461 replies to this topic

[El Death Smurf]

Nightdancer ND, on 16 July 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Simply don't Alpha?!?
Fire the 3rd half a second later... that's too hard for you?

3rd half. lol. but seriously. I'm okay with a lot of this, but 2 LL is just wrong. 3 seems better, 4 seems right. they are not the problem and shouldn't be punished. they do less damage at less range over more time compared to the PPC.

[Stalephreak]

Pada, why would I apply for PGI when I work for a company that already treats me well, and in a warmer climate? No, I just believe that open-source has a better chance at success at this point. WTH do you assume I want to make a living as a programmer? As for my intelligence, yours is questionable too... It's all relative.

[Skribs]

I think a better system would be one where you take different types of weapons and categorize them together, so that if multiple in one category are used within 0.5 seconds, it incurs a penalty. Weapon types would be:
LRMs
SRMs
SSRMs
Lasers
PPCs+Ballistics

The idea would be to make it so certain builds (i.e. 3xSRM6 + 3xSRM4, 2xLL + 6xML, 2xPPC + 2xERPPC or even 2xPPC + Gauss) would incur penalties.

I also think that with this change, damage at 120-125% would be better than 100% heat.

[Felicitatem Parco]

This thread is intended specifically to discuss your feedback after having played the game under the new heat penalty system. It'd be mighty appreciated if the thread could please be reserved for that purpose, instead of talking about PGI hiring programmers and other stuff. There is also a dedicated Feedback Thread regarding the changes which is a good place for generally discussing how you feel about *the idea of* the heat scaling system. This thread is mainly intended for discussing our usage feedback.

[AC]

The heat penalty for lasers was absolutely not needed. The issue is with weapons that damage a single panel. (like PPC, Gauss, and AC20's) Weapons that spread damage all over like lasers do not need a penalty. It is challenging enough to try and keep the lasers pointed on generally the same area of the mech, and now we have to worry about heat stacking issues? ugh..... bad move... bad bad move PGI.

[Aim64C]

Prosperity Park, on 16 July 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

There is also a dedicated Feedback Thread regarding the changes which is a good place for generally discussing how you feel about *the idea of* the heat scaling system. This thread is mainly intended for discussing our usage feedback.

I know you're a volunteer mod and all (so 'the system' is not strong with you), but hidden within this is: "Play testing of an implemented idea should not garner feedback regarding the existence of the idea; rather, should help make the implemented idea better, even if the player base recognizes it as unworkable."

Right now, the reason we see a rapid adoption of other weapon builds is because people have been 'shocked' into them. They play these builds because they want to test the effects of heat scaling slowly and see how other players are responding. By the time we're rolling out the next patch, the meta will have already shifted back largely to what it was, because people will have more confidence in how 'heat scaling' impacts their gameplay.

The idea is fundamentally unworkable, and does not belong in this game. Throw this mechanic out and adopt a different one.

That's my feedback, on more than one issue.

In another month, we'll be back to stand-and-PPC warrior online. Those that aren't complying with the meta are doing so out of principle or because meta-play is boring as sin (or both). The fact that it's still stand-warrior and that moving targets are not, in the slightest, difficult to hit with PPCs means that the high-PPC meta will soon return once people realize that they can easily be link-fired for better effect than an alpha of 6 medium lasers (or whatever).

There will be some shifting around of combat because there won't be quite as much insta-death, but the overall gameplay will still be just as stagnant (it's not like lights can take much PPC abuse - or the assault of medium pulse lasers from all angles). It will just take a bit longer (though matches, currently, aren't exactly taking more time).

*shrug* - but why explore future consequences when you can simply choose a direction and see what happens?

[BlackBeltJones]

POWR, on 16 July 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

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.

So I still can't understand how it is perceived that the current convergence system reflects aiming skill. To those that believe a decoupling of convergence would equal some dice-roll mechanic and negate your precious aiming skill I ask that you stop and think for a minute. As example I will imagine a Mech with 1 ML in each arm, this will be similar to a human with a 1911 in each hand. If I want to shoot a single target a 50 yards with both 1911's simultaneously I am required to converge them independently - this is a difficult shot to make. If I then decide to shoot a single target at 100 yards I will need to open up my convergence to prevent my projectiles from colliding before they reach the target. Any change to the target distance will require I modify my convergence and this is abundantly apparent when trying to shoot two firearms simultaneously with any accuracy. Currently in MWO your Mech makes these convergence changes on the fly and it requires zero pilot input. If we decouple the current convergence model you would then be required to wake your aiming skill from its torpor as you would need to modify for hold according to the position of each mounted weapon. As example you could assume torso mounted weapons have 1) a definable convergence point set by a slider mechanic or 2) no convergence, that they will fire straight from their mounted position. If there is no convergence on a torso mounted weapon (just as an example) then you would certainly be required to control your aiming on a level unseen in the current MWO gameplay or if a defined convergence point is configurable then you will always need to be aware of your target distance to gain an accurate hold. In any case a decoupled convergence mechanic would not equate to dice-rolls and would absolutely require more aiming skill than the current gameplay requires.

[Riddler9884]

Well after testing it out I can say the teams are more varied. I dont expect one of my components being one shotted any more and its made me do something that helped my play style. it might not of been the best way to do it but it was effective.

Edited by Riddler9884, 16 July 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[Archtype]

A friend just found this evidence of some buggy heat generation, unsure if it is due to heat scaling or inaccurate heat indicator but strange stuff.

http://mwomercs.com/...ybe-ac5s-video/

[AC]

Trying playing a 5LL Stalker, and there is absolutely no way to make it viable. The Lasers fire over time, and chaining them results in more than 2 lasers being fired at the same time and absolutely burries your heat. I tried firing groups of 2, and the result is you just don't put out enough damage to be worth anything. Light swarms eat you alive.

Heat scaling for lasers is silly, as they spread their damage all over. This needs to be removed.


I tried my 3PPC Treb and am fine with the heat scaling on that. I can fire two PPC, and then the third, or chain fire them to great success. The heat scaling on PPC prevents mega single panel damage, but doesn't make the PPC builds un-usable like it does to the laser builds.

The internal damage at 100% heat is just plain dumb though. The point of automatic shutdown is to prevent heat damage, and before your mechs auto shutdown engages, you have already taken significant internal damage. This seems really stupid to me as it negates shut down over-ride completely. Slap that thing once and you suicide before your heat falls.

Edited by AC, 16 July 2013 - 07:35 PM.

[Orionthe11b]

Im happy with the movement forward, however thus far today I have yet to see a significant change in boating of PPCs. People are just using 2 PPCs and 2 ERPPCs. They are just boating the crap out of it, and not apparently suffering a dang thing.

The solution is to first go with the TT values for heat with the weapons, which is higher than the crap base you have now. The second step is to go forward with limiting the size of hard points so that certain hardpoints mach the original size that was in the base variant. None of these innersphere mechs are Omnis, so why the hell are people having almost as much customization options as they would with an Omni mech? If people can make these changes, there is very little need to ever bother introducing Omni mechs since they will only be slightly different outsides of mech functions we already have in the game.

Quad/Hex boating PPC stalkers are still very much happening. Fire 2 ERPPCs with 1 PPC in a group, wait half a second, then fire the 2nd group with 2 ERPPCs and 1 PPC. Its a stupid almost alpha, with no need to truly manage heat or get hit with the penalty. If boating is something, in the case of stalkers where it wasn't intended, then go with hard point sizes or limit customization as the mechs are supposed to be since they aren't Omnis. Period.

[Pax Bellum]

first off, I congratulate PGI on PROMOTING MACROS. They seem to be an awesome work around this "blanket" heat penalty.
Secondly I look forward to all new troll builds because of this. This is also a brilliant startegy to sell MC for coolshots ! maybe this heat nerf will pay for new mechs that do not come with a defualt heat nerf for stock loadouts. Again thank you for the AWESOME patch and continuing to feed my battletech addiction =)

[Zaptruder]

After a few games - at a respectable level of play, any heat penalty is countered easily by heat management. The most deleterious effects of boating and high pinpoint alphas are still ever present.

i.e. this fix is a phyrric one at best. Waste of time and effort; the people behind the change (probably Paul) should pass their roles onto someone else that is more capable.

It's a degree of ineptitude similar to the Auction House in Diablo 3.

Edited by Zaptruder, 16 July 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[M0rpHeu5]

Raise the no heat penalty Alpha of the PPC to 3 couse you shoulden't nerf stock mechs and make the multiplier 11
Also do the same with LL couse it dosen't make sence to have it below the PPC and raise the multiplies to 7

[hercules1981]

Cryos420, on 16 July 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

I really don't think this will fix the problem.... people will still boat up and will just stagger fire them using a macro or something. A variable convergent reticle that adjusts as you move and fire would be a much better fix. They use it in every other game known to man, don't know what PGI was thinking, sometimes thinking outside the box works but I don't think it will here.

I understand the convergent reticle statement lots r talking about, but an a1 Abrams tank can keep its target on track and hit while moving at 60 mph that's about 98 kph and its the year 2013 not 3050 like in BT, so having a cone affect of sorts while moving faster is just a rediculous statement givin the tech hear in this fake universe all those weapons would be and should be held directly on target while running.
Now onto the streaks, I think they got less useful for sure as Srms r right where the community has wanted them for a long time. I'm all for steaks having a different damage then Srms I said this long ago but having them hit all over is kinda silly. I would hope the % to hit ct goes up to 75% or more I'm sure it's no where near that now. And I think there should be some perks for certain mechs like awesome can fire 3 ppcs without heat penalty. This must happen!

Edited by hercules1981, 16 July 2013 - 08:46 PM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Absolutely worthless effort when it comes to reducing alpha. What the hell were they thinking? The most effective builds were never ppc stalkers or medium laser boats or dual ac/20 mechs. it was mechs with the capability to mount gaus+ppc combos. absolutely nothing changed for them.

[tredmeister]

BlackBeltJones, on 16 July 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

So I still can't understand how it is perceived that the current convergence system reflects aiming skill. To those that believe a decoupling of convergence would equal some dice-roll mechanic and negate your precious aiming skill I ask that you stop and think for a minute.,,, In any case a decoupled convergence mechanic would not equate to dice-rolls and would absolutely require more aiming skill than the current gameplay requires.

hercules1981, on 16 July 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

I understand the convergent reticle statement lots r talking about, but an a1 Abrams tank can keep its target on track and hit while moving at 60 mph that's about 98 kph and its the year 2013 not 3050 like in BT, so having a cone affect of sorts while moving faster is just a rediculous statement givin the tech hear in this fake universe all those weapons would be and should be held directly on target while running.

I wholeheartedly agree with the second quoted opinion!
The whole nerfing convergence argument just doesn't make any sense, at least from a logical point of view. (Interesting, how they cry "It's supposed to be a sim", when it suits their point of view.) These are nuclear powered, computer controlled war machines in the 31st century! Our mechs "basic" computers give us a red rectangle around a targeted mech, and tell us the range they are at, Don't tell me I need a 3 ton "targeting computer" to figure out convergence, and don't preach to me about "lost tech". when my freaking 4oz cellphone can do these calculations in 2013! Torso mounted weapons would have small hydraulic servos that would make fine adjustments in the alignment of these weapons, and arm mounted weapons (with actuators) would do the same!
So... slow down convergence? maybe... and make convergence only work an a targeted mech? perhaps (again.. this is 2013 tech). But that should be the ABSOLUTE extent of this line of thinking...

[XX Sulla XX]

I am seeing better games after the patch. More SRMs and less PPCs. And more varation of mechs.

[Khobai]

There is an old adage: "if it aint broke dont fix it."

The new heatscale penalties fix things that weren't broken to begin with. There was no need to nerf mechs that boated large lasers, AC/20s, or SRM6s. None of those weapons were even close to dominant in the current meta. If the target of the nerf was 4+ PPC Stalkers then why didnt you just nerf PPCs? There was no need to nerf anything else!

This is just another ill-conceived, overcomplicated fix, in the same incompetent fashion as the way ECM was fixed. It is neither what the players wanted nor does it actually address the core balance issue of convergence.

Edited by Khobai, 16 July 2013 - 10:38 PM.

[MasterErrant]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 July 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

sadly there's more trolls here than useful constructive feedback. all I see is tons of whining, no data or facts to back it up, and on the field...miracle of miracles, no more 6 ppc stalkers firing,shutdown, firing,shutdown,firing...

yeah, PGI really sucks.

get real people.



use chain fire.

why must you all insist on alphaing everything? do you all have 1 button mice?

this isn't something that pgi needs data on. the mine game logs for basic data. we are here to tell them about suprise issues and glitvches they havn't found. they knew this was bad when they did it...