17 replies to this topic

[ExAstris]

Of course we all want PPC boating to stop.

This has led to many suggestions about how to prevent it swarming the forums. Even PGI has a proposed solution.

They won't work, and here's why.



False Hope #1: Hardpoint limitations by critical slots.

Why it won't work. Clan weapons. All mech configurations with large lasers can swap out for Clan PPCs. And this is in addition to cannon mechs that carry the appropriate weaponry stock that might be added to the game, such as the Devastator or Warhawk. Furthermore, the crit limitation is already a build limitation, putting it on double duty is asking for balancing problems with weapons having varying crit efficiencies.

The best way to go with a second set of hardpoint restrictions aside from raw weapon counts would be a MW4 mechlab style system. Boating gets cut at the construction phase with now known problem configurations never being allotted the contiguous mountings required for the larger weapons.

But even this cuts down on build variety by a massive amount, requiring many current non-problematic player mechs to be torn apart never to be seen again.


False Hope #2: PGI's Heat Solution.

As we all know, it basically puts a global weapon count maximum on each weapon, and when that weapon is alpha'd in a group beyond the global max, the mech suffers additional heat penalties.

Why it won't work. Many of the best mechs to boat in the current meta won't be affected by this change at all. Every mech that boats 3 or fewer ppcs in conjunction with a gauss rifle (or two) will simply not be punished at all for using the same alpha strike synergy that the other equally problematic 4-6 ppc stalkers are, but they are doing so with more mobility and fewer heat problems already.

If PGI implements this solution as it has been presented to us, the only thing it will do is stack the deck (and the field) in favor of the 9K, 732, and Heavy metal.


False Hope #3: Heat/damage tweaks.

PPCs run a fine line between being incredibly useful pin-point alpha weapons and useless heavy energy weapons that generate more heat than results. Any heat or damage value that makes them good in pairs or solo makes them broken on boats. Any values that makes them balanced on boats makes them useless on anything else (LRMs have this problem as well to an extent).


False Hope #4: Remove Convergence (in any capacity).

If you leave convergence for arm mounted weapons, you'll just move the boating to those chasses. If you remove convergence entirely, you'll just end up making mechs with near centerline mounts all the more powerful. The Highlander 732 for example will still suffer almost no loss in accuracy from its triple torso mounts at only a meter spread.

All this ends up doing is spinning the balance wheel towards particular chasses, it does nothing to address the weapon meta.


False Hope #5: TCL (Targeting Computer Load)

Causing the computer to lose convergence when too many weapons are fired. Same problems as before, loss of convergence isn't going to bother some chasses as they fire converged.

The best iteration of this for gameplay is to cause an additional statistical randomness to be applied to weapon shots on top of the lost convergence. But this then makes weapons fire at random spots all over the screen, which will be particularly jarring to watch when its your lasers doing it. Making this solution work for gameplay ends up killing immersion.


False Hope #6: Cycle Time Penalties

This is just like PGI's solution, except it penalizes the alpha'd group's cycle times instead of their heat generation. This has the nice additional benefit of capturing gauss rifles in the balancing act, as well as the hyper-accurate brawlers who are using alpha-sniping builds, but has the downfall of not affecting peek-a-boo/pop-tart sniping at all due to the time between shots already being far in excess of any weapon's cycle time. Even a 200% cycle time penalty isn't going to hurt a mech that takes 10 seconds between shots anyway.



The Real Problem

So what hope do we have?

All of the proposed solutions have something in common, and it is that something that makes them all fail. They are global solution. They try to balance every weapon with a single, global mechanic. This just cannot work, and here is why:

Weapons can be used in different numbers. Different types of weapons have different mechanics, and therefore have less synergy. Weapons with synergy are easier to use effectively. Effective weapons are more effective when other weapons need not be managed. Any weapon that is good boated, will be bad solo or in pairs. Any weapon that is good solo or in pairs will be devastating when boated (barring some additional restraint, but as we have seen, the global restraints all lead to new problems).

On the other end of the spectrum, all solutions that target only what mech's are legally constructable ends up cutting out diversity in stride along with a lot of fan-favorite builds, many of which are not problematic to the game's balance.



What we need is a solution that has some global aspect, but is not merely a global solution, it also has room to tweak at the particular level, i.e. on a chassis-by-chassis basis.

So here's an actual option that that won't merely spin the uneven table of balance, but will let us examine each leg and make adjustments where needed.




The Solution

The new mechanics would be 3 new stats each mech may possess (depending on what weapons it can mount). Those three stats are:

Missile Rack Reload Capacity
Ballistic Shell Reload Capacity
Energy Grid Recharge Capacity

Each variant of every base chassis would have its own stats in these categories to reflect its base loadout.

Additionally, every weapon would have a stat of the relevant type as well. LRM/SRM would have a missile reload need, Autocannons a ballistic shell reload need, and energy weapons a grid requirement. Most weapons will require only one stat, but some may require two. In particular, the gauss rifle would require some ballistic shell reload capacity, but much more energy grid requirements (both for the fluff reason of it needing to power hefty electromagnets, and for the more important reason of its obvious synergy with ppcs that will be grid based).

No standard configuration mech would necessarily have a weapons compliment that exceeds its Capacities because it was designed to handle that weapon load. However, custom builds of that mech may have weapon loadouts that exceed the design's intent and therefore will suffer a penalty.

First an example of a mech exceeding capacity. Take my CPLT-C4. It sports 2 mlas and 2 LRM20s in its standard configuration. Occasionally I like to overboat it with LRMs, using 4x15, giving it 60 tubes instead of 40. The mech was clearly designed to handle only 40 missile launches at a time, and so it will have exceeded its Missile Rack Reload Capacity if I decide to fire them all at once. Fluff justification here is that it just doesn't sport the internal bits to reload every tube in the normal timeframe. It has to double-load some tubes, which causes overheated tubes and overstuffed missile reload pipelines.

Therefore, the relevant penalty, is that without waiting the appropriate interval between volleys of 40 or fewer missiles, I will take a reload time penalty and a heat penalty.

This gives me a choice, I can group fire for the alpha damage, or chain fire for the dps over time.

Similary, a Stalker was never designed the handle the energy grid demands of 6 PPCs, and so firing them all at once would cause a tremendous penalty to its cycle time and heat generation.



Gameplay Effect:

Players are given a choice. Alpha or dps. The penalty of course could be scaled per weapon and per mech to achieve balance, punishing offender builds harshly (6xppc stalker), possibly punishing fluff violations lightly (dual ac20 k2), and punishing cannon boats none (40LRM C4s).


This also makes the choice more relevant to pilots. Alpha strike for the concentrated damage, or chain fire for the better overall dps and lower heat generation? Snipers will still have enough benefit to occasionally use heavy alpha strikes, while pros will often opt for chain fire as the additional heat/time savings will give them enough extra shots in the same time to make up for the advantage of the easier aiming of a group salvo.






Pros:

Promotes player choice and skillful piloting.

Promotes Gameplay Variety, alpha strikes and chain fire will both have a role in the game.

Provides multiple avenues to tweak balance, both globally (by weapon load demands of each weapon) and individually (by mech Chasses' Capacities).

No need to penalize cannon builds, only implements throttles for controlling the effectiveness of non-cannon min-max builds.

Can address boating of low-heat weapons better than heat penalties (gauss, SRM).

Promotes carrying a variety of weapons into battle that match the mech's original load distribution, allowing mechs with a variety of weapons (and therefore requiring more skill to pilot) to be the peak dps efficient distribution of weapons, not total boats (except for obvious cannon builds like the 4SP, which could simply have an energy grid capacity large enough to handle its standard loadout).

Does not remove any build from the game, it simply adds penalties for overly effective ones (which again, can be throttled for each individual mech by its Capacities).



Cons:

Requires additional mechanics to be programmed along with supporting UI features to explain those statistics and penalties.

[Ningyo]

This is very well thought out, I would have no problem with this solution, and you are right, it does allow for better balance without many drawbacks. This may be one of my favorite methods to solve the pinpoint alpha problems so far.


PS: I think your outline of problems with convergence methods only focused on 1 or 2 methods, as plenty do not have those problems. Most do have problems of one form or another though. If you want an overview of convergence options: http://mwomercs.com/...48-convergence/

[Stoicblitzer]

could you please respond to this?
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2520022

[Homeless Bill]

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

False Hope #5: TCL (Targeting Computer Load)

Causing the computer to lose convergence when too many weapons are fired. Same problems as before, loss of convergence isn't going to bother some chasses as they fire converged.

The best iteration of this for gameplay is to cause an additional statistical randomness to be applied to weapon shots on top of the lost convergence. But this then makes weapons fire at random spots all over the screen, which will be particularly jarring to watch when its your lasers doing it. Making this solution work for gameplay ends up killing immersion.

Rebuttal:
That's exactly why it's part loss of convergence and part cone of fire. Each weapon would fire at its own accuracy skew within the cone of fire to prevent cheese like the 732 from getting a free pass.

Saying that it will probably look weird is a bad bit of reasoning. First off, they aren't going all over the place. The loss of convergence means the cone of fire doesn't have to be particularly bad; it only affects sniper-range combat. If anything, I think it will be immersive and look cool, particularly when you're watching two assault 'mechs fire off alphas at each other at close range. Even if it did look a little sketchy, it's worth it to balance the game.

Thoughts on Your Solution:
Your strategy is clever and well thought-out, but I think it involves more numbers than mine while solving the problem less effectively.

Just like most other strategies, your method is punishment rather than prevention, and will thus not fix all the woes associated with extreme alphas. Your fix assumes that the problem is the combination of DPS and extreme, pinpoint damage, and by removing the capability of alpha strikres to do sustained damage, the problem will go away.

I disagree. DPS is only a small part of the effectiveness of pinpoint boats. Whenever I see a light get nuked in one or two shots, I think it's ********. And it doesn't require any DPS. Your solution allows for three kinds of cheese to remain:

• Snipers. Snipers don't need DPS to be dangerous. The fact that I can brawl in a PPC Stalker is just icing on the cake. Even if I couldn't do that anymore, I could still maul people in it when all it takes is three good shots to kill them. You'll see PPC boats at the front occasionally, but more often than not they're already chilling out. The newbies that can't aim or manage heat won't be able to do it, but anyone that knows what they're doing will adjust.
  
• Gamblers. Remember that one time you were almost overheated and the guy in front of you was almost dead? You blasted him with everything you had because that last alpha would probably take him down, didn't you? And that's the problem. That last shot before shutting down is probably going to be an alpha strike (for good reasons). But that means the PPC Stalker is going to get off one last cheesy shot. The 40 Jager will probably blow you away with its final act of desperation. That damage shouldn't get a free pass. Who cares how long their recycle time is if they put out 90 points of damage to a single location in a single shot? I'm fine with that last massive alpha - I just don't think it should ever all go to a single component.
  
• Griefers. Someone is going to load the Battlemaster up with 7xPPCs and 1xGR. It doesn't matter what horrible thing happens to their 'mech afterwards - they will fire one shot, and someone is going to die. Why even allow that? Why let someone's round be ruined by a completely ******** mechanic that this game was never balanced for?

It doesn't prevent the problem; it just punishes it. As far as I'm concerned, any solution relying on that philosophy is doomed to failure.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 03 July 2013 - 09:51 PM.

[ExAstris]

Thanks for the replies all.


@HomelessBill

I've read your elaborated version of TCL and like it. Its definitely one of my favorite options. That being said I think it does have some weaknesses that are easy to overlook.

Ultimately, your proposal is a really complex version of MustrumRidcully's favorite option, which is to simply remove alpha strikes completely. Enforce chain fire and pinpoint alpha boats are no longer a problem.

Now, that's maybe a little harsh, your solution does allow for smaller numbers of weapons to still be group fired without penalty, but it will have much of the same effects only ever so slightly scaled back. Players will forgo alpha strikes in pretty much all cases. This has some very important effects on gameplay.


1. Defensive piloting disappears. You'll have no time to twist away between shots because you'll be constantly trying to hold your target in sights so that you can actually use all your weapons. My CN9-A will be a sad panda if he ever has to spend more than another half-second looking directly at his enemies.


2. All long range weapons will punished more than brawling weapons, forcing the meta to brawling. Given that long range weapons have varying travel times, and can no longer be simultaneously fired, they will have to be chain shot at enemies. Anyone who has used the AC2 knows that this is vastly more difficult than lining up one good shot to punish an enemy who exposed themselves.

So yes, your solution does eliminate snipers, but that is a bad thing. I know they're super frustrating right now, but that's not sufficient cause to eliminate them. Nor is the hilariously overpowered ECM a good reason to remove harassers. The role of sniping just needs to be put back in its place, a role with ups and downs, much like LRM support.

Making a role unusable hurts the flavor and variety of the game.


3. Gamblers and Griefers (in your sense, not the TK griefers obviously) aren't bad when the game provides the right incentives for them to not do what they do. 6x PPC stalkers existed before PPCs were crazy easy to use. I personally had a lot of fun playing against them. Yes, they could hurt you bad if they hit, but they were easy pickings as they shut down often, moved slow, and averaged a lower dps than more traditionally constructed mechs. Only if you let it sit in a corner by itself would it wreck your team. But that's exactly what alpha-snipers and pure support boats are suppose to do, punish you for ignoring them.

So again, while the names Gambler and Griefer immediately make us think bad things, the phenomenon you're describing are part of a healthy MechWarrior Online meta when throttled appropriately. Currently, they are not throttled appropriately and so are problematic, but again, banishment isn't the answer as it moves us again towards a forced way to play the game, and that will make it more bland.


4. Your solution requires a hell of a lot more work than anyone else's to implement. The statistical cone of fire alone is an entirely now mechanic whose penalties, numbers, and programming have yet to be done. My solution does require a lot of numbers to be added to the game, but they are just that, numbers. The only mechanics that need to be added is to check the weapons new numbers against the numbers of the mech that is firing those weapons to see what heat and cycle time adjustments need to be made. My system only adds modifiers to existing systems, it doesn't need to rewrite anything from the ground up. Specifically, your solution will be a nightmare to program into SRMs, whose flight path and spread will somehow need to be modifiable based on the shooter's TCL.


5. Loss of convergence, even with a minimal cone of fire addition, is still going to be a horrendous punishment to some chassis while barely having any effect on others. While it may affect them all equally at sniper ranges, where the cone's effect takes precedence, much of the current problem stems from the fact that these sniper builds are effective at all ranges. So mechs that have favorable mounts at point blank range will suffer almost no penalty at close range. The Jagermech with its wide arm mounts and no convergence will have an awful time hitting targets, while the K2, with its mounts barely a meter apart, will still be able to alpha strike away at targets at medium range (assuming the cone of fire is not hilariously bad). Again, the 732's torso mounts will let it still alpha at targets at short range where loss of convergence is more significant than the cone effect.


6. Your solution provides no reason to use a variety of weapons. Boats will still exist in plenty. They will just be forced to chain fire to avoid the convergence penalties. My solution gives dps penalties to mechs that are overboated, promoting weapon diversity for maximum effectiveness for skilled pilots, yet not removing any tactics or builds from the field entirely, only throttling the overly effective ones (which are currently pin-point direct-fire alpha boats).


7. Your solution is still global. It gives us no way to deal with specific mechs that become overly effective, meaning that it will just turn the balance wheel to a new set of prime options instead of letting us modify the table itself to get it level. My solution provides global aspects that let us balance the boating of each weapon, and particular aspects that let us balance each chasses' use of its weapons compliment.



Now, with all that said, I think your solution is still one of the best, and surely a few leaps ahead of PGI's proposed solution. But I think it still falls short in the above mentioned areas to an extent that makes my solution preferable.

Edited by ExAstris, 04 July 2013 - 05:26 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

You still miss one.

Change Group Fire and Alpha Strike:
Chain Fire: Press the button, one weapon fires, if you keep the button pressed, the next fires 0.5 seconds later.
Alpha/Group FIre: press the button, one weapon fires, 0.5 seconds the next weapon fires, and so on.

This is the start only. We might actually want different enforced cooldowns for different weapons.
I could see lasers having a lower value - 0.1 to 0.25 seconds. Same thing for the AC/2.
PPCs and heavier ballistics (AC/10+?) would have something like 0.5 seconds to 0.75 seconds.

[MaddMaxx]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 July 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

You still miss one.

Change Group Fire and Alpha Strike:
Chain Fire: Press the button, one weapon fires, if you keep the button pressed, the next fires 0.5 seconds later.
Alpha/Group FIre: press the button, one weapon fires, 0.5 seconds the next weapon fires, and so on.

This is the start only. We might actually want different enforced cooldowns for different weapons.
I could see lasers having a lower value - 0.1 to 0.25 seconds. Same thing for the AC/2.
PPCs and heavier ballistics (AC/10+?) would have something like 0.5 seconds to 0.75 seconds.

It does seem strange that if they simply removed Group Fire, the whole Alpha issue goes away. Time between shot output given the above could be tweaked as we go. Alas, it must be BT lore that allows it to persist.

It is hoped that when the Stacking Penalty arrives, and when added to the over Heat penalty, it will allow the Dev to tweak the weapons one a one of basis. Surely a good combination can be found to force the High Alpha players, say the PPC perhaps, to be tweaked such that more is not always the best option.

P.S. Yes I understand how **** works around here. Those self appointed TOP competitive players will just abuse the next weapon in line, it is their destiny to do so. Fine, the Dev can tweak them until that line runs out.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 04 July 2013 - 06:00 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I dislike global values - so i would really like a specific solution for each mech... same solution would have helped in the past.
Gauss Cat - Gauss are nerfed in combination when used in a Catapult
Streak Cat - Streak SRMs are nerfed in combination when used in a Catapult
SRM Cat - same as above
Jump Sniper -> increased shake for heavyer chassis with reload reduction while in midair...similar
Energy weapons on Stalker - energy grid - stress problems
Small Laser Hunchbacks - energy of reactor and speed cap for specific unit

You can really tweak each mech on his own - without hurting others.
Gauss Nerf -> Hunchback and Atlas (Torso Mount)
SRM Nerf -> Clearly every unit
Jump Shake -> units that didn't poptarting
Upcomming Heat Penalty?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

This doesn't take into account that PPC alphas of 4 or more are doing too much damage to one spot.

All this does is make it take longer to do the damage between shots.

What does this do when 12 people are all alpha boats of some sort and are very coordinated.

Mech's die too quickly because we are able to repeatedly (whether it's every 5 seconds, 6 seconds, or 10 seconds) put out huge damage shots into one spot.

And ONE CHANGE WILL NOT FIX THIS.

I'm so tired of these threads that thing one magical thing is going to fix it and every other fix is wrong.

We need to change maximum heat capacity.

We need to change heat dissipation.

We need to stop INSTANT convergence.

We need to look at hardpoints and make some tough decisions on customizability.

This game is so far from right, that one fix won't do it.

Oh and lets throw in that the new movement system is all sorts of fubar and hit recognition has taken steps backwards in recent patches.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 04 July 2013 - 06:02 AM.

[30ft SMURF]

Just gonna say I don't think the problem is boating. If you want to be a laser boat, missile boat or even a ppc boat... by all means if the mech has the tonnage go for it... The real problem is that weapon balance isn't here yet. Lrms and gauss used to be a good counter to ppcs, but these days you have to have 4 lrm 15's to have a chance at making people duck for cover and you'd need more gauss rifles than any mech can currently carry to make that a possibility (not taking into account that they blow the f up at the drop of a hat.) If you want to see more people with varying loadouts you don't necessarily have to nerf ppcs or game mechanics, but you do have to make other weapon systems comparable. This is the primary reason I havn't bought the new phoenix package... I don't want to spend more money on this game if its going to permanently be ppc online. I was fine with dual gauss online, but that got canned a long time ago. I was fine with lrm online because I knew how to pilot and avoid missile fire. Ppc online is old and busted as of months ago and will continue to be a sub-par game untill weapon balance is addressed and correctly delt with.

[mike29tw]

Karl Streiger, on 04 July 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

I dislike global values - so i would really like a specific solution for each mech... same solution would have helped in the past.
Gauss Cat - Gauss are nerfed in combination when used in a Catapult
Streak Cat - Streak SRMs are nerfed in combination when used in a Catapult
SRM Cat - same as above
Jump Sniper -> increased shake for heavyer chassis with reload reduction while in midair...similar
Energy weapons on Stalker - energy grid - stress problems
Small Laser Hunchbacks - energy of reactor and speed cap for specific unit

You can really tweak each mech on his own - without hurting others.
Gauss Nerf -> Hunchback and Atlas (Torso Mount)
SRM Nerf -> Clearly every unit
Jump Shake -> units that didn't poptarting
Upcomming Heat Penalty?

Energy weapons on Stalker? The only energy weapon that is causing balance issue on Stalker is PPC/ERPPC......

[Unbound Inferno]

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

False Hope #1: Hardpoint limitations by critical slots.

Why it won't work. Clan weapons. All mech configurations with large lasers can swap out for Clan PPCs. And this is in addition to cannon mechs that carry the appropriate weaponry stock that might be added to the game, such as the Devastator or Warhawk. Furthermore, the crit limitation is already a build limitation, putting it on double duty is asking for balancing problems with weapons having varying crit efficiencies.

The best way to go with a second set of hardpoint restrictions aside from raw weapon counts would be a MW4 mechlab style system. Boating gets cut at the construction phase with now known problem configurations never being allotted the contiguous mountings required for the larger weapons.

But even this cuts down on build variety by a massive amount, requiring many current non-problematic player mechs to be torn apart never to be seen again.

That's the point of Clans actually.

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

False Hope #2: PGI's Heat Solution.

As we all know, it basically puts a global weapon count maximum on each weapon, and when that weapon is alpha'd in a group beyond the global max, the mech suffers additional heat penalties.

Why it won't work. Many of the best mechs to boat in the current meta won't be affected by this change at all. Every mech that boats 3 or fewer ppcs in conjunction with a gauss rifle (or two) will simply not be punished at all for using the same alpha strike synergy that the other equally problematic 4-6 ppc stalkers are, but they are doing so with more mobility and fewer heat problems already.

If PGI implements this solution as it has been presented to us, the only thing it will do is stack the deck (and the field) in favor of the 9K, 732, and Heavy metal.

Glad that one's not in yet - and hopefully never will be.

Their current one is a joke but needs tweaking. If damage started at 100% like it should we would see the results.

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

False Hope #3: Heat/damage tweaks.

PPCs run a fine line between being incredibly useful pin-point alpha weapons and useless heavy energy weapons that generate more heat than results. Any heat or damage value that makes them good in pairs or solo makes them broken on boats. Any values that makes them balanced on boats makes them useless on anything else (LRMs have this problem as well to an extent).

If you think that's a false hope, then you need match classes.

The issue at hand IS damage dealt and recieved, tweaking the damage numbers and heat effects to force more recharge or penalties is a workable solution.

Sorry it means PPC don't deal 10 points of damage, or they get back up to 10 heat you don't like - but it would work.

Less damage PPC would mean less alpha. Less of a problem and more of a solution
Higher heat forces those sniper builds to pick careful shots then wait or face the heat penalties.

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

False Hope #4: Remove Convergence (in any capacity).

If you leave convergence for arm mounted weapons, you'll just move the boating to those chasses. If you remove convergence entirely, you'll just end up making mechs with near centerline mounts all the more powerful. The Highlander 732 for example will still suffer almost no loss in accuracy from its triple torso mounts at only a meter spread.

All this ends up doing is spinning the balance wheel towards particular chasses, it does nothing to address the weapon meta.

Perhaps reading classes?

Fixing convergence would be the solution as the sniping pinpoint is gone, but the brawling damage remains.

Doesn't solve the PPC dominance, but makes it so you have a fighting chance by being able to live until your in close quarters for your own say dual AC-20 or in missile range.

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

False Hope #5: TCL (Targeting Computer Load)

Causing the computer to lose convergence when too many weapons are fired. Same problems as before, loss of convergence isn't going to bother some chasses as they fire converged.

The best iteration of this for gameplay is to cause an additional statistical randomness to be applied to weapon shots on top of the lost convergence. But this then makes weapons fire at random spots all over the screen, which will be particularly jarring to watch when its your lasers doing it. Making this solution work for gameplay ends up killing immersion.

Caught. Cough.

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

False Hope #6: Cycle Time Penalties

This is just like PGI's solution, except it penalizes the alpha'd group's cycle times instead of their heat generation. This has the nice additional benefit of capturing gauss rifles in the balancing act, as well as the hyper-accurate brawlers who are using alpha-sniping builds, but has the downfall of not affecting peek-a-boo/pop-tart sniping at all due to the time between shots already being far in excess of any weapon's cycle time. Even a 200% cycle time penalty isn't going to hurt a mech that takes 10 seconds between shots anyway.

Please read that theory sometime.

If you are forced to make one Alpha per say a minute and then need to take one shot at a time, it affects you.

ExAstris, on 03 July 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

The Solution

The new mechanics would be 3 new stats each mech may possess (depending on what weapons it can mount). Those three stats are:

Missile Rack Reload Capacity
Ballistic Shell Reload Capacity
Energy Grid Recharge Capacity

Each variant of every base chassis would have its own stats in these categories to reflect its base loadout.

Er, let's look at this.

"Capacity" limits for firing. Check. Sounds like the Hardpoint restrictions, Targeting Computer, Cycle Time penalties and Heat/Damage tweaks. In a different color.

Yes I'll call you out on this.

You are telling them the 'hardpoint' is now the 'capacity' for what they can fire. This limits the 'damage' doable on a mech by forcing a decision between alphastrike or cycling the time on the weapoins. It essentially renders heat obsolete and translates it into the capacity for the weapon loadout.

The only thing you didn't touch was the convergence issue that allows the alphastrike builds to be dangerous meaning the actual problem you want to solve being PPC isn't solved at all.

The PPC remains dominat for its damage/shot ratio and pinpoint accuracy at extreme range.

So yeah, it doesn't sound like it works either, especially for reasons you stated above.

[MustrumRidcully]

Synergy is the magic word that Victor Morson used for our balance problem.

There is great synergy with boats. Because cycle time, projectile speed, range and all that matches, you have the best possible synergy,and you can deliver pinpoint alphas.
If you mix weapons, you lose some of these benefits.
If you mix the wrong weapons, you lose them all.

Better synergy possibilities between all weapons would help balance (sync cycle times, sync projectile speeds) It would not necessarily remove high alpha damage values, but it would allow more builds to shine as good as the alpha boats.
If you then also remove group fire, you suddenly get a system where a player has to aim with every shot, and coupled with the improved weapon synergy, you would have a lot of more viable builds.

Afterwards, the problem is "only" finding the weapons that deal a bit too much damage for their weight, range and heat, and tweak the.

[ExAstris]

Unbound Inferno, on 04 July 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

Er, let's look at this.

Indeed.

Unbound Inferno, on 04 July 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

"Capacity" limits for firing. Check. Sounds like the Hardpoint restrictions, Targeting Computer, Cycle Time penalties and Heat/Damage tweaks. In a different color.

Yes I'll call you out on this.

The limits aren't for firing, they are for firing without any penalty. It is not a hardpoint restriction, that has to do with mech construction, not operation. Nor is it related to the targeting computer as that deals with convergence.

My suggestion does use cycle time and heat penalties as the outputs, but it would be wrong to say that my solution is just those in another color. Using them in combination with each other, and additionally (and more importantly) in combination with a way to do global weapon balancing and individual mech balancing, makes my suggestion not succeptible to the same criticism. It would be a logical error to simply suggest that because it has some elements in common that the total system must be equally flawed.

It may be the case that some other combination of the proposed solutions working in concert together with ways to throttle both the global weapon balance and individual mech balance would be superior to mine. But that proposal has yet to surface, and it doesn't change the fact that each of those proposals by themselves are merely turning the table of balance to a new tilt, not giving us the tools we need to straighten the table out.

Unbound Inferno, on 04 July 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

The only thing you didn't touch was the convergence issue that allows the alphastrike builds to be dangerous meaning the actual problem you want to solve being PPC isn't solved at all.

The PPC remains dominat for its damage/shot ratio and pinpoint accuracy at extreme range.

So yeah, it doesn't sound like it works either, especially for reasons you stated above.

I've already noted why convergence fixes aren't optimal (good, but not optimal). And I've already gone to great lengths in my last response to show why it is a better fix than most, but ultimately will fall short of my proposal.

Lastly, as a point of etiquette, insulting my intelligence with suggestions of reading classes is not good debate form, nor helpful to anyone reading.


Edit for response as a new post is unwarranted:

Unbound Inferno, on 04 July 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

I see no practical difference between your "capacity" and "heat" at this moment.

Then you have misunderstood a great deal.

Edited by ExAstris, 04 July 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

The "heat" is the limit for firing without penalty of overheating, with the cost set too damn high right now at 120%.

I see no practical difference between your "capacity" and "heat" at this moment.


Most of us here are looking at a step-by-step fixes that would make this work, and PGI might take one. So we aren't usually trying to argue the whole revamp as they'll never do it.


Realistically; fixing the heat scale (30+ 1 per SHS and regular cooling or 0.5 per DHS and double cooling), heat penalties (slower mech, sluggish movement as you run hotter and irregular aim with overheating past 100% bringing internal damage), reworking hardpoints (face it, some limitations are stupid and others need more flexibility with a few we really shouldn't do like PPC boating), altering convergence (no more instant pinpoint but a delayed until pinpoint on a targeted opponent) and some how forcing wither a cycle situation or limiting alphastrike options (such as an alphastrike power with cooldown based on how much each weapon takes to fire so it forces more chain fire and less alphastrike groups) ALL TOGETHER would be best. But its increasingly unlikely they'll do that.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 04 July 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Talrich]

I largely agree with your process of elimination, but I'm sorry to say that I don't think reload/recharge capacity is a strong approach. For two reasons:

• It preserves devastating single panel alpha strikes, with the same un-fun consequence for the victim.
  
• It lowers DPS more than it lowers single panel massive damage. I think the goal should be the opposite.

Alternately I'd encourage you to consider my damage diminishing returns proposal, linked here, http://mwomercs.com/...-20s-and-gauss/

It is a global solution but has no effect on non-boated weapons, reasonably limits boated weapons, and yet is not sufficient deterrent to preclude boated builds from being viable and fun. As it seems to meet your stated goals, I'd encourage you to consider it.

Thanks,

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I notice a lot of people concerned with DPS, they do realize this is a PVP game not a PVE game?

DPS is only a relevant statistic when you have things like for instance Brutallus in WoW being an extreme example.

In PvP it's almost always about burst and how quickly you can remove someone from the battle.

We need to curtail burst. And how quickly a mech can be put down.

I'm really not ok with one shotting anything in this game, even lights.

[Budor]

I cannot fathom why you people put so much thought and work into these posts when PGI doesnt give a **** to even put srms to 2-2.5dmg UNTIL they have their magic hotfix ready.

If they cannot get to change a number in months what makes you think they would even consider some of those ideas?

Edited by Budor, 04 July 2013 - 10:06 AM.