461 replies to this topic

[Nulnoil]

Kyocera, on 16 July 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Excellent, don't come back whiner. You obviously can't adapt and now you don't have an easy button to click you're out of ideas. Go min-max in some other broken game.

What are you talking about? I don't have boats in my hangar but whole system of penalties is silly and unlogical. And, lol, all just started to use huge LRM packs based on lrm10,20 and 2ppc+gauss combination.

[PhoenixFire55]

Kyocera, on 16 July 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

And all of you, please shut the hell up about in canon this and in canon that. This is a FPV game where you mostly fire where you click, not some random dice rolls. THAT is the major difference and why these heat penalties are needed. Can a TT veteran tell me what the chances are of an AWS firing all 3 PPCs for all 3 to hit the CT?

If you would actually bother to read multiple threads on possible convergence changes you'll see that there is NOTHING about roll of dice in the systems people suggest. On the contrary, it requires way more skill. So when you mr-bold-text-I-know-it-all-FPV-veteran keep saying that we need THESE heat penalties instead of convergence fix its you who needs to shut it.

[Zyllos]

I am absolutely not liking this heat scale at all.

It doesn't fix the pin point accuracy issue.

It unfairly hurts some builds while not others.

I couldn't even suggest any type of changes to this mechanic to get it to work. I'd suggestion removing it entirely and replacing it with a system that introduces a CoF if you fire many shots together so that weapons damage is spread across sections. It does the exact same thing this heat scale thing does (by making players fire fewer shots to gain accuracy or alpha striking for low accuracy) without penalizing builds.

Edited by Zyllos, 16 July 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Hythos, on 16 July 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

I thought "live" is two months away? Unless its' been changed again.
However - I strongly believe what we're seeing is for future-proofing so that they don't have to balance us again, later....

Until hitboxes and hit registry isn't fixed I really don't know how they can balance anything.

[Corvus Antaka]

Zyllos, on 16 July 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I am absolutely not liking this heat scale at all.

It doesn't fix the pin point accuracy issue.

It unfairly hurts some builds while not others.

I couldn't even suggest any type of changes to this mechanic to get it to work. I'd suggestion removing it entirely and replacing it with a system that SRMs use so that weapons damage is spread across sections. It does the exact same thing this heat scale thing does (by making players fire fewer shots to gain accuracy or alpha striking for low accuracy) without penalizing builds.

more detail would be helpful. what pinpoint builds are not fixed that are still being abused outside the ppc/gauss that we expected and the 30th was announced fixes for linking guns?

[Lucifer Sunsoar]

I welcome this, if it doesn't play well it can be patched out, but at least it is an attempt to set a fair playing field that relies on skill as opposed to alpha strikes.

[Milocinia]

keith, on 16 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

if this is a FPS game then the best way to play it is pure alpha dam on the fastest fire rate u can get. any FPS is played like that, y do u think the awp is the best wep in CS. its a one shot kill. anything in MWO with 30 alpha or higher in hud is a 1 shot kill, that how some of us like to play. not some balanced build. u can go your dps, but this is not some high health dungeon boss in wow, alpha reigns king in fps.

This game is NOT an FPS. It is a FPV mech "simulator". Obviously parentheses for the simulator bit but this is a world away from (and meant to be) your CS, CoD, BF etc.

PhoenixFire55, on 16 July 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

If you would actually bother to read multiple threads on possible convergence changes you'll see that there is NOTHING about roll of dice in the systems people suggest. On the contrary, it requires way more skill. So when you mr-bold-text-I-know-it-all-FPV-veteran keep saying that we need THESE heat penalties instead of convergence fix its you who needs to shut it.

And if you would bother to read the paragraph below the bold one you'll know that I acknowledge a convergence fix is still needed ON TOP of the alpha heat penalties. Regardless of changes to convergence I still stand by what I say about this being a good idea because it forces you to build a more balanced mech as well as adapt to a different play style. Convergence or not, this change is necessary.

Yes there are still gauss/PPC builds but to be frank I couldn't care less about gauss. If I come across someone with them equipped, that's what I aim for first.

[XANi]

H1veM1nd, on 16 July 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Shutting down to save a mech isn't the same as intentionally overheating it beyond 100% just to crank out damage.

That was kinda true true when damage started at 120%, now you shutdown AND start taking damage (because shutdown doesnt prevent you going over 100%, especially if you fire sth big) AND get damage because you stand still and eat bullets.

Simple fix would be changing shutdown to toggle instead of "press to not shutdown for few seconds". So someone who manages heat well can just turn it off and dont worry that he accidentally do 101% heat and get shut down right before hiding behind corner

Shut down when in heat of the moment I fired guns when I had 81%(-> 101%) heat not 79% ( -> 99%) killed me way more often than any kind of overheating. And spamming shutdown override every time I shoot is just irritating

[C-O-M-B-A-T]

I really really regret every spending any money on this game. It keeps getting worse and worse every patch. Pretty soon you will not have a choice what mech you play or what weapons you use. You choose what weapons we want you to play with or you get a penalty. Mechgarbage Online!!! Come on you greedy devs...Im sure you have some more ways to screw up a once awesome game even more.

[PhoenixFire55]

Kyocera, on 16 July 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Convergence or not, this change is necessary.

It is not because it is not making any sense whatsoever.

Why 6 MLs and not 2, 8, 11?
Why 2 PPCs and not 1, 3, 5?
Why 24.0 multiplier for AC20s and not 25.0, 99.0?

Its arbitrary chosen numbers, and we already know that when thinking and decision making is involved PGI fails so very often.

Do the right thing (convergence + possible 'heavy hardpoints') first and then see if you need to do anything else.

[Sephlock]

So how do we all feel about SRMs now?

[PhoenixFire55]

Sephlock, on 16 July 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

So how do we all feel about SRMs now?

Splat cats are back in numbers, what else do you need to know? We presumably get rid of one type of boats only to substitute them with another type. Bandaid fixes (not really but anyway) one thing and breaks another thing.

[JackAttack5]

Providing some proof of the AC2 heat penalties mentioned in this thread earlier. Nowhere to be seen in patch notes though.

Starting with 675 ammo I fired. At 91% heat I take a screenshot. The ammo left shows how much ammo it took to be fired to reach that heat.

With no macro it's 135 rounds. http://i.imgur.com/j4MWlWy.jpg

With a macro it's 45 rounds. One third as many shots required to reach same heat, at a lower fire rate. http://i.imgur.com/7IHP0KO.jpg

Hopefully broken rather than just poorly designed.

[Larius]

Horrible change, not intuitive at all, creates strange restrictions. 4LL generates lots of additional heat but 2LL+2ER LL is fine? Or 2PPC+2ER PPC? How does that make any sense? I would love to see a hotfix tomorrow reverting it. Not sure why you don't want people to boat weapons - it's been done many times in BattleTech, some mechs are designed to boat. If a certain weapon group is too powerful, like say 4-6 PPCs, then deal with that single weapon. If mechs die to fast to sniper fire then either lower the damage output or increase internal hp, don't come up with these ridiculous systems.

What's more there is no indication of these penalties anywhere in the game, so new players (or even old ones that don't pay attention to patch notes) won't know that it's affecting them. This is horrible design.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

It sucks. It fixes none of the problems and has all of the down sides people said it would by breaking builds that are not a problem.

[MrTarget]

Things that make me laugh reading this thread;

People that moan about the changes probably boat mechs.

People think that 2 PPC and Gauss is a new idea.

People want to make mechs less accurate also moan about hit boxes.

I haven't had chance to test the new changes, but I can't see them being all that bad because I pilot balanced mechs. Found the 3xPPC gauss build a bit dull and un-challaging.

Also looking forward to getting my victor on

[Felio]

I think it might encourage more diverse builds and more macro use. But it's not going to do much, if anything, to stop the real problem, which is the front-loaded burst damage potential. There are still going to be one-shot kills and one-shot almost kills, just with different weapons.

You need to cap DPS. If more than one weapon is fired for more than 15 combined damage, the mech needs to be shut down. And that's still enough to one-shot kill a commando or locust.

Edited by Felio, 16 July 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[Drakari]

I would have much preferred they just get PPCs to spread their damage to adjacent components like Koniving suggested, and maybe a bump to their base heat. Really, they were the only weapons I had a problem with due to their ability to do massive, concentrated, burst damage at any range while having only moderate weight and size and being mountable in ridiculously common hardpoints. Gauss is more than twice the weight, more than twice the slots, and only 50% more damage, plus has limited ammo and explodes; seems fair. AC/20 has much shorter range, few possible mounting points even without considering the weight, and burns through its ammo fast if you miss.

PPCs are still high-tier weapons, none of the low-tier weapons were helped in any way, and many weapons that were previously fine got nerfed.

[POWR]

Zyllos, on 16 July 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I am absolutely not liking this heat scale at all.

It doesn't fix the pin point accuracy issue.

It unfairly hurts some builds while not others.

I couldn't even suggest any type of changes to this mechanic to get it to work. I'd suggestion removing it entirely and replacing it with a system that introduces a CoF if you fire many shots together so that weapons damage is spread across sections. It does the exact same thing this heat scale thing does (by making players fire fewer shots to gain accuracy or alpha striking for low accuracy) without penalizing builds.

So what you want is a version of automaim that penalizes players who are good at aiming? Right... no. Or the whole hitbox problem could just be left in, meaning we WERE where you wanted to be. People not being rewarded with proper aiming.

Edited by POWR, 16 July 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[Aoreias]

Ningyo, on 16 July 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

OK did some testing in game, its all slightly inexact since I have to account for only having 1% increments of heat show up on the heat gauge, and differences in temperature. However most of this has been accounted for and these should be close to accurate.

Firing 1 gauss produces 1 heat
Firing 2 PPC + 2 ERPPC produces 38 heat

Firing
1 PPC = 8 heat
2 PPC = 16 heat
3 PPC = 32 heat (additional 8)
4 PPC = 54 heat (additional 14)

1 ERPPC = 11
2 ERPPC = 22
3 ERPPC = 40 (additional 7)
4 ERPPC = 62 (additional 11)

1 LRM 15 = 5
2 LRM 15 = 10
3 LRM 15 = 16.5 (additional 1.5)
4 LRM 15 = 24.5 (additional 3)

Oh and all these numbers should be within 1 and probably within 0.25 of being correct, but again I cannot guarantee truly exact figures do to testing limitations.


Overall I cannot fathom what equation they are using, it just makes no sense at all.

THIS

What is the formula PGI is using? I'm getting the following:

5 MLAS - 20 heat
6 MLAS - 24 heat
7 MLAS - 32 heat (4 extra)
8 MLAS - 40 heat (18 extra)
9 MLAS - 52 heat (16 extra)

1 AC20 - 6 heat
2 AC20 - 24 heat (12 extra)

These make no sense with the heat scale numbers given. Data collected from live games, games from training server indicate a linear increase in heat penalty, while live games indicate exponential of 2^(n-1)*heat scale