Jump to content

Do You Like The New Boating Restriction System?


545 replies to this topic

Poll: Do You Like The New System (711 member(s) have cast votes)

Do You Like The New System

  1. Yes (370 votes [52.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 52.04%

  2. Voted No (341 votes [47.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 47.96%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#281 Nicholas Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 5,958 posts
  • LocationMiddletown, DE

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:14 AM

View Posttuffy963, on 18 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:


My position is that PGI thinks this is a good "functional" balance fix, meaning it is getting the results many of us were looking around the boating problem.

Here are the opportunities lost when the devs focus on an approach that is too pragmatic (read: short term focus):
  • Lacks precedence - We can't find any past examples of this in MW lore or BT games that have come before this fix. I am fine with PGI adding to the lore, but every addition should be carefully considered as it can enrage traditionalist and confuse casual players (more on this in my later points).
  • Lacks an plausible fictional principle - Related to the first point, the game is stronger when you can relate game balance to lore. Having a plausible MW universe lore item explaining this change helps players accept the change and continue to suspend disbelief. These balance issues represent an opportunity for PGI to inject another thoughtful game concept that helps balance the game play experience. A good example of this is the when they added the concept of hardpoints, a plausible concept that helps players understand the balance issue in the context of the MW universe.
  • Lacks strong foundation - The system also lacks an logical internal consistency beyond "We need to fix boating". This means it will be difficult for players (and devs) to logically extend this fix as the game content grows (clan weapons which have even less heat may not be as deeply affected by this heat penalty system). This will lead to needing a redesign of this balance mechanism, eventually.
  • Lacks documentation - Besides the patch notes, this fix are not easily identified in the game. It is not reflected in the mech design screens, neither is there any in cockpit indicators that help players understand the implication of same type weapon heat penalties. This leads to confusion of players who can't understand why their mech is behaving a certain way. This point is the least important as it can be eventually be fixed without a redesign of the whole balance mechanic.
PGI continues to demonstrate they are pragmatists. From my perspective, it is clear they continue to choose expedient answers over complete answers. This is a savvy business perspective. The downside is that it lacks vision for the larger product (MWO universe) and can limit the game potential.



In summary: Good short term fix. Not going to cut it in the long term.



Good post, I think it's a decent short term fix as opposed to good, but that's splitting hairs.

#282 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:16 AM

View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 18 July 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Um, I'm pretty sure you do realize that non-instant convergence was in the game, and it was during times when people felt the game was the most fun.

So you are just flat out making things up now.

Also while I have you...

What happens when an assault is released that can mount 2 Gauss and 2 PPC's?


The reason it was removed had nothing to do with the system they tried. It had to do with the ability for players with Mice that could adjust their Polling speed and DPI rates, independent of the games convergence settings.

My mouse, and likely most, do and I tuned it such that there was almost no convergence time delay, or Arm reticule sway if that works for you, and this was pre-arm lock btw, or the little bit that did remained was such that it did not limit my ability to snap shot, all my weapons onto a single panel of the enemy, within a time frame that was not problematic, at all.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 18 July 2013 - 08:21 AM.


#283 Nicholas Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 5,958 posts
  • LocationMiddletown, DE

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:22 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 18 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:


The reason it was removed had nothing to do with the system they tried. It had to do with the ability for players with Mice that could adjust their Polling speed and DPI rates, independent of the games convergence settings.

My mouse, and likely most, do and I tuned it such that there was almost no convergence time delay, this was pre-arm lock btw, or the little bit that remained was such that it did not limit my ability to snap shot, all my weapons onto a single panel of the enemy, within a time frame that was not problematic, at all.


Did I say why they removed it? They didn't even say why. It suddenly just stopped being there.

Regardless of whether you could game it, and I'm sure some people did just like some people removed map files to skip certain maps; it was a better game when it was in.

#284 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:35 AM

View Posttuffy963, on 18 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:


My position is that PGI thinks this is a good "functional" balance fix, meaning it is getting the results many of us were looking around the boating problem.

Here are the opportunities lost when the devs focus on an approach that is too pragmatic (read: short term focus):
  • Lacks precedence - We can't find any past examples of this in MW lore or BT games that have come before this fix. I am fine with PGI adding to the lore, but every addition should be carefully considered as it can enrage traditionalist and confuse casual players (more on this in my later points).
Remember what the Dev said day one. "This is not your fathers Mechwarrior" Precedence need not apply.

Quote

  • Lacks an plausible fictional principle - Related to the first point, the game is stronger when you can relate game balance to lore. Having a plausible MW universe lore item explaining this change helps players accept the change and continue to suspend disbelief. These balance issues represent an opportunity for PGI to inject another thoughtful game concept that helps balance the game play experience. A good example of this is the when they added the concept of hardpoints, a plausible concept that helps players understand the balance issue in the context of the MW universe.


Sorry, firing multiples of any Heat based weapons does not increase the over-all Heat output? Totally plausible, number not withstanding. And it negates doing it piecemeal weapon by weapon. A very strong plus for the future.

Quote

  • Lacks strong foundation - The system also lacks an logical internal consistency beyond "We need to fix boating". This means it will be difficult for players (and devs) to logically extend this fix as the game content grows (clan weapons which have even less heat may not be as deeply affected by this heat penalty system). This will lead to needing a redesign of this balance mechanism, eventually.


Since we have no idea how the Clans will be implemented, that is supposition at best.

Quote

  • Lacks documentation - Besides the patch notes, this fix are not easily identified in the game. It is not reflected in the mech design screens, neither is there any in cockpit indicators that help players understand the implication of same type weapon heat penalties. This leads to confusion of players who can't understand why their mech is behaving a certain way. This point is the least important as it can be eventually be fixed without a redesign of the whole balance mechanic.


UI 2.0 is inbound. Why do a document that one knows will change shortly? :huh:

Quote

PGI continues to demonstrate they are pragmatists. From my perspective, it is clear they continue to choose expedient answers over complete answers. This is a savvy business perspective. The downside is that it lacks vision for the larger product (MWO universe) and can limit the game's potential.


The Dev face the unenviable position of having a game in progress. Many of the ideas on the Forums likely require a major foundation re-write. The fact that some want that just shows they should have been in on the Initial pre-MWO Design team Meetings apparently. Given that Hindsight is always 20-20 how mnay people would like to go back and fix stuff in their lives, that didn't quite work out the way they wanted, now they see the results?

Quote

In summary: Good short term fix. Not going to cut it in the long term.


Perhaps, but being still incomplete, that is simply more general supposition at best.

#285 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:42 AM

View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 18 July 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:


Did I say why they removed it? They didn't even say why. It suddenly just stopped being there.

Regardless of whether you could game it, and I'm sure some people did just like some people removed map files to skip certain maps; it was a better game when it was in.


Not for those who could game it versus those who could not. I watched from the cockpits of those who either had no idea they could or did not have the gear to do, it was pathetic to watch. No function is a good one if not ALL players have equal access. that only seems fair right?

Something else was removed as well and for the same reason. Damn, I can't think of what it was right off. :huh:

#286 DeathlyEyes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Messenger
  • 940 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMetaphorical Island somewhere in the Pacific

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:42 AM

Optimizing mechs in mechwarrior will happen as long as mechs are customizeable. Ever since mechwarrior 2 people have been customizing mechs to either do the most damage per second or most damage at once. The meta game will always exist. PGI has very few options to actually fix the problem.
1. Make a stock mech game type player queue.
2. To prevent new players from rage quitting keep them out of matches with higher ranked players not simply putting high ranked players on both teams.

Edited by h4t3r4d3, 18 July 2013 - 08:43 AM.


#287 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:47 AM

View Posth4t3r4d3, on 18 July 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Optimizing mechs in mechwarrior will happen as long as mechs are customizeable. Ever since mechwarrior 2 people have been customizing mechs to either do the most damage per second or most damage at once. The meta game will always exist. PGI has very few options to actually fix the problem.
1. Make a stock mech game type player queue.
2. To prevent new players from rage quitting keep them out of matches with higher ranked players not simply putting high ranked players on both teams.


Or perhaps the game could simply apply Penalties to those who would min/max that customization, using the same weapons in clusters, with the explicit intent of firing them ALL at the same time... :huh:

#288 hammerreborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,063 posts
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:00 AM

View Posth4t3r4d3, on 18 July 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Optimizing mechs in mechwarrior will happen as long as mechs are customizeable. Ever since mechwarrior 2 people have been customizing mechs to either do the most damage per second or most damage at once. The meta game will always exist. PGI has very few options to actually fix the problem.
1. Make a stock mech game type player queue.
2. To prevent new players from rage quitting keep them out of matches with higher ranked players not simply putting high ranked players on both teams.


Stock mech only makes people drift to the only good stock mechs, like in MW:LL. In this game likely the Awesome 8Q for the PPCs, though likely stalkers will still be very popular.

Edited by hammerreborn, 18 July 2013 - 09:00 AM.


#289 tuffy963

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 208 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:16 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 18 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

[/list]Remember what the Dev said day one. "This is not your fathers Mechwarrior" Precedence need not apply.



While it is true that PGI can determine their point of view on the MWU, ultimately players get to decide if they want to buy into PGI's vision. That creates a constraint on them whether they admit it or not.

Quote

Sorry, firing multiples of any Heat based weapons does not increase the over-all Heat output? Totally plausible, number not withstanding. And it negates doing it piecemeal weapon by weapon. A very strong plus for the future.



Err, that is not the system they have implemented. They have created an ad-hoc list of weapons that create additional undocumented heat when used in a very narrow fashion (fired in less than a .5 second spread). This mechanic (and the weapons impacted) has no rhyme or reason other than "they were giving us problems so here is our fix" AFAIK.

Quote

Since we have no idea how the Clans will be implemented, that is supposition at best.


The clan weapon thing was only an example, but yes, I concede highly speculative. :P

Quote

UI 2.0 is inbound. Why do a document that one knows will change shortly? :huh:


Possibly, let's play a little game.... When UI 2.0 comes out let's revisit this thread and see if it provided clarity to the players about how this new heat scaling system works. What do you say?


Quote

The Dev face the unenviable position of having a game in progress. Many of the ideas on the Forums likely require a major foundation re-write. The fact that some want that just shows they should have been in on the Initial pre-MWO Design team Meetings apparently. Given that Hindsight is always 20-20 how mnay people would like to go back and fix stuff in their lives, that didn't quite work out the way they wanted, now they see the results?


Agreed. It is always difficult to provide constructive feedback that can be consumed by the game's creators and other passionate forum members. The only thing I know to do is restate the intent in which my feedback is provided.... Passion for MWO and a desire to see it be better.

#290 hammerreborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,063 posts
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:19 AM

Quote


Possibly, let's play a little game.... When UI 2.0 comes out let's revisit this thread and see if it provided clarity to the players about how this new heat scaling system works. What do you say?



Russ has already tweeted that they are working on messaging to let players know of the new heat scale...so I think that's a losers bet right there.

Not to mention smurfy already has a pop-up saying "hey you have 3 ppcs, firing two generates more heat" so I can't think they need to do something more complicated than that.

#291 BlackDrakon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 576 posts
  • LocationEl Salvador

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:35 AM

All we needed was SRM's back, the heat penalty to prevent boating is not necessary imo. SRM's are not there yet, they still need a little bit more punch. Once we get them where we need them, PPC users will have a hard time to avoid the real brawlers and skirmishers, and thats balance.

#292 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 8,310 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:37 AM

View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 18 July 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:


Originally, weapons did not converge immediately.


must have been at some point before closed beta?

#293 Nicholas Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 5,958 posts
  • LocationMiddletown, DE

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:38 AM

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 18 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:


must have been at some point before closed beta?


Nope, it was like that in open beta for a few months. Since I did not play closed beta.

#294 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 8,310 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:39 AM

View Postoldradagast, on 18 July 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

From an absolute design viewpoint, it is rather clunky and random, and I suspect it is not currently explained anywhere in the game at all. It also doesn't currently address dual Gauss builds or ones that mix 2 PPC's and 2 ERPPC's. I also think LRM20's should have been affected, though I'm not sure if anyone actually boats them.

That being said, from what I've seen, it is working and helping the meta. Since the patch, I've seen a small, but noteworthy drop in total number of assaults and far fewer Stalker Snipers. AC40 Jagers have practically vanished vs. showing up 2 out of 3 matches. So, despite the non-ideal nature of the fix, it has helped, IMHO.


er/ppc linkage coming next patch.

View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 18 July 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:


Nope, it was like that in open beta for a few months. Since I did not play closed beta.


arm convergence is still this way. what you are referring to is the lock to torso feature that makes all guns instantly converge. hence PGIchanging the pinpoint skill ina future patch.

as noted i disagree here too. the arm/torso dual system was GREAT. imho the circle/x should always float even locked, it should just float about 1 -2 cm until it aligns first.

#295 Dracol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Steadfast
  • The Steadfast
  • 2,539 posts
  • LocationSW Florida

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:46 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 18 July 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:


Not for those who could game it versus those who could not. I watched from the cockpits of those who either had no idea they could or did not have the gear to do, it was pathetic to watch. No function is a good one if not ALL players have equal access. that only seems fair right?

Something else was removed as well and for the same reason. Damn, I can't think of what it was right off. :huh:

You maybe thinking of the old uac/5 unjamming mechanic. That konami like code people would build a macro for.

#296 Grandmaster Ramrod

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • LocationComfortable Leather Chair

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:16 AM

Hasn't affected me in the slightest, although I'm not convinced it was the right move; there seems to be a lot of other underlying issues that need to be addressed first.

See y'all on the battlefield, I'm the one with 2x ERPPCs and an AC20 xD

#297 tuffy963

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 208 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:06 AM

View PostGrandmaster Ramrod, on 18 July 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Hasn't affected me in the slightest, although I'm not convinced it was the right move; there seems to be a lot of other underlying issues that need to be addressed first.

See y'all on the battlefield, I'm the one with 2x ERPPCs and an AC20 xD


I have 21 mechs. One mech was affected by the heat scale fix. 3 PPC/3 SRM 6 Highlander. I kept the PPCs as the penalty is manageable when I choose to fire all three together.

#298 Aim64C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:25 AM

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 18 July 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

PGI does not have time to "try" a convergence system. we are 2 months from release now. Nevermind that convergence is a bad idea for game pace and flow.


That is the peak of PGI's incompetence. Not ours.

Community Warfare is listed as "Late Design/Early Production."

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

That should have been its state three months before the Open Beta began. Hell - many would argue that should have been its state when the closed beta began!

A launch date shouldn't even be on the table.

Quote

The solution works perfectly to cut down pinpoint 1 hit location alphas. 2 days of playing on production since tuesday have been more fun than the entire last month of gameplay. I enjoyed my 4 ERPPC stalker and dual ac/20 jagger while it lasted. They are still totally viable mechs. the Awesome with 3 ERPPC is still totally viable too. just because a mech comes with 3 PPC does not mean it cant take a minor heat hit when all 3 PPC are fired at once.


It's a stupid system, and you know it.

4 Large Lasers? Nope. That's a build that needs to be penalized.

6 Medium pulse lasers? That's fine. No penalty, there.

Keep in mind - when people were complaining about the "boomcat" (AC40 cat), saying that it was stupid that people could turn machineguns into AC20s - the developers said that was the kind of customization they wanted to support. So they put their art team to work to "make it look right."

Yet, here we are - the developers have turned around and said: "On second thought... because we're not going to fix our hideous hardpoint system, we're going to implement this idea."

Because a weapon system that is so large you can only plausibly mount four on a mech at any time, that takes up 14 tons a pop, and requires ammunition at a frighteningly close range.... needs to be 'controlled.'

That's why we don't have any assaults with so much as a machine-gun on an opposing arm from an autocannon. Because the devs don't want 2 gauss or 2 AC-whatever assaults running around. Yet, in creating their hardpoint system to 'balance' MechWarrior... they never considered that every God damned medium laser on an Assault can (and likely will) become a PPC (unless it's on the head or center torso).

Of course - it doesn't help that the PPC (which has never had its firing and damage mechanics revisited) can achieve the same damage for the same tonnage with 60% of the critical space with absolutely zero ammunition concerns.

Because PGI decided to dabble with the heat system even further and design mechs to overheat - 4 PPC alphas (which should damned near shut you down - let alone 6) became viable and even preferable to stagger-firing lasers amidst a brawl (since heatsinks affected your cap almost more so than they affected your dissipation).

The problems this system is designed to 'fix' can be just as easily addressed by playing with the heat capacity and dissipation values.

Apparently - the previous MechWarrior titles knew a little bit about what they were doing.

Quote

yes, issues remain. but overall it is an elegant solution to the problem of pinpoint dmg, it maintains a solid heatscale, and it allows PGI to penalize builds with a drawback that have an obvious advantage in alpha pinpoint dmg. before this patch these builds had no drawbacks, now they do.


... Seriously?

What builds 'deserve' to be penalized?

This is going to be an endless crusade. So my 8 Clan ER Medium Pulse Laser Nova gets put on the list of "yeah, don't want that **** running around without a heat penalty." - So I drop 3 of them (5 CERMDPLSR) and add 6 CERMDLSR to alpha with them.

Well ****.

Can't have that. So we're going to link medium lasers and pulse lasers together... that will only get six months to get 'right.'

In the mean time, I've dropped down to 2 medium pulse lasers, 4 medium lasers, and 2 large lasers. All clan (so they are ER).

This is without considering this thing is an omnimech - it is still within its canon hardpoint allotment.

Now you've got to link all of that together and figure out what heat scaling to apply to what and under what circumstances (since it applies if I link-fire within a 0.5 second period, too - and what if the large laser comes before the medium laser that breaks the penalty - or the large laser after the medium laser is what breaks the penalty?)

Then you're going to have people running LBX 10s with SRM6s. And we can't have that, either.

Why not just give everyone small lasers and be done with it?

View PostColonel Pada Vinson, on 18 July 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:



hopefully ppc/gauss will be linked :huh:


See above.

You're insane.

View PostMaddMaxx, on 18 July 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Or perhaps the game could simply apply Penalties to those who would min/max that customization, using the same weapons in clusters, with the explicit intent of firing them ALL at the same time... :P


See above.

That begins a never-ending crusade to determine "how many weapons fired at the same time is too many waeapons?"

Is my Jenner firing too many lasers at the same time?

It IS a rather small mech to be firing four lasers for a possible 20 point alpha.

And Should I be able to fire my SRM4 just before-hand? I mean - that's an alpha strike of every weapon I have. Shouldn't that come with some kind of penalty, or something?

I can already see the QQ once this crusade forces everyone into knife-fight ranges and my Jenner is running the ****** train on them. I -can- down assaults in a hell of a hurry (especially with my Foxtrot).

The logic behind all of this is just silly. I can get an 18-point alpha using medium pulse lasers out of each arm of my BJ-1X. But to get a 40 point alpha, a 24 total ton (plus ammunition) piece of equipment that can only fit in the arms of certain mechs needs to be penalized even further by having over 500% heat applied to it when it fires?

But the same 36 point alpha from 4 large lasers is too much and needs to be penalized (even though it comes at a cost of 20 tons as opposed to 12).

"Well, Aim, it has to do with range..."

Let me stop you there. SRM6s producing more than a 36 point alpha are too much - even though a good percentage of those missiles completely miss, not to mention dust their damage all over the mech.

So it has to do with range? SRMs even have the additional penalty of ammunition.

The system is completely arbitrary and it's going to spawn a never-ending crusade to add weapons and weapon combinations to the list of "needs heat penalty." At the same time - there will always be a quest to lessen the heat penalty on 'out of date' penalties because new ones have come along.

Which is why I refer to it as: "Wheel of Stupid."

#299 Jabilo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:36 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 18 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:


Sorry, firing multiples of any Heat based weapons does not increase the over-all Heat output? Totally plausible, number not withstanding.


Yes, if you believe in magic as opposed to physics.

#300 AntiCitizenJuan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts
  • LocationIn your base, killing your dudes

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:45 AM

I'm finally going to chime in here and say that there is one thing that this change has addressed (technically on the 30th) is the elimination of most high damage, long range alpha strikes.

Yes you can still boat PPCs, and yes you have to fire them 2 at a time. But thats a good thing. Especially when we see PPC heat go up, forcing long range builds to stay at long range for most effective damage.

Could it have been done better? Definitely.
Would I have preferred a Hardpoint Size system? Most definitely.

But the meta is slowly shifting away from the ******** we've put up with for 4 months, and I have to say that it makes me very happy.





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users