You do realize this has to be explained to newbies, before they ragepost on the boards?
There isn't even a tutorial to inform them on how it works... so tell me, how will they find out? Last I checked, the silent masses don't post on the boards, let alone read anything... how will they find this tidbit of info that is imperative to their success?
The same way players learn about good builds in Eve... they will have to search the forums, look up You Tube Videos, maybe even actually talk to other MW:O players! Heaven forbid that the game requires some actual thought.
A tutorial would be nice but can be added in at a later date since we still haven't even seen any type of Community Warfare as of yet. While not perfect the fixes suggested here are some of the more reasonable things that PGI has done in recent times, and help to address issues that many of us have complained about since Closed BETA. Now if only PGI listens to this Poll and actually accepts the results since they have been completely ignoring the results of the 3rd Person Point of View Poll(s).
Prosperity Park, on 11 July 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:
I like having new Heat Penalties, because Heat, itself, is a penalty and nothing more.
In the BattleTech Lore, Mechs generate much heat and need lots of HeatSinks for this and that reason regarding mechanics and thermal transfer and stuff... right?
Well, no.
Mechs generate a bunch of heat and cook the pilots and need tons of HeatSinks in BattleTech Lore because the Board Game Rules demand it. Heat is nothing more than a penalty meant to balance weapons, and adding Heat Penalties does not do anything to "recklessly complicate" the game other than encourage pilots to Stagger-Fire weapons. That's it. If you think being encouraged to Stagger-Fire or face a penalty makes this game too complicated, then I can't imagine how complicated it must have felt to deal all the other game's functions.
Adding a Combined-Fire Heat Penalty penalizes alpha striking, and thereby encourages both Stagger-fire and mixed loadouts. This is not the only change that's being made to the game, and you can't blame the Heat Penalties for their lack at curbing Dual PPC + Gauss sniping because they are not intended to stop PPC + Gauss Sniping. What it does is to discourage/penalize Massed PPC and Hugely Massed Laser pinpoint fire.
If you think that this will kill the Hunchback-4P, then you are not only mistaken but you clearly don't drive a Swayback very much. A Swayback pilot has choices:
They can fire 6ML in the Hunch, and while those lasers are still burning they can then fire the 2 Arm-mounted lasers and the Head Laser to fill out the 45-point strike that burns for 1.5 seconds with no penalty at all.
They can put 1 MPL and 6ML between the Hunch and Head, fire that, and while it's still burning they can fire the 2 arm MLs for no penalty at all
They can use 6ML + 3MPL all day long for no penalty at all
If these accommodations are enough to make a Swayback unplayable, then it might not have been the Mech for you in the first place. I mean you can still pack 2 ERPPC n the Hunch and use it all day without penalty, too. There is a Mechlab, you know - you don't have to use all Medium Lasers all the time in your Swayback.
It's a hamfisted effort to do those things that adds unneeded (though, of course, not insurmountable) complexity.
If the point is to encourage stagger fire, then the combination of weapons being alpha fired is irrelevant and having to remember the max number of each type of weapon you are "allowed" is an extra bit of unnecessary data that people have to consider (KISS; insurmountable or not, unneeded complexity is bad). Why is alpha firing 3 PPCs bad but alpha firing 2 PPCs and a Gauss Rifle okay?
As far as increasing weapon variety, it does nothing to address WHY people boat in the first place (things like the efficiency of having similar fire profiles and how specialization is vastly superior to generalization in the current game design). It's just smacking people in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and going "bad!" when they make a build choice that otherwise seems completely logical. That un-intuitive result is just another bit of unneeded complexity.
It all boils down to this system treating symptoms and not causes, and the fact that they're going to do other things down the road doesn't mitigate that at all. If they're going to treat the causes, then treating the symptoms is unnecessary and superfluous. If they're not, then they're not focusing in the right place w/their design. In either case, this system is just a messy kludge.
I still think raising heat output on individual weapons is a better idea than this max alpha thing but we'll see how it plays out.
SRMs: yes 2.0 damage. Yes, please.
Bottom line is playing with SRMs as they are now is painfully futile. I don't want srm-aggeddon and I understand how 2.5 could do that, I just want SRM's to be a good solid strong weapon choice to help mediums do their job and be worth piloting. Maybe 2.0 damage isn't the answer and maybe only hit detection or something will really fix it, I don't care what needs to be done so long as it gets done and sooner is better. If that means we need a temporary stop gap until the real fix I'm ok with it.
Arriving for June 16th… heat scale on high weapon count alphas.
As promised, once systems are in place for new balancing/tuning features, I will let you know about them as they enter test. What we have seen so far is very positive. There are some tweaks that need to be done but those will come with subsequent patches. The key here is to get this feature enabled to allow you, the Beta testers to see the effects and adjust your gameplay or meta-gameplay as needed.
This is very experimental and is being addressed aggressively as I mentioned in my previous weapons update. The first set of numbers are for the immediate effect on the current meta-game but more weapons and balancing will occur with each patch you see on our path to Launch. That being said, here is a table of maximum weapons of each weapon type you can fire without incurring the heat penalty. Internally we call this value Max Alpha.
Weapon System
Max Alpha
PPC
2
ERPPC
2
LRM-15
2
Large Laser
2
Medium Laser
6
AC/20
1
SRM-2
4
SSRM-2
4
SRM-4
4
SRM-6
3
Firing more weapons than Max Alpha makes heat generation grow exponentially. For example, from the table above, if you fire 2 PPCs, you will receive no heat penalty. Fire 3 and there will be a noticeable heat increase. Fire 4, it starts to get significant. Beyond that, you’re playing with fire.
What about SRMs?!?! Buff them to 2.5!!!
Nuh uh. 2.5 SRM damage causes the same effect as the previous LRM-aggedon. While funny to test, the 6-SRM6 Catapult will decimate any Assault class Mech in 3 volleys. The third volley doesn’t even have to be a full volley, 2 volleys following up with a medium laser will probably kill most builds in the game. So what am I going to do about this? Well let me explain an issue…
Many of you have cited hit detection errors. We’re seeing this as well. While it happens across almost all Mechs, it’s most noticeable with small Mech chassis. Bumping damage is going to help deal a small amount more damage to small Mechs, but the larger Mechs are going to be destroyed VERY quickly. We are investigating the root cause of these detection errors but it’s a deep problem. We need to find out if it’s in HSR (host state rewind) or is it in the simulation running on the server etc etc. Once found we will be pouring heavy resources on to the problem to fix it ASAP. However, I can tell you this, it’s going to take a while to find due to its complexity.
That being said, here’s an opportunity for you to decide your fate when dealing with SRMs. In this feedback thread (http://mwomercs.com/...-hit-detection/), there is a poll. You can vote to bump SRM damage up to 2.0, not this patch but next, or leave damage as is until hit detection is fixed. Keep in mind, this bump in damage is going to be a fairly big world of hurt for larger Mechs. NOTE: Cut off for voting will be Sunday 11:59PM PST.
Taking damage beyond 120% heat.
This value is going to be reduced to 100%. Depending on how long you're in a state of overheat will determine how much damage you take. If you overheat by 1 point and are only in overheat for a very short amount of time, you probably won't take any damage at all.
Where's my dislike button?
Heat Penalty System
The entire heat penalty system seems arbitrary, needlessly complicated, and poorly thought out.
So you say 30 damage alphas are a problem? So why does the Gauss Rifle not suffer a heat penalty, just like the PPC does?
A 6 Medium Laser alpha might be 30 damage alphas on paper, but in practice it's a 30 damage in 1 second attack that will spread its damage. There is no reason to penalize Lasers to the same extent as you penalize PPCs. They are not pinpoint precise.
So PGI thinks this game needs a 3rd person perspective mode to attract more players. And you're telling me the same players you wish to attract would enjoy a complicated, unintuitive heat penalty system?
Yes, it sucks to hear that the development time in this new subsystem was wasted, but I think it was. You could have achieved more by just disallowing group fire for any weapon that delas more than 5 damage in one projectile.You already have your counter for time between shots, apparently, so you should be able to simply lock weapons from shooting.
It might not be the most elegant solution, but it can be easily communicated ("hey guys, these weapons are heavy, only one shot per weapon trigger, sorry"), and it achieves what we need - less high damage pinpoint precision alphas - without needing a new UI.
But hey, if you don't like that idea, the community has a few other, more involved, but also interesting solutions. And they tend to be not as arbitrary, and often also put some thought in differentiating the really problematic weapons (high damage projectile weapons) and the less problematic ones (weapons with spread damage or beams.)
SRM damage
I don't think it needs to be 2.5, but I think it needs to be around 2.0. Regardless of any hit penalties. ANd hey, if it works better against larger targets, it might do some good even, because that might give lights and mediums an advantage they are lacking so far. Oh, wait, it might not, because your mech sizes do not correlate to mech mass and so some Mediums are as large as Heavies or Assaults.
Anyway, you did get rid of the splash damage effect mostly (why not entirely?), so 2.0 or 2.5, it will not feel the same as the Splat Cat used to be in the old days.
---
But with your heat penalty system you really make a convincing argument to not bother with the Phoenix package.
Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 July 2013 - 01:34 PM.
Maybe if we repeat this point enough Paul or the other devs might finally look at root causes.
The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE.
Compare:
- Damage spread of one AC/40 alpha strike (linked shots with perfect convergence that hit a single panel) versus accumulated heat: 12. - Damage spread of a 40-LRM salvo alpha (either two LRM20s, four LRM10s, two LRM15 plus one LRM10, or another config) which spreads all over the targeted mech instead while also requiring target lock and minimum distance and accumulated heat: 12-16 depending on config. - Damage spread of four PPCs, most likely not completely converged since at least two have to be on torso instead of arms and still having a minimum fire distance. Accumulated heat: 32 - Make it four ERPPCs instead, remove the minimum fire distance but jump the accumulated heat to 44. - Medium lasers? You'd need 8 of them to get there. If you can find the chassis for it, accumulated heat is still 32while convergence is still arms/torso split and you have the fire-time to hold targeting = damage spread, not concentrated. - Large lasers? 4 of them is 36 damage, heat is still 28 with all the downsides of the Medium Lasers still.
Only one of these things creates the imbalance issue of 40 points going straight where it was pointed to a single panel with no drawbacks. PAUL, PAY ATTENTION HERE: The issue is convergence, not boating.
The reason that all your attempted fixes aren't working, the reason that people are in such an uproar about your fixes not working, is that you are repeatedly trying to fix the wrong problem. It's like having a car with a low-oil warning light and instead of going in to get your oil changed and the leak plugged, having your tires rotated instead. THE PROBLEM IS STILL THERE AND YOU DID NOTHING RELATED TO IT.
The same way players learn about good builds in Eve... they will have to search the forums, look up You Tube Videos, maybe even actually talk to other MW:O players! Heaven forbid that the game requires some actual thought.
A tutorial would be nice but can be added in at a later date since we still haven't even seen any type of Community Warfare as of yet. While not perfect the fixes suggested here are some of the more reasonable things that PGI has done in recent times, and help to address issues that many of us have complained about since Closed BETA. Now if only PGI listens to this Poll and actually accepts the results since they have been completely ignoring the results of the 3rd Person Point of View Poll(s).
Copy and pasting from other players isn't "thought." "Thought" requires self-innovation, which isn't even needed in a narrow meta like the one we have now and will retain after the max alpha nerf.
If the head honchos that pay the likes of Paul and some of the other chuckleheads that 'work' at PGI are reading this, please, FFS, get rid of these imbeciles that are ruining - no, wait - have ruined this game.
I can't believe anybody who says they love the TT game and lore would ever think a fix like this is even close to what is needed and/or wanted.
The same way players learn about good builds in Eve... they will have to search the forums, look up You Tube Videos, maybe even actually talk to other MW:O players! Heaven forbid that the game requires some actual thought.
A tutorial would be nice but can be added in at a later date since we still haven't even seen any type of Community Warfare as of yet. While not perfect the fixes suggested here are some of the more reasonable things that PGI has done in recent times, and help to address issues that many of us have complained about since Closed BETA. Now if only PGI listens to this Poll and actually accepts the results since they have been completely ignoring the results of the 3rd Person Point of View Poll(s).
The hardcore players care and look for this stuff. The casuals don't really care, but will ragequit. Frankly, we're getting a lot of newbies (at least, according to PGI), but they are probably kinda put off from the PPC/high alpha meta... this does not do much to address it.. if anything it gives those people ammunition to say "I thought they said this change would rid of the PPC/high alpha meta... what gives?"
That's the problem this entire issue suffers from.
incredibly good move to put this pole out PGI. This will give your player base huge amounts of faith. You should do more like it when making the decision internally is difficult or the choice not obvious (PPCS!!!).
So, basically, we already shared feeback in the previous threads, and actually demonstrating that this "fix" is so bad, it will only penalize players that don't know how to circumvent it?
Worse, the meta will not change a bit, with the Victor coming in for more PPC/GAUSS/ JJ spammage.
Have you really tested it ? Have ANY GOOD PLAYERS tested it in a real environement?
Stop making "Feeback threads", you obviously aren't reading them, or worse, not learning from them.
incredibly good move to put this pole out PGI. This will give your player base huge amounts of faith. You should do more like it when making the decision internally is difficult or the choice not obvious (PPCS!!!).
3 PPC + 1 Gauss awaits your presence on patch day.
I highly recommend that you come up with something that handles "mixed bags" of weapons as well as boating identical ones. (See Glucose's suggestion on the first page, of alpha limits.)
And I'd also do something about pinpoint convergence.
Ah, you've hit upon the crux of the matter. You don't like the large laser change, because it affects you and some of your mechs personally. But this is the big problem with the alpha penalty- the people who don't drive mechs hurt by this don't care, and you're only slightly affected, so it's not a big deal from your point of view. As far as I am concerned, 6 large lasers is more appropriate, because I own an AWS-8Q and what the hell am I supposed to do with 80 tons and six energy hardpoints with nothing else? The real question that should be asked is not "why is the number of weapons in the penalty x," but rather, "why is there a penalty in the first place when the only weapon which is a problem when boated is the ppc?" Maybe it would just be easier to increase ppc heat by 1 or 2, er by 2 or 3? Or slow down the projectile 15%?
I also suspect that you are right about the boating penalty coming in the same patch as 100% heat causing damage. There will be a lot of overheating, and it will all cause damage. I'm just surprised to see so few people in this thread complaining about, let alone noticing, that having the damage penalty be at 100% instead of 120 completely invalidates shutdown as a gameplay mechanic. The whole point of a shutdown is to avoid internal damage, you don't cool off any faster while shut down. So if you're going to take internal damage when you go over 100% anyway, why would you ever not override? If you're taking internal damage anyway, it's better to at least not be a stationary target while doing so. It used to be a serious tactical choice I had to make sometimes- do I overheat a little to try and finish off that enemy, is it worth it? If I overheat, do I override? The first is still a valid question, although the risk is now much greater for the same reward. But it is now always worth it to override if you are going to overheat. There's just no question about it. Slightly more internal damage in exchange for not getting your cockpit blown out is no choice at all.
It seems to me that they are limiting baseline damage to about 20, through heat generation.
1 AC20, 2 LL, 2PPC, etc... Missiles don't seem to exactly fit that idea. But perhaps this is their general approach. A way to even out (limit) max volleys across the board. sure you can do 3 or 4 PPC's but not without consequences that you have to consider, as it affects your contribution impact per match.
This makes sense to me as they try to balance things out for long term gameplay implementations. It will probably allow them greater control on the overall TTK for a mech. (which I believe they want to increase anyhow)
I argue that it is not only PPC's that cause alpha problems from a gameplay perspective. AC/40 Jager's are similar as well as a 6LL STK.
Heat scale is a start, it will take some time to get right but if it removes just one of the ridiculous boat builds (*gazes at STK*) it will be worth it.
Also major win for the overheat damage starting from 100% although, I would set it at 105% just because systems tend to be rated @100% with the possibility of running at slightly higher load for a short amount of time.
Not really sure on the SRM buff, voted no because I had flashbacks of the SplatCat era.
Maybe if we repeat this point enough Paul or the other devs might finally look at root causes.
The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE. The problem is CONVERGENCE.
Compare:
- Damage spread of one AC/40 alpha strike (linked shots with perfect convergence that hit a single panel) versus accumulated heat: 12.
- Damage spread of a 40-LRM salvo alpha (either two LRM20s, four LRM10s, two LRM15 plus one LRM10, or another config) which spreads all over the targeted mech instead while also requiring target lock and minimum distance and accumulated heat: 12-16 depending on config.
- Damage spread of four PPCs, most likely not completely converged since at least two have to be on torso instead of arms and still having a minimum fire distance. Accumulated heat: 32
- Make it four ERPPCs instead, remove the minimum fire distance but jump the accumulated heat to 44.
- Medium lasers? You'd need 8 of them to get there. If you can find the chassis for it, accumulated heat is still 32while convergence is still arms/torso split and you have the fire-time to hold targeting = damage spread, not concentrated.
- Large lasers? 4 of them is 36 damage, heat is still 28 with all the downsides of the Medium Lasers still.
Only one of these things creates the imbalance issue of 40 points going straight where it was pointed to a single panel with no drawbacks. PAUL, PAY ATTENTION HERE: The issue is convergence, not boating.
The reason that all your attempted fixes aren't working, the reason that people are in such an uproar about your fixes not working, is that you are repeatedly trying to fix the wrong problem. It's like having a car with a low-oil warning light and instead of going in to get your oil changed and the leak plugged, having your tires rotated instead. THE PROBLEM IS STILL THERE AND YOU DID NOTHING RELATED TO IT.
heat penalty is done complete wrong. instead of making it so u just gain heat, which does not hurt snipers just slows them down and forces ppl to play mixed configs. also hurts new players who know nothing about the game. horrible for a game going "into" launch. there should be penalties for going up the heat scale. u are at 50% heat u start slowing down, 75% your vision is faded. i'm sure u can think of some nice ones. this idea is horrible, only thing decent was the reach 120% u take dam and now that is 100% which is dumb. any engineer would design a machine to take that much stress and heat. all i can say is sigh PGI, this is the best u can do after ppl raged at the original idea and u had a month to work on it.
how are new players going to know about all of this? poor new players are getting shat on so much. i played with one earlier for five games and he had no idea what was going on...
This is the worst idea PGI has implemented to date. It is overcomplicated and does absolutely nothing to address the problem with convergence. All this is going to accomplish is making 2ERPPC/Gauss the standard sniper build.
Don't worry, if that doesn't work, PGI already has the solution. They just need to put PPC and Gauss in the same alpha-group, too. And maybe raise the penalty some more.
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
35
This topic is locked
Deathlike, on 11 July 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:
Heaven forbid that the game requires some actual thought.
