levels and perhaps gives warnings I'm hesitant for these types of changes.

I agree it would need to be included in the UI to show that the weapon has an efficiency of x%, the math behind it is a little complex but I can't think of any glaring disadvantages it would have.

[Fate 6]

El Bandito, on 28 June 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Hard-point restriction is long overdue.

^
If anything, the Highlander is as much an abuser as the Stalker. Being able to mount so many LRMs on it is just gross. It ends up being the best LRM boat in the game because of lack of restrictions.

[IceCase88]

9 hardpoints of awesomeness with a side of awesome sauce!

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 28 June 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

9 hardpoints of awesomeness with a side of awesome sauce!

10, actually.

6 torso Energy,
1 arm Energy
1 torso Missile
2 arm Ballistic

[mack sabbath]

Sug, on 28 June 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Or introduce Pilot Damage/Death. I mean, we're hanging things in the cockpit. There's a pilot. If my mech takes two Gauss rounds to the face my cockpit is destroyed and my pilot dies.

Too much heat should kill your pilot. The ambient temp doesn't have to be crazy high to burn your lungs...

In TT your pilot took damage. In the novels people weren't worried about overheating their mechs cause they would explode. They were worried about being baked alive.

Cooling vests anyone? I see a future Module here!

[FupDup]

To comment on sized hardpoints, I think that certain weapons like MGs should take up less hardpoint space than an AC/2 or something (despite being of equal critical slots). This also goes for Small Lasers, SRM2, and maybe even Small Pulse.

[Nunspa]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

But perhaps the issue is you only want to view it from a narrow view because you drive a PPC-Stalker? (Much like the Poptarters crying over JJ shake?)

Nope.. I pilot my

Illa: x3 MedLaz, x3 Ulta/5
K2: x4 MedLaz and Duel AC/10s
DD-C: 2 LLAZ, 1 AC/20, 3 LRM 5's
Trib 7M - x3 MedLaz, x3 Streak

any more smart *** questions?

[Bishop Steiner]

Nunspa, on 28 June 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

Nope.. I pilot my

Ilya: x3 MedLaz, x3 Ultra/5
K2: x4 MedLaz and Dual AC/10s
DD-C: 2 LLAZ, 1 AC/20, 3 LRM 5s
Treb 7M - x3 MedLaz, x3 Streak

any more smart *** questions?

FTFY

if you want smartassery, guess it's better than dumbassery.