721 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Teralitha, on 19 July 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

They were viable before the existence of double heat sinks. You are just spoiled rotten. Last time I drove a stock HBK4G I faced 2 optimized gausspults alone that were guarding their base and killed them both. I didnt overheat, and they didnt either, obviously. Your problem is not weapon viability in a single heat sink enviroment, your lack of skill, and no tolerance for managing heat is the problem.

Not sure how to tell this to you, but DarkJaguar is actually right.

The AC line was focused around producing that amount of heat on a turn, not per shot.
Now they fire that many shots in that "turn" heat dissipates - its uneven especially since the heat's not balanced correctly.

Your example of a Gauss is a poor example because that's the only one that has a long enough recharge with its extremely low heat the keep the illusion of working properly.

[Teralitha]

RG Notch, on 15 July 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Give it a ******* rest with your anti DHS campaign.

No, I will not. They are the reason the games balance is screwed up. As long as they stay in the game, this game will NEVER be balanced.

[FupDup]

Teralitha, on 19 July 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

No, I will not. They are the reason the games balance is screwed up. As long as they stay in the game, this game will NEVER be balanced.

Low-heat weapons like the Gauss rifle will just end up becoming the FoTM (well, even more than they already are) if that happens. Pretty much every energy weapon beyond the SL, SPL, Autocannons, and maybe 2-3 ML would become useless because this game makes us run waaay too hot compared to TT (10 SHS in TT could keep 3 ML heat neutral forever, but here 10 SHS are only good enough for a single ML).

Edited by FupDup, 19 July 2013 - 08:09 PM.

[Teralitha]

jeffsw6, on 15 July 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

People who want DHS eliminated should try playing a trial mech on Caustic or Tourmaline. Or any mech with a few lasers and only SHS. Even if your opponents all had the same setup, it would be pretty ridiculous. Whichever team happens to have a mech with an AC/20 = winner.

Check the date in my profile where it shows when I signed up. I have played the game, alot. From what you just said, it is obvious you are clueless about how the game was before DHS.

[Teralitha]

jeffsw6, on 15 July 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

The point is, if you think deleting DHS is a good idea, go play a few dozen matches with only SHS mechs. It is really bad. That is all.

If you are the only one using SHS and everyone else is using DHS, then yes, its not fair. When eveyone is using SHS, its fair, AND BALANCED. If you havent played the game when there were no DHS, just SHS, you have no clue and should not be speaking about it.

[Teralitha]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 July 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Take a K2. Any Hunchback. A Cataphract. Just anything without DHS.

You remenber what happened in Closed Beta? People took their mechs, removed weapons or downgraded weapons, and added heat sinks or increased the engine size. Mechs were too hot.

Heat managment, it was a skill in battletech,and its been a skill in all past mechwarrior games, and it was a skill in this game too, until they added DHS.

jeffsw6, on 17 July 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

My problem with you, Pht, is you continue to advocate a simple change of damage, heat, and RoF numbers without stating what you think must be done to address the huge pin-point alpha problems. You barely agree the problem would still exist if TT values were used, and you have never stated what mechanic you believe would be acceptable.

All you do is cry for TT values without being honest and telling players if you want a cone-of-fire, random dice roll, etc.

Actually, if they just slowed down the travel time of projectile weapons.... It would be harder to hit things. AND IF.... they slowed down recycle times too.... you have less chance to make those shots count. Thereby steepening the skill curve...... There you go.

Edited by Teralitha, 19 July 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[Teralitha]

Unbound Inferno, on 19 July 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Not sure how to tell this to you, but DarkJaguar is actually right.

The AC line was focused around producing that amount of heat on a turn, not per shot.
Now they fire that many shots in that "turn" heat dissipates - its uneven especially since the heat's not balanced correctly.

Your example of a Gauss is a poor example because that's the only one that has a long enough recharge with its extremely low heat the keep the illusion of working properly.

Not sure how to tell you this but.... heat managment is a skill. Not a number. And this isnt TT.

He may be right in the TT game, but here... he is wrong.

Edited by Teralitha, 19 July 2013 - 08:27 PM.

[Teralitha]

FupDup, on 19 July 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

Low-heat weapons like the Gauss rifle will just end up becoming the FoTM (well, even more than they already are) if that happens. Pretty much every energy weapon beyond the SL, SPL, Autocannons, and maybe 2-3 ML would become useless because this game makes us run waaay too hot compared to TT (10 SHS in TT could keep 3 ML heat neutral forever, but here 10 SHS are only good enough for a single ML).

Its already past tense buddy. Guass rifles did not dominate the game. Your theory has already been proven wrong. sorry.

[Gaan Cathal]

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

If it is, than this is the game YOU are looking for.

Or maybe we could ... you know ...actually interact with each other's positions?

You're mistaking my point. I came to MW:O because I got into the Mechwarrior games series, incidentally starting with Mechwarrior 2. I would, as a result, like MW:O to be, in the core fundamentals, like Mechwarrior 2,3 and (to an extent) 4. Not everything those games did was perfect of course. MW3's gunbag mechs and MW4's ridiculous levels of poptarting, for example. However, the core fundamentals have always been consistent, essentially a vehicular steering FPS. What you are proposing is a conversion of the core fundamentals of BTech TT, Megamek and MW:T into a single-unit RTS with a cockpit POV.

Now, there might be a market for an RTS Battletech game, I'd certainly be more inclined to play it than MW:T (which I've tried, not bad but fundamentally clunky, which I think is an artifact of it's parent ruleset). However, what I want out of MW:O is a Mechwarrior game, not a single-unit RTS, a TBS or an RPG set in the same universe. That's my position, and that's not Quake 3 Arena, much as I love that game (although not as much as I love Unreal Tournament). What you want is apparently fairly close to MW:T with a single unit on the table.

In short, this isn't 'your' game because you came from TT Battletech. There is an IP to hold to here and it's the Mechwarrior (computer game, not RPG of the same name) IP. My reply was rather..short (i.e. trollish) because I'm fairly sick of folks who are Battletech (the boardgame) fans apparently thinking they have more 'possession' over the game than Mechwarrior (the computer game) fans because it's the root setting IP. Imagine if someone turned up at Id Software one day with the project pitch "Let's make Quake 4:Arena, only lets change the fundamental game mechanics so it's not recognisable as a Quake game.". That's essentially what you're doing, and why you're drawing the derision you are.


There. You made me turn trollmode off. Now I'll never grow up to be a real Goon. You happy now?

[Lord of All]

Teralitha, on 19 July 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

If you are the only one using SHS and everyone else is using DHS, then yes, its not fair. When eveyone is using SHS, its fair, AND BALANCED. If you havent played the game when there were no DHS, just SHS, you have no clue and should not be speaking about it.

It's not a popular idea, I don't think most of these voters can really understand the outcome without playing it that way first. And even then most of them will just QQ that they can't alpha massive pinpoint and will cry the "Skill" is gone now.

http://mwomercs.com/...911-remove-dhs/

Edited by Lord of All, 20 July 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[Teralitha]

Lord of All, on 20 July 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

It's not a popular idea, I don't think most of these voters can really understand the outcome without playing it that way first. And even then most of them will just QQ that they can't alpha massive pinpoint and will cry the "Skill" is gone now.

http://mwomercs.com/...911-remove-dhs/

Of course removing DHS isnt a popular idea, most players are spoiled rotten and dont know whats good for them. But sure enough, its the best idea out there.

Like little kids.... once they have aquired a taste for sweets, they dont want you to take it away from them, but its not good for them to have it.... so they cry if you take it away and make them eat veggies.

SHS's are you balanced nutritional diet. DHS are just a bag of candy and will ruin your teeth(game) and make you fat(game fail)

Edited by Teralitha, 20 July 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

No, they aren't simulated just fine. The most important part of their combat performance is utterly left out of the game; their weapons handling capability.

That is not the most important part of their combat performance.

If they were important, I'd expect the table top game to have more rules about how different mechs can handle their weapons. The hit location roll is pretty much static. Nothing about the mech affects the table for hit locations.

So I challenge the claim that this has anything to do with a mech's "weapons handling capability".
I also challenge it's is an important feature to model. The important part is to understand what you need to do to balance the game and armour values in a game where hit locations are not randomly determined on the TT table and all the values you got from the table top are based on the assumption they are.

[Unbound Inferno]

Teralitha, on 19 July 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Not sure how to tell you this but.... heat managment is a skill. Not a number. And this isnt TT.

He may be right in the TT game, but here... he is wrong.

Only to a point.

Its because we generate FULL HEAT on a recharge that fires multiple times in the duration of time that heat dissipates at.

Follow that?

In Battletech that was 1 heat per turn.
In MW:O you fire every 0.5 seconds and it takes 10 seconds to dissipate 1 heat.
That is a massive 20x difference.

With 10 DHS in the engine that's a dissipation of 20 over 10 seconds (1 Turn)
But the AC2 generates 20 heat. (1 Turn)
It works, but its not doing it right - and its for ONE weapon.

Its a flaw in their mechanics and understanding on the weapon's balances.
I know, he knows - we all know its hot. PGI is the ones that doesn't seem to want to correct it.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 20 July 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[0X2A]

At first glance I thought this would be another "Zomg we need TT everything in MWO!" threads. I can happily say I was wrong.

The amount of thought put into the OP is enough to sway me into believing that MW:o still has a chance to not be a battle tech hawker clone. I would love to see these values and weapon systems put into use on a test server to see how well they fair.

Great post Op. Let's hope the PGI balance team can get their heads out of their arises and see that some community suggestions are (relatively) simpler and add some more depth to game play.

[Warge]

R&R was a good balancing tool for: limit usage of endo-steel, limit usage of DHS, limit usage of Heavy/Assault Mechs...

[AndyHill]

DarkJaguar, on 19 July 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

It depends on the weapon. Longer range weapons with longer recycle times would be affected by COF very little at 300m, though at 540m the PPC's CoF (can we call it a "CEP" please?) would be a 3-4m Diameter. On the other hand, what use is a weapon to a brawler with a 5-10 second recycle time and a digital hit scale (it hits or it misses). An AC20 has a 4 second cycle time with a 1 second burst duration, but that burst duration allows a hastily aimed shot to be walked back onto target. Additionally, the PPC, even with it's 3.33 second duration is pretty worthless at less than 90 meters (it should have a chance to explode if used within 90m). So the "Big Guns" are now balanced by slow cycle times, useless at close range, or just stupidly heavy (AC20 and Gauss).

Ok, so at about 540m The CePCoF of the PPC would be a couple of meters, which is pretty bad for a modern weapon, but pretty consistent with the BTech idea of warfare. In practice this means that at a few hundred meters chances of you hitting the CT of a 'mech are pretty high - so at least for PPCs it would maintain a measure of pinpoint ability.so basically by group firing gauss or PPC you would be able to smack a lot of damage to a single location in one blow, a bit like what we have now?

One thing I'm apparently not following is the advantage of burst fire / dps over time weapons vs. single shot guns in close combat. Already in the current system digital hit scale weapons are markedly superior to time-on-target variants, which explains some of the popularity of gauss, AC/20 and PPC guns. It is probably true that if the vastly overheated balance of the MWO was brought closer to the tabletop figures, the weight and size of gauss and AC/20 would be more formidable balancing factors. However, if I understand correctly, in your system we would still be able to fire quite a lot of hurt into single locations at modest ranges (at least when using certain types of weapons)?

[Teralitha]

Warge, on 20 July 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

R&R was a good balancing tool for: limit usage of endo-steel, limit usage of DHS, limit usage of Heavy/Assault Mechs...

It was mainly good for... exploiting, afking, suiciding, macroing, griefing... dur.... and really wasnt much of a deterrant for using expensive things. Sorry... but R&R will never be back.

[Warge]

Teralitha, on 20 July 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

and really wasnt much of a deterrent for using expensive things.

It's the metter of good balanced numbers.

Teralitha, on 20 July 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

Sorry... but R&R will never be back.

Let's drink in it's memory!

[riverslq]

When I saw a hunchback on the field with 3 PPCs, I knew it was over.
Pathetic.

[Gaan Cathal]

riverslq, on 21 July 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

When I saw a hunchback on the field with 3 PPCs, I knew it was over.
Pathetic.

Good thing that there aren't any canon lights that use them paired, right? Right?