76 replies to this topic

[Flying Blind]

I fully support the idea that large numbers of boated weapons is bad for the game.

I agree firing 2 ac20 or multiple PPC into one hit location is bad for the game.

This "bonus heat" system is not the right way to curb high alpha builds.

I don't want convergence to go away either though because then no one will be able to hit anything.
I don't want any sort of random "cone of fire" either.

Instead of getting rid of convergence what if firing multiples of any weapon made your convergence slightly worse, like you were aiming at a target some meters behind your target. The amount of slips could change based on number and size of weapons. So maybe firing 6 or 9 ml would spread it out a little while firing 2 ac20 or 3 or 4+ ppcs would converge like you were firing at a target hundreds of meters behind your target so they still go where aimed but don't come together.
Buffing SRM's to 2 damage did more for the meta than the heat scale.
So no, I don't like it but I am happy pgi is trying to get the high alpha meta fixed.

[mania3c]

Flying Blind, on 17 July 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

I fully support the idea that large numbers of boated weapons is bad for the game.

I agree firing 2 ac20 or multiple PPC into one hit location is bad for the game.

This "bonus heat" system is not the right way to curb high alpha builds.

I don't want convergence to go away either though because then no one will be able to hit anything.
I don't want any sort of random "cone of fire" either.

Instead of getting rid of convergence what if firing multiples of any weapon made your convergence slightly worse, like you were aiming at a target some meters behind your target. The amount of slips could change based on number and size of weapons. So maybe firing 6 or 9 ml would spread it out a little while firing 2 ac20 or 3 or 4+ ppcs would converge like you were firing at a target hundreds of meters behind your target so they still go where aimed but don't come together.
Buffing SRM's to 2 damage did more for the meta than the heat scale.
So no, I don't like it but I am happy pgi is trying to get the high alpha meta fixed.

I don't think it's bad system..but I also don't think is better than current one.. both are pretty arbitrary.. what is difference between changing convergence or adding to heat? It's just different style of penalty...

[Odins Fist]

I never ran dual AC-20s, but the logic for 2 weapons seperated by the width of the of a mech all of a sudden has such a huge heat increase doesn't hold water, not a drop.

Yeah I had been killed by a dual AC-20 before, I never cried my eyes out over it. I would like to know EXACTLY how they came up with the idea, and exactly the logic behind it, other than the obvious - "placate the crybabies" approach.

[Flying Blind]

The convergence issue is easier to understand, it doesn't make you go to sleep and destroy yourself immediately following a newb mistake while trying to figure out how things work, it teaches you it's own rules without complex graphs and charts, it can be consistent across the board.

And what I love best about it: logic can be applied using the established universe rules: technology has taken a nose dive and the cobbled together targeting computers cannot properly centr the fire from lots of weapons or calculate the adjustment for lots of high power, high recoil weapons.

Makes much more sense and is way more immersive than: some weapons will generate tons of extra heat for no reason other than we need to control the firepower in game. Getting a large amount of heat from any ballistic weapon is stretching credulity, but it has always been there in the game so we accept it, but this massive dump, and especially the added heat that it seems will be applied to gauss, is just silly.

Not to mention convergence will address gauss boating while the heat scale does not. I think we all know 2gauss are every bit as dangerous as 2 ac20.
I wouldn't want a large loss of convergence, just enough so the shots don't hit the same spot, and maybe a few miss if the aiming was bad or maybe they all hit if aim was good.

Edited by Flying Blind, 17 July 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[mania3c]

We all know how dual gauss can be powerful but also vulnerable. I never thought that dual gauss is a real problem.. it§s basically ticking bomb..but I can be proven wrong of course one day..but for now..I don't believe dual gauss needs any adjustments.

Anyway..if we can put that immersive stuff aside.. how it's easier to understand? I still see same problems which could be explained just by charts.. How much will convergence change when shooting two large lasers compared to two PPC? or will be small lasers affected by convergence penalty? If yes? how much? same like AC20 or less? or more? how much flamers I can shoot without changing convergence? how it will works with guided weapons? Instead convergence will it change spread or lock time? will Streak suffers in same way like LRMS??

I don't know buddy..for me it's same ****.. it's bad, not transparent..yet it could still be fixing what is supposed to fix.. like current system..

[Gallowglas]

Odins Fist, on 17 July 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

I would like to know EXACTLY how they came up with the idea, and exactly the logic behind it, other than the obvious - "placate the crybabies" approach.

It seems pretty obvious that the system is intended to encourage - though not enforce - splitting up your shots and, thus, getting less pinpoint, precise damage. You can still have the pinpoint alpha, but you're taking risks for it. Yes, good players can still put both shots on the same mark, but pinpoint massive damage is less accessible to the unwashed masses. I agree it's not perfect, but it seems a lot better than before.

Edited by Gallowglas, 17 July 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[Gallowglas]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 July 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Almost a year as a member, I have not raged against but maybe 3 issues, an none Like I am here.

Yeah, I know you're pretty level-headed about things, Joseph. I'm just struggling to understand if the current mass forum angst revolves around theorycrafting, actual gameplay experience, or if it's just groupthink because the new cool thing is to dogpile on why any change that isn't ONE INDIVIDUAL'S specific change means the developers don't have a clue. Honestly, I haven't seen a magic bullet solution that hasn't had other problems. The expanding aiming reticle suggestion has probably been the best one, but to be honest, we're a really, really opinionated lot and I suspect people would find a way to pick that one apart too. After all is said and done, the solution doesn't have to be perfect, but my personal gameplay experience is that it's at least a step in the right direction.

[zazz0000]

Viktor Drake, on 17 July 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Your missing the point. The whole reason for these changes is to discourage boating while encouraging mixed builds. This is why the 2 PPC's, 2 LL's, AC-20, LRM-20, SRM-6 alpha strike build is not penalized, simply because it is a mixed build.

Also the underlying issue your talking about is the average players tendency to min/max to the extreme and there is very little PGI can do to counter human psychology aside from illogical solutions that discourage the behavior.

I'm not missing the point of the fix, trust me, the logic behind it is straightforward. I just find it an ugly, illogical solution.
Before you say it, yes, I know, it's a game about big stomping robots. But this solution is just unrealistic beyond any logic.

Please refer to this thread (be forewarned, it's mine) http://mwomercs.com/...nt-restriction/ for further thoughts on this issue.

[Flying Blind]

Mania3c, you have good points and I won't say you are wrong, there's no perfect solution and there's a lot that needs fixing. I would make a rule of thumb on convergence be the heavier the weapon the greater it moves apart when fired in groups.

I'm not even worried about missiles, only weapons that focus, as long as we can make LRMS stop hunting the ct to an unreasonable extent and ssrms hit in a way that is effective but not op the rest can be done with damage and cool down.

This new heat system might help temporarily, though I'm not convinced yet, and it feels very wrong for MW or battletech. Convergence while having its own problems at least would feel MW.

The other option is to increase recycle, institute heat penalties before hitting 100% heat like slow down and ammo bay fires, and heat damage hitting weapons systems like crit hits instead of hitting structure. That would feel battle tech / mechwarrior too.
In the end all of this is a pipe dream, but hey dreamers gotta dream, my dream is pgi listens and changes to something that makes sense

[Donnie Silveray]

I still think adjusting convergence aside from how the mech's weapons are placed to be an absolutely, worst case, BS idea . It'd not solve any problem whatsoever and seems even MORE arbitrary than the heat scale. The only moments where I'd accept my shots and reticle not landing on target are when jumpjetting, taking severe vibration, or running super hot.

Again, the talk of pinpoint aim is moot. The point of the heat scale is to encourage players to either mix their loadout or refrain from alpha striking by firing off salvos. That alone solves the problem. If you fire off 6 PPCs at once, you're pretty much going to go bust. Fire 3 salvos of 2 shots and you still do your silly 60 damage but because the foe might be smart enough to spread damage.... OH! LOOK AT WHAT WE JUST DID! We did it like in TT where hits were randomly distributed! OH LORD!

The heat scale may be arbitrary but it is very simple in execution by slapping a single mathematical equation in. Try handling that with Convergence. It's not perfect, and I agree it IS darn right silly and probably counter-intuitive when it comes to those not informed. PGI will HAVE TO IMPLEMENT UI to explain this in the Mech Lab. Preferably in very clear language when UI2.0 comes out. That or overhauling the base heat system and implement the heat scale universally via an exponential curve to remove that sense of arbitrary number selections.

Much needs to be done but considering the alternatives, this is one of the more simpler implementations and one that has a broad range of tweaks possible to smooth things over. If I still see 4PPC stalkers next week, I'll be sure to tell you the system is flawed. But so far I've had considerably more fun as of late.

[Iron Hyena]

Look at all the snotty crying from the boaters.

Its delicious, the real mechwarriors among us chuckle at your state of neophyte.

[Deathlike]

To answer the OP's title topic question, I will ask a question in response to it:

Is there any logic to any of PGI's balance suggestions?

You will find that the answers are the same.

Dornhal, on 17 July 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Look at all the snotty crying from the boaters.

Its delicious, the real mechwarriors among us chuckle at your state of neophyte.

I dunno, the easy mode Highlander is still perfectly working in the current meta, working as intended™.

[Corvus Antaka]

Donnie Silveray, on 17 July 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Again, the talk of pinpoint aim is moot. The point of the heat scale is to encourage players to either mix their loadout or refrain from alpha striking by firing off salvos. That alone solves the problem. If you fire off 6 PPCs at once, you're pretty much going to go bust. Fire 3 salvos of 2 shots and you still do your silly 60 damage but because the foe might be smart enough to spread damage.... OH! LOOK AT WHAT WE JUST DID! We did it like in TT where hits were randomly distributed! OH LORD!

Someone gets it.

Funny, I see it working in game too.

[zazz0000]

Deathlike, on 17 July 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

To answer the OP's title topic question, I will ask a question in response to it:

Is there any logic to any of PGI's balance suggestions?

I dunno, the easy mode Highlander is still perfectly working in the current meta, working as intended™.

Oddly enough... yes? Some are reasonable. The movement mechanic, while poorly implemented, makes sense. Some weapons systems have found a sweet spot. I think it's a 50/50 or so.

[Gallowglas]

Dornhal, on 17 July 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Look at all the snotty crying from the boaters.

Its delicious, the real mechwarriors among us chuckle at your state of neophyte.

Geez...that's just what we need: each side trolling the other. Isn't it a school night?

Deathlike, on 17 July 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

To answer the OP's title topic question, I will ask a question in response to it:

Is there any logic to any of PGI's balance suggestions?

You will find that the answers are the same.

Give me a break. Hyperbole gets us nowhere. Yes, there's logic. You just don't agree with it.

[Deathlike]

zazz0000, on 17 July 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

Oddly enough... yes? Some are reasonable. The movement mechanic, while poorly implemented, makes sense. Some weapons systems have found a sweet spot. I think it's a 50/50 or so.

There isn't really a "balance issue" with respect to movement (well, in some cases). Right now, they have to actually refine it given that it isn't the "smoothest" of implementations to be sure.

I'll just answer the topic question with an outright "no". If the only thing removed from play was the "seemingly OP" AC40 Jagers and K2s that are rarely (if ever) fielded in higher level play, then I guess PGI succeeded in just one thing.

[Deathlike]

Gallowglas, on 17 July 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Give me a break. Hyperbole gets us nowhere. Yes, there's logic. You just don't agree with it.

It's not hyperbole when I'm succeeding in the 2 PPC + 1 ERPPC + 1 Gauss Highlander more often than not. I don't agree with the logic because it isn't actually logical. That's the problem.

If the fixes actually addressed what people were truly complaining about, then I wouldn't be saying this. That's the deal here.

[Deathlike]

For your amusement, these are my stats with the highlanders (mastered them before patch day):


I don't claim to be good at all, but this easy mode is working too damn well.

[xRatas]

Malsumis, on 17 July 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

It seems most of those who are upset with this heat penalty I'm willing to bet drive AC40 setups. I'd rather drop a heat penalty for AC40's and just have the mech topple over from the amount of recoil of firing off two AC20's. Sure you'll get the shot off, but then you're a sitting duck.

The heat penalty doesn't bother me as I don't have any setups that are effected by the change. I've tried many of the cheese builds but never liked them much.

Funny thing is, AC40 is fully functional though, you just need to fire the gun 1 by 1, with over ½sec delay. It might spread the damage a little bit, but not that much really.

Another alpha build, the most hated of them all likely, 4PPC Stalker on the other hand didn't suffer any nerf yet. But all of them vanished. I guess everyone were just bored driving those, and accepted any excuse they could get to change to something else.

Personally, I drive 4PPC catapult, and it works much better now than before, as 4PPC stalkers went away for some weird reason, and AC40 Jägers rarely shoot alpha anymore, so my cockpit doesn't get oneshotted anymore.

edit: old classic is back though, just like predicted. Gauss with 2 or 3 PPCs is more popular than ever. And people are actually defending it by saying it is hard to use... Seriously...

Edited by xRatas, 17 July 2013 - 09:37 PM.

[Gallowglas]

Deathlike, on 17 July 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

It's not hyperbole when I'm succeeding in the 2 PPC + 1 ERPPC + 1 Gauss Highlander more often than not. I don't agree with the logic because it isn't actually logical. That's the problem.

If the fixes actually addressed what people were truly complaining about, then I wouldn't be saying this. That's the deal here.

That build will suffer from heat penalties with an upcoming patch. Yes, you can do a 35 point alpha with 2 PPC + gauss, but you know what? That gauss is pretty darned easy to strip. Plus, the gauss + ammo is significantly heavier than the PPC's that you're replacing to stay under threshold. People cite this one corner case as an example of how the whole argument falls apart but, honestly, I think it's better than what we had before. I don't know what your gameplay is like, but in a lot of my matches there's substantially more brawling.

All that said, people cite slow convergence as some sort of magic bullet, but I just don't see it. Enforced inaccuracy without mechanisms to make it predictable and correctable in skill hands seems pretty arbitrary too. I've actually seen a grand total of two community solutions I even liked or thought had promise. There are a million and one solutions I've seen that I think would be abject failures and would invite some pretty terrible game mechanics.

Again, PGI's solution is flawed. I don't disagree. There are certainly corner cases that can be exploited. However, I think it's reasonable for them to come up with solutions to test and tweak. It might work, it might not. I doubt they're done tweaking. They might even change things completely...who knows? I just think some people overvalue how vastly superior the community "consensus" solutions are.

Edited by Gallowglas, 17 July 2013 - 09:39 PM.