PEEFsmash, on 08 July 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:
Higher heat would significantly reduce the DPS over any significant amount of time.
DPS is irrelevant in this game.
It's how much damage you can put on one component in order to destroy it in the least amount of time possible. Every destroyed component equals reduced incoming fire (well, spare for a few exceptions).
You can win a match with around 800 damage for the whole team, if everyone is putting their shots on target.
Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 July 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:
I disagree, it's X number of weapons, that can instantly converge and heat threshholds that are way out of whack.
I will keep posting this till I am blue.
Get rid of instant convergence.
That's not going to fix boating. That's going to make it worse, as only the boats will be able to reliably hit anything.
Quote
Cut heat capacity by half and increase dissipation to compensate.
Add effects to running hot.
Give people a reason not to alpha strike constantly.
Make aiming each weapon and chain firing important.
You do realize that chain firing is an effective alpha strike, right?
In TableTop - an Alpha Strike is firing all weapons available to a mech within a turn - or a 10 second timeframe.
For the most part, we are always alpha-striking. Each weapon also instantly applied all of its damage to one component (or missed) and was fired (and rolled) on one-by-one basis.
In some versions of TableTop, an Alpha Strike was merely exhausting all autocannon ammo in a single turn. In another version, it was actually firing each weapon sequentially until the mech overheated (an alpha-strike was an automatic overheat but allowed multiple firings of the same weapon within a turn).
Lights are energy-heavy builds and may as well be removed from the game if you cut heat thresholds in half and start implementing movement penalties for having any amount of heat on you.
Convergence isn't the problem. While the heat system could be played with a bit for balance - it's not the problem, either. The problem is, mostly, with one weapon's mechanics (the PPC) and with a lack of proper role warfare.
Since we are, effectively, playing Team Solaris on maps as tiny as Alpine (yes, Alpine is very small for the type of warfare where scouts would become important) with only two victory/loss conditions - the game is going to lean towards heavies and assaults - which are the weapon-packing harbingers of destruction. Destroy the team and you win, and since most maps are barely big enough to put players outside of maximum effective ranges of long ranged weapons...
That's the major missing balance element. The fact that war isn't just about killing your enemy. Since that's often the most efficient manner of achieving victory within the current game - even if we balance the weapons and give scouts and mediums important roles... we'll still see the meta toward heavies and assaults.
Quote
Skill?
Okay - hook this thing up to a Wii-mote or two and have you actually have to point your controllers at the targets and fire.
Otherwise - it's just another layer over a simple point-and-shoot environment using a mouse. It was a big deal when we trained a monkey to do this on a computer using just his thoughts (no physical controller).
Seriously, leading targets is what I consider basic sentient skills. If I watch you after I fail, and I see you not grasping the basic concepts of target lead, component destruction, etc - then I seriously want to come through the computer screen and exterminate you and your children.
So; hope you can argue high ping.
Spades Kincaid, on 08 July 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:
Because it's not as simple as clicking more than one button.
It's the difference between unloading X damage to a single location in one shot, and having to place 2-3 shots over a couple seconds into the same location for X damage. That same panel might not even be facing you anymore to be hit with subsequent shots.
So... if the panel is not able to be hit, it requires skill to be able to hit it? Skill changes the physical laws of the universe? You must think you'll be ******* awesome under this system.
What you're actually doing is reducing the cost of error to defending pilots. It doesn't require any more or less skill as the shooter.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
Something like that would largely balance the key "convergence" offender. That puts your PPC back in line with other energy weapons, giving lasers an advantage in utility with PPCs carrying the advantage in damage performance while preserving the current advantages of autocannons.
The rest of balance has to be brought about by better information and role warfare.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
That covers information warfare.
Role warfare is related, but would largely require the creation of maps several times the land mass of Alpine (double or even triple its dimensions). A myriad of objectives would need to be established that force strategic decisions at the start of the match. Some of those would need to vary from match to match.
Basically - you need maps that have a player-driven environment, rather than matches/maps where you drop and simply have to play king of the hill or annihilation.
2
