118 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 21 July 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

The damage-from-overheat system probably should stay, however (might need tuning). That ensures that your Quad PPC Alpha always hurts, even if you just fell behind cover after the shot and don't need to worry about standing out in the open.

Yes, that should stay, it's the silly "you can only fire 2*pi*the-shoe-size-of-your-mechwarrior number of this particular weapon" idea that needs to go.

In addition, more heat penalties should be added, for movement, aim, and risk of ammo explosions. They should also start sooner (as in way below 100% heat).

[Unbound Inferno]

Ranek Blackstone, on 21 July 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Combat in general promotes a "kill fast" mentality. Doesn't matter what game you play, the dude that kills the fastest is king.

The slow heat dissipation is currently the only thing holding the PPC meta is some semblance of check. Should it be easier to drop heat, you can fire MORE alphas with them, and make PPCs even MORE desirable to equip.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

That's why they need to severely reduce the heat cap. Then they can see about increasing dissipation; if the cap is low enough this unfortunate boating kludge they just implemented would become unnecessary.

MustrumRidcully, on 21 July 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

The damage-from-overheat system probably should stay, however (might need tuning). That ensures that your Quad PPC Alpha always hurts, even if you just fell behind cover after the shot and don't need to worry about standing out in the open.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Yes, that should stay, it's the silly "you can only fire 2*pi*the-shoe-size-of-your-mechwarrior number of this particular weapon" idea that needs to go.

In addition, more heat penalties should be added, for movement, aim, and risk of ammo explosions. They should also start sooner (as in way below 100% heat).

I disagree. The Heat Penalties system should go - and instead revamp the Heat System.

My Recommendation for the Overheat here lays it out: http://mwomercs.com/...80#entry2574180

Basically, 1 capacity per Single Heat Sink, 1 dissipation rate over say... 5 seconds for now.
There is an Overheated Threshold of 30 that starts after with increasing penalties.

If we take an adjusted value for Double Heat Sinks to only raise the capacity by 1, but maintain the dissipation rate by 2 it would drastically limit what a PPC boat can do.

The typical 4x PPC boat with 21 DHS would have a heat capacity of 21, then the overheat threshold of 30.

Firing ONCE generates 40 heat (assuming returning PPC heat up) resulting in the unit being overheatd to 19.

The penalties at that point include; assuming a 5-second dissipation
A momentary reduction of speed throttle (could be as drastic as 47%) that lasts unitll the mech cools off enough (just under 2 seconds) - but might be long enough to ensure the PPC boat can't get back into cover fast enough for a return shot
The crosshair shakes erratically - kind of irrelevant as the mech has nothing to shoot at this time
A Shutdown warning that if ignored, shuts the mech down momentarily.
Also the build generated just enough heat to receive a slight amount of internal damage. Not much, but it could add up over time if repeated.

If the mech was moving before the shot and had some slight heat built up the internal damage and movement penalty is worse. Basically you can't use that build in a fight firing all 4 at once.

It would be extremely inadvisable to use ERPPC in more than pairs for their entire recharge as the heat generated is tremendous if its back up to 15.
3x ERPPC is 45 heat; +24 on the overheat threshold with far more severe penalties as well as internal damage.
4x ERPPC (or 6x PPC) is 60 heat, pushing up to a grand total of 39 overheated. Shutdown is unavoidable and you can't do anything until you cool off. In theory the internal damage almost fries your engine - a second shot would kill you without needing enemies to shoot back at you.


Those kind of changes and penalties I think would be great. Not tat weird heat scaling thingy.

[stjobe]

Unbound Inferno, on 21 July 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

I disagree. The Heat Penalties system should go - and instead revamp the Heat System.

[...]

Those kind of changes and penalties I think would be great. Not tat weird heat scaling thingy.

I think you misunderstood at least what I was saying; I too want the heat system overhauled (my preferred solution in short: Severely lowered cap and increased dissipation to balance it, heat sinks don't add to cap but adds to dissipation) and I don't like the current "you can fire X weapons but then you get an overly complex heat penalty that's sort of impossible to calculate beforehand" mechanic.

I also want *more* heat penalties starting *lower* than 100% heat.

Edited by stjobe, 21 July 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I think you misunderstood at least what I was saying; I too want the heat system overhauled (my preferred solution in short: Severely lowered cap and increased dissipation to balance it, heat sinks don't add to cap but adds to dissipation) and I don't like the current "you can fire X weapons but then you get an overly complex heat penalty that's sort of impossible to calculate beforehand" mechanic.

I also want *more* heat penalties starting *lower* than 100% heat.

You are right, I misready. Sorry.

[Warge]

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I also want *more* heat penalties starting *lower* than 100% heat.

At 90% Mech's heat - player can get blurred vision, same as it is now after overheated Mech shuts down.

Edited by Warge, 21 July 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[Warge]

As for PPC and ERPPC - I like how they act now, jsut heat should be increased to 10 and 15.
PPC and Gauss should get min range 120 - same distance were MGs, SLs and Flamers become usefull. Also buff for MGs and Flamers...

[stjobe]

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

At 90% Mech's heat - player can get blurred vision, same as it is now after overheated Mech shuts down.

Consider this: TT heat penalties start at 5 residual heat, and goes up to 30 residual heat.

How much is 5 residual heat? Well, a 'mech with 10 SHS could fire two medium lasers without getting to 5 heat.
A 'mech with 10 DHS could fire four MLs without hitting 5 residual heat.

A stock AWS-8Q could fire its 3 PPCs simultaneously two times before hitting 5 residual heat (and 15 times before hitting 30 residual and auto-shutdown).

To make it clear, I think heat penalties should begin at about 25% heat and gently increase to shutdown at 100% heat, with movement penalties, aiming penalties, ammo explosion risks, and why not your "pilot blacking out" idea along the way.

Edited by stjobe, 21 July 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

At 90% Mech's heat - player can get blurred vision, same as it is now after overheated Mech shuts down.

I like that idea. A blurred vision.

[Warge]

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

A stock AWS-8R could fire its 3 PPCs simultaneously two times before hitting 5 residual heat (and 15 times before hitting 30 residual and auto-shutdown).

Same PPC-boating we have now?

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

with movement penalties,

and turning too.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

ammo explosion risks

Too hardcore...

[Unbound Inferno]

I agree. My A1 has 12 tons of ammo. One bang and...

[stjobe]

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Same PPC-boating we have now?

Not quite - that's about the max you can do, and the heat penalties stack up pretty quickly. Also remember, to fire all those PPCs, the 8Q has 28 SHS, and no other weaponry.

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

and turning too.

Sure.

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Too hardcore...

Nope. What we have now is too vapid to even get one's pulse going. If heat penalties not only affected your movement and aim, but also carried an inherent risk, it would be much more exciting - and therefore more fun.

Stock a lot of ammo, and you'd better not run too hot. You can assure that you're not running too hot by either loading up more heat sinks or regulating your rate of fire - both of which will lower your damage output, making the shots you take matter more.

Riding the red-line has always been an integral part of BattleTech, and it's been almost completely missing from MWO since the start. It's time it makes a comeback.

[Unbound Inferno]

I'd say moderation there on the Ammo.

Internal Damage - geared for 150% overheated (45) = fried engine would be just fine.
Repeated overheating is possible, but the damage stacks up.

[Warge]

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Not quite - that's about the max you can do, and the heat penalties stack up pretty quickly. Also remember, to fire all those PPCs, the 8Q has 28 SHS, and no other weaponry.

See lots of similar builds now: 2 PPC + Gauss or AC/20.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Nope. What we have now is too vapid to even get one's pulse going. If heat penalties not only affected your movement and aim, but also carried an inherent risk, it would be much more exciting - and therefore more fun.

For you - for sure; for me - maybe, I'd like to see this in real action; most other players - I fear not.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Stock a lot of ammo, and you'd better not run too hot. You can assure that you're not running too hot by either loading up more heat sinks or regulating your rate of fire - both of which will lower your damage output, making the shots you take matter more.

Don't the MWO become too slow? With less action part? No more "Waaagh!" ?

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Riding the red-line has always been an integral part of BattleTech, and it's been almost completely missing from MWO since the start. It's time it makes a comeback.

One little problem: PGI don't care about our wishes. "All work as intended" ™ and we, on this forum, "just minor part".

[Unbound Inferno]

Slow does nto mean less action.

Imagine a balance where a mech can take punishment for a minute or two before dying. All the hassle of torso-twisting, maneuvering and trying to out fight an opponent... that sounds like good action to me.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 21 July 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[stjobe]

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

See lots of similar builds now: 2 PPC + Gauss or AC/20.

Sure, but they can fire a lot more, and without any kind of penalty.

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Don't the MWO become too slow? With less action part? No more "Waaagh!" ?

Waaagh! does not belong in this IP (although I could regale you with my 2.5 years as a Greenskin warband leader in Warhammer Online...).

No, it doesn't become too slow and with less action. Action does not mean "firing weapons", as Unbound Inferno points out above. I've had some of the most frantic and action-filled moments in MWO without firing a single weapon.

And besides, BattleTech is supposed to be slow. It's part and parcel of the BattleTech Universe.

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

One little problem: PGI don't care about our wishes. "All work as intended" ™ and we, on this forum, "just minor part".

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, I guess. I don't see what it has to do with anything though.

Edited by stjobe, 21 July 2013 - 04:11 PM.

[Warge]

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Sure, but they can fire a lot more, and without any kind of penalty.

Shouldn't they have some brawl penalty? 120m and closer?

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Waaagh! does not belong in this IP

Man! Sometimes you are too serious.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

And besides, BattleTech is supposed to be slow. It's part and parcel of the BattleTech Universe.

MW:T on it's way. For me - I expect form MWO dakka-dakka-dakka as main part. Am I ashamed of myself?

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, I guess. I don't see what it has to do with anything though.

Lots of "pro" to support my opition (I'm not happy about it): MGs; Flamers; what time taked to fix SSRMs (we asked a lot about it); ECM (it's abomination in MWO, but PGi don't care, they just use 4*D-DC + 4*3L and think that everything is ok in game); 3PV (we just minor part, as was told by PGI); and this Heat Scale (I bet this is permanent rule in MWO).

[stjobe]

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Shouldn't they have some brawl penalty? 120m and closer?

90m for the PPC and 60m for the Gauss. None for the ERPPC. That's what it should be.

Funnily enough, there are actual rules for these weapons that are almost three decades old. Imagine that.

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Man! Sometimes you are too serious.

See, with the smiley there I can tell you're not being serious. Without it, it could just as well be your honest opinion or just plain bad English. Usually I, despite my 20+ years on the Internet, take it as a given that people mean what they type literally. Sometimes it backfires

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

MW:T on it's way. For me - I expect form MWO dakka-dakka-dakka as main part. Am I ashamed of myself?

I still don't think you get the idea that "not firing weapons" is not the same as "slow". Have you found yourself in a bad tactical situation and had to frantically maneuver your way out of it, dodging incoming fire and ducking and weaving from cover to cover? That's not "slow" by any meaning of the word, but it doesn't necessarily involve a single "dakka".

Warge, on 21 July 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Lots of "pro" to support my opition (I'm not happy about it): MGs; Flamers; what time taked to fix SSRMs (we asked a lot about it); ECM (it's abomination in MWO, but PGi don't care, they just use 4*D-DC + 4*3L and think that everything is ok in game); 3PV (we just minor part, as was told by PGI); and this Heat Scale (I bet this is permanent rule in MWO).

Again, while you may hold any opinion you like, it seems to me it has zero bearing on the current discussion.

[MustrumRidcully]

Ammo explosions to me are always a bit too... random. And they might lead to people rather se no ammo-based weapons at all if the explosion damage is too high.

I would forget the TT rules here and lower the ammo explosion damage significantly. Even at 10 damage per bin it's still a lot (and say you lose one bin for every 20 seconds at heat level ammo explosion I, every 10 seconds at heat level ammo explosion II, and every 5 seconds at heat level ammo explosion IV. The fact that you suddenly have less ammo will probably be painful enough, but if the "pain" is too big, no one will carry ammo based weapons.

[Unbound Inferno]

MustrumRidcully, on 21 July 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Ammo explosions to me are always a bit too... random. And they might lead to people rather se no ammo-based weapons at all if the explosion damage is too high.

I would forget the TT rules here and lower the ammo explosion damage significantly. Even at 10 damage per bin it's still a lot (and say you lose one bin for every 20 seconds at heat level ammo explosion I, every 10 seconds at heat level ammo explosion II, and every 5 seconds at heat level ammo explosion IV. The fact that you suddenly have less ammo will probably be painful enough, but if the "pain" is too big, no one will carry ammo based weapons.

Which is why I prefer the internal damage that fries the engine instead.

Easier for most to catch on, and it doesn't hinder ammo weapons.

[Warge]

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

90m for the PPC and 60m for the Gauss. None for the ERPPC. That's what it should be.

Too close for MWO, imho. Almost instant death to Flea/Locust/Spider(after hitboxes fix)/Commando.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

Funnily enough, there are actual rules for these weapons that are almost three decades old. Imagine that.

It's a pitty there are no such rules for PC version of BT.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

See, with the smiley there I can tell you're not being serious.

Even in real life I like to tell absurd statements with serious face. It's mine 1-st logic in acton.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

Have you found yourself in a bad tactical situation and had to frantically maneuver your way out of it, dodging incoming fire and ducking and weaving from cover to cover? That's not "slow" by any meaning of the word, but it doesn't necessarily involve a single "dakka".

Got your point.

stjobe, on 21 July 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

it seems to me it has zero bearing on the current discussion.

Actualy if devs don't care - there is no reason to discuss what should be or what shouldn't. Devs make their own decisions and we have almost zero influence on them.
What we do now - is some sort of brain's self-pleasure (m....n): we eases our discomfort from unbalanced game.

Edited by Warge, 21 July 2013 - 05:13 PM.