1084 replies to this topic

[Morlokk]

So is there still a heat multiplier if you have say 2 PPCs and 2ER PPCS? or 2 large laser and 2 er large lasers?

[Jakob Knight]

Morlokk, on 18 July 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

So is there still a heat multiplier if you have say 2 PPCs and 2ER PPCS? or 2 large laser and 2 er large lasers?

Currently, those weapons are in their own 'brackets', so you could have 2 PPC and 2 ERPPC and not have a penalty. However, after the 30th, the two PPC types will share a single bracket, so having more than two of any kind of PPC will incur penalties. No word on whether they will do the same for the Large Laser and ER Large Laser.

[MaxStr]

Jakob Knight, on 18 July 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

Currently, those weapons are in their own 'brackets', so you could have 2 PPC and 2 ERPPC and not have a penalty. However, after the 30th, the two PPC types will share a single bracket, so having more than two of any kind of PPC will incur penalties. No word on whether they will do the same for the Large Laser and ER Large Laser.

Noting this definitely won't effect 2 PPC/1 Gauss setups which will be the new meta.

[No7]

The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in this thread.

7

[mytilus edulis]

I don't like the new heat scale mechanic. If anything it just seems to punish certain variants over others.

[MustrumRidcully]

Jakob Knight, on 18 July 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

The problem with that is that the stated problem is that players feel they shouldn't die quickly to massed heavy fire, not that the grouping system is flawed. No one is complaining about being able to group five flamers together, but instead that five PPCs core out their mech. People able to continuously hit the same spot shot after shot will achieve the exact same results, and so the problem stated would not be solved, and we'd have the same calls to change the game

I think you will find that there are more people being able to bring a Quad PPC alpha on target then there are people that bring 4 PPCs fired with 0.25 distance apart on target. Especially if you consider that you can react to fire that comes over time, and you can start changing course and torso twisting, making your enemies shots even harder (or impossible).

Weapons like flamers would - in my hypothetical system - not be affected all that much by the group-fire "prohibition" - the chain-fire cooldown for these weapons would be very low, since they deal damage over time. A benchmark I am looking at for the GCD is: "No more than 20 damage in 0.5 seconds" - Which means something like a 0.5 seconds cooldown for an AC/20, but only a 0.05 second GCD for an AC/2 and even less for a Laser or Flamer.

[Jakob Knight]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 July 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

I think you will find that there are more people being able to bring a Quad PPC alpha on target then there are people that bring 4 PPCs fired with 0.25 distance apart on target. Especially if you consider that you can react to fire that comes over time, and you can start changing course and torso twisting, making your enemies shots even harder (or impossible).

Weapons like flamers would - in my hypothetical system - not be affected all that much by the group-fire "prohibition" - the chain-fire cooldown for these weapons would be very low, since they deal damage over time. A benchmark I am looking at for the GCD is: "No more than 20 damage in 0.5 seconds" - Which means something like a 0.5 seconds cooldown for an AC/20, but only a 0.05 second GCD for an AC/2 and even less for a Laser or Flamer.

I used the Flamer merely as an example, but you can substitute any weapon other than the big ones and get the same result. People don't complain when hit with 4 AC/5s grouped, but 2 AC/20s are a problem for them. It's the result they don't want, not the grouping (even though 4 AC/5s do equal or more damage than 2 AC/20s under the current system due to refire rate).

As for reaction, few people, if any, react to fire when they are undamaged, thinking their armor can take it, so the results -will- be the same, especially at range. People only start reacting as you describe once they have to worry about the damage, and that will only happen after the four PPCs in your example have all fired. At the same time, the chain fire option reduces heat just because you are not firing them all at once, actually making the effect greater by avoiding the shutdown that might otherwise occur and allowing the Quad PPC mech to fire -immediately- again rather than be stuck immobile, doing even more damage.

Anyway, my opinion is that it is the concept that they can be killed quickly by heavy weapons that is at the core of the complaint, and it is a combination of increasing greatly the penalty for high heat and a realization on the part of the playerbase that heavy weapons are designed to do heavy damage quickly that needs to happen. You can agree with me or not, but that's what I believe.

[Master Q]

Jakob Knight, on 18 July 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Hmm...you are assuming much. A skilled brawler team will approach the sniper team using cover to deny the sniper team the range. Once in the short range their weapons require, I don't doubt that 16 AC/20s or 48 medium lasers will leave those sniper mechs pretty much broken over the landscape. Granted, if the brawler team attempts to charge the sniper team straight in, there will be a lot of casualties on the brawler team because they are playing the sniper team's game. The trick is to know what your strengths are and what the enemy also has, and not to play their game unless it is yours too.

You just proved you don't play the game, because the maps don't significantly allow for what you're talking about. It's all distance chokepoints; the sniper mechs can simply park on the top of hills, partly covered with their top-mount weapons sticking out and their hitboxes protected by the game's stupidly broken terrain hitbox detection.

[Syrkres]

Question,

You have implemented Heat scales based on weapon type, rather than MECH type, so what happens when you introduce the Nova(BlackCat) which has a standard build of 12 ER Medium Lasers? (and yes I know you haven't put a heat scale on ER Medium Lasers, but I assume it would be equal to or less than Medium Lasers).

Logically the mech should be able to Alpha at least once, but based on your current scaling, you wouldn't even be able to get close to that.

[Jakob Knight]

Syrkres, on 19 July 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Question,

You have implemented Heat scales based on weapon type, rather than MECH type, so what happens when you introduce the Nova(BlackCat) which has a standard build of 12 ER Medium Lasers? (and yes I know you haven't put a heat scale on ER Medium Lasers, but I assume it would be equal to or less than Medium Lasers).

Logically the mech should be able to Alpha at least once, but based on your current scaling, you wouldn't even be able to get close to that.

The simplest answer is that they won't be introducing the Nova (Blackhawk) into the game. However, they have had the HBK-4P since the game first opened, and so the problem does exist that some stock mechs are currently facing penalties for mounting the weapons they come with (AWS-8Q, for example). In the future, the devs have hinted that there will be modifications to each chassis to the heat scaling, but until you see it in the patch notes, assume you'll have to modify such mechs before you can use them without being undercut by the devs.

Master Q, on 19 July 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

You just proved you don't play the game, because the maps don't significantly allow for what you're talking about. It's all distance chokepoints; the sniper mechs can simply park on the top of hills, partly covered with their top-mount weapons sticking out and their hitboxes protected by the game's stupidly broken terrain hitbox detection.

As I have stated before, I have done just what I described whenever I decide the situation requires it, so perhaps it is simply a matter of knowing how to fight. If you don't know how to do this, it isn't my responsibility to teach you.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 19 July 2013 - 06:51 AM.

[Geminus]

Master Q, on 18 July 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Put it back on you Jakob:

When ONE sort of mech build is dominating the battlefield, and matches come down to "which of the teams had more builds of that type on their team", we know something is broken.

8 skilled players in brawlers vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead brawlers.

a 4/4 split brawl/sniper team, skilled, vs 8 equally skilled players in snipers = dead other team.

Lather, rinse, repeat. The game mechanic is broken.

Im not seeing this. I always see a mix of mechs and weapons types. There was a post in ask the devs saying that Stalker was "the mech" as it was always used as a PPC boat. That being the case, why do I see so few stalkers, and out of those, maybe 15% are PPC boats. I think you guys see what you want to see, I.e. It killed me so its over powered and must be stopped so that I don't have to adapt or think of new ways of approaching situations.

I also notice that you do not name said dominate mech. Which goes a long way to making your argument look like smoke.

Further more your own example is based on skilled team vs unskilled team with the skilled team wining every time, and not mech type vs mech type.

Edited by Geminus, 19 July 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Geminus]

Master Q, on 19 July 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

You just proved you don't play the game, because the maps don't significantly allow for what you're talking about. It's all distance chokepoints; the sniper mechs can simply park on the top of hills, partly covered with their top-mount weapons sticking out and their hitboxes protected by the game's stupidly broken terrain hitbox detection.

Master Q, on 19 July 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

You just proved you don't play the game, because the maps don't significantly allow for what you're talking about. It's all distance chokepoints; the sniper mechs can simply park on the top of hills, partly covered with their top-mount weapons sticking out and their hitboxes protected by the game's stupidly broken terrain hitbox detection.

When I have played sniper mechs I have been killed. There is no magic build, don't blame the game, adapt and learn to play. Take a light, run round, hit the sniper, or just tag it and let the LRM member of your team, im sure the one you curse at start of the game for being OP, hit him with his payload.

[Geminus]

Dimento Graven, on 18 July 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Well the question is, is it massed fire from multiple 'mechs? That's not unreasonable.

Is it 'massed fire' from a single 'mech firing upwards of 6 PPC's simultaneously, repeatedly, while suffering no SUBSTANTIAL penalty of their own? That's silly.

Generating so much heat that you shut down, or come so close to shut down that you cant fire again in any reasonable amount of time to defend your self is silly? Cause thats all ready happening before the the DEVs institued the PGI Assault weapons ban.

[Stelar 7]

Read through the first 19 pages, hey look 30 more....

I think this solution is elegant. If they implemented convergence, we'd be hearing about "random" rolls or if convergence was not cone of fire limited, then the system would be much harder on new players than this. It would also make the buolds more limited since you will. Eed to find weapons with a set convergance that works well on every map, yay random drop.

If the force a delay options were enacted then a choice is removed from the game. This system leaves the choice on the table, but adds a consequence. Bravo.

To all the TT cannon folks, get over it. Seriously, MW tatics is ----> that way. The only tabletop game that comes close to MWO is Solaris 7, which had quadruple heat and rate of fire delays based on 2.5 second rounds. PPC were near unusable, autocannon and mg were king.

This heat tool allows for the balancing of clan bs, I hope they never implement clan, but if for spme reason they do, the TT values will need to be in the trash, clan tech is beyond broken, has to be balanced by overwhelming numbers in TT. If they release clan, al the weapons we use now will be so much wasted cbills. However if the clanners melt when using their absurd alphas, or are only slightly better and take penalties to compensate, like no module slots, or is get working arty and airstrikes, clanners don't things may work out ok.

[Pht]

Stelar 7, on 19 July 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

To all the TT cannon folks, get over it. Seriously, MW tatics is ----> that way.

To all the folks who don't want to make a good argument, the above is exactly how to misquote and strawman the people you're arguing against.

Quote

This heat tool allows for the balancing of clan bs, I hope they never implement clan, but if for spme reason they do, the TT values will need to be in the trash, clan tech is beyond broken, has to be balanced by overwhelming numbers in TT.

... because somehow, in an economy driven persistent MMOG, they somehow ... can't make clan toys and omnimechs in general ... rarer, more expensive to get, and harder to maintain?

Here and I thought some variety in gaming was fun... you know, that some things were actually allowed to be genuinely better than other things but be balanced by other factors beyond combat performance.

No, let's stick with whack-a-mole.

Quote

If they release clan, al the weapons we use now will be so much wasted cbills.

... because they obviously can't let us sell off the stuff we have to get better stuff, right?

[MustrumRidcully]

Jakob Knight, on 19 July 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

I used the Flamer merely as an example, but you can substitute any weapon other than the big ones and get the same result. People don't complain when hit with 4 AC/5s grouped, but 2 AC/20s are a problem for them. It's the result they don't want, not the grouping (even though 4 AC/5s do equal or more damage than 2 AC/20s under the current system due to refire rate).

But how do you avoid the results? SPlash damage? After the LRM fiasco, I don't see this as a "trustworthy" mechanic, splash damage seems not well designed or balanceable for M:WO.

So we have to start earlier. People typically say "nerf convergence", but I think this is problematic because it'S difficult to convey the status of convergence in a meaningful manner, and it will generally make aiming a more complicated affair, if you suddenly have to always think of the different leads each weapon will have based on its position (and potentially based on the level of convergence the system has reached). And apparantly there are technical challenges involved for PGI, too, to sync all this correctly between player and server.

So I think changing group-fire is the safer bet. Cooldowns in MW:O work. You can't macro yourself out of a weapon cooldown, nor out of a artillery or air strike cooldown. It's also a pretty proven technology in other online games (WoW, Startrek Online.). Yeah, it's a bit artificial, but so is the whole idea that the 31st century targeting computer cannot calculate leads for me and just let me lean back except for making the kill decisions.

[riverslq]

Geminus, on 19 July 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

When I have played sniper mechs I have been killed. There is no magic build, don't blame the game, adapt and learn to play. Take a light, run round, hit the sniper, or just tag it and let the LRM member of your team, im sure the one you curse at start of the game for being OP, hit him with his payload.

Really? Learn to Play a broken game.
If that's the best you can come up with, I guess you have QQ and Whine macro'd and ready to go in chat too, right?

And if you've been killed while playing a sniper mech, you either suck, or got sniped.
shrug.

[Wraith511802003]

The heat scale is merely an attempt to appease the brawlers who want to run around unimpeded and cap bases. With 2 good sniper mechs they can t do that especially if they are smart and shoot in tandem. Alpha shot 80 or more, let face it, the alpha strike is slow before the heat scale. IF you run in the open and dont seek cover you are going to die. As it should be, and lights who think they can take on an assault should be scared and not last more than one shot. I feel this will go the way of swg.. slow death but a death it will have appeasing the care bears.

[Stelar 7]

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

To all the folks who don't want to make a good argument, the above is exactly how to misquote and strawman the people you're arguing against.

I did not quote anyone, or create a strawman, unless you agree with me that arguments from cannon table top rules for the way a realtime shooter simulation should balance it's play elements are universally flawed for the same reason apples and oranges don't get compared directly. And that no real argument would use some tabletop rule as a justification. Except I have seen many of those type of claims made, here in this thread even.

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

... because somehow, in an economy driven persistent MMOG, they somehow ... can't make clan toys and omnimechs in general ... rarer, more expensive to get, and harder to maintain?

So then you are an advocate of pay to win, and massive barrier to entry for new players? How about no. The balance is in a performance weakness, not cbill or mc cost. If clan weapons come with a drawback that can be exploited in game, great. Otherwise they will be the only weapons because everyone will need to use them.

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Here and I thought some variety in gaming was fun... you know, that some things were actually allowed to be genuinely better than other things but be balanced by other factors beyond combat performance.

Situationally, sure, medium lasers are better damage per ton at close range, and not so hot at long range. That kind of imbalance is good for game play. But clan medium lasers, as written in TT are always better than IS medium lasers.

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

No, let's stick with whack-a-mole.

? Wat?

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

... because they obviously can't let us sell off the stuff we have to get better stuff, right?

You realize you just agreed with me right? That if we get clan stuff, as it worked in cannon, we will have to sell all our inner sphere stuff and update. Also, check the numbers selling comes with a 50% loss in cbill value, aka waste.

[Victor Morson]

Stelar 7, on 20 July 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Words

Let me explain it really simply as just one example among many:

Problem - 1 Gauss, 2 PPC Jumpers
Not a problem - 9 Med Las Swaybacks

Guess which one got nerfed?

PS: 1 Gauss, 2 PPC would not be a problem if the guns were balanced right.

Edited by Victor Morson, 20 July 2013 - 04:00 PM.