32 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

If the devs had to choose between the 2, which would you prefer? This should be interesting

Edited by Sybreed, 05 August 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[AnnoyingCat]

neither

[Joseph Mallan]

Both are central o the games problems, But I figure heat is the Elephant in the room.

[Sybreed]

AnnoyingCat, on 05 August 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

neither

you have to choose!

[Joseph Mallan]

Sybreed, on 05 August 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

you have to choose!

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[KuruptU4Fun]

I would say choose a topic and a poll that hasn't been discussed a few dozen times already...

[Sybreed]

KuruptU4Fun, on 05 August 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I would say choose a topic and a poll that hasn't been discussed a few dozen times already...

I know, I swear it's my last one for a while. I just wanted to know which of the 2 people hated the most

[Homeless Bill]

Convergence.

If forced to choose between the two, I'd pick intelligent changes to heat over hardpoint restrictions + dancing around angry stock builds. If forced to choose between what we have now and hardpoint restrictions, I'd go with hardpoint restrictions.

[Sybreed]

Homeless Bill, on 05 August 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Convergence.

If forced to choose between the two, I'd pick intelligent changes to heat over hardpoint restrictions + dancing around angry stock builds. If forced to choose between what we have now and hardpoint restrictions, I'd go with hardpoint restrictions.

if PGI said fixing convergence was possible, I would have included it in the options... cause I also think it's the major cause of issues in the game. But, apparently, we'll be playing Half-Life 3 before they fix it it...

edit: In summary, my poll is asking if PGI made the "short-term" good call

Edited by Sybreed, 05 August 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[MaxStr]

Can we make "fix the damn hitboxes" a third choice, so we can see how effective weapons REALLY are before we make most of them even more useless?

[KuruptU4Fun]

Heat scale NEEDS to have small frequent tweaks, making continual MASSIVE changes (continually posted in this forum) will never solve anything.

The issue with the HP Slots are what differentiate IS from the Clans. People care to ignore this fact altogether...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 05 August 2013 - 02:57 PM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Honestly? I don't care. If they love BattleTech, they should do SOMETHING, any of thise could work. And if they don't give a **** they should just tell us.

[Koniving]

Neither.

I have the two simplest solutions you can possibly have.

1) Head bob. If there was a headbob that moved your cursor (bounce) as you moved, we wouldn't have a pinpoint issue even with weapons pinpoint on the crosshair.

Demonstration of what I mean for those not familiar with it. Note my demonstration is kind of extreme.

2) Tabletop heat system with no rising capacities. Think about this:

In MWO if you take an assault, no unlocks, add in 22 DHS you have 10 engine (20) + 12 chassis DHS (16.8) + 30 base = 66.8 capacity with 3.68/second cooling. At this rate, 6 medium lasers at 4 heat each would shut the mech down in...
6 medium lasers * 4 heat each / 4 seconds between shots = 6h/s - 3.68h/s = 2.32/s = shutdown in 30 seconds at 69.6 heat.
This has dealt 210 damage.


Add to that the efficiencies for Master level assault mech... Heat Containment is 10% capacity *2 for elite = 20% = 13.36 + 66.8 = 80.16 capacity.
Cool run 7.5% faster cooling * 2 = 15% = 0.552 + 3.68 = 4.232/second cooling rate. This is not counting the faster firing rate.
6 medium lasers * 4 heat each / 4 seconds between shots = 6h/s - 4.232h/s = 1.768h/s = shutdown in 46 seconds at 81.328 heat.
This has dealt 330 damage.

Now, what if we had that tabletop system?
The same 6 ML build with 22 DHS in tabletop at a per second translation with MWO's ML heat and firing speed...
Capacity: 30. Dissipation: 4.4/second.
6 medium lasers * 4 heat each / 4 seconds between shots = 6h/s - 4.4h/s = 1.6h/s = shutdown in 19 seconds at 30.4 heat. That's 4.75 times firing, so to be fair we'll round it up to 5 times.
That's 150 damage.

Which one solves our "damage is too high" problem?

Edited by Koniving, 05 August 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Hardpoints!
The hardpoint system from MW4 was the best thing happened to the mechwarrior series since the very begining.


Also, a convergence everyone talks about would be a disaster.
I played WOT alot and they have that kind of system that gives accuracy advantage to a not-moving players. Guess what? Everybody tend to find cover and wait for the opponents to start moving first and lose their accuracy advantage. And the opponents do the same and matches become boring ambush-fests.

Believe me, you don't want this happening to MWO.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Koniving, did you take into account that the armor levels were doubled back in early closed beta (before Founders access)? Back then matches lasted less than 2 minutes..

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 August 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[Homeless Bill]

Sybreed, on 05 August 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

In summary, my poll is asking if PGI made the "short-term" good call

I think it's funny that you and most people seem to think hardpoint restrictions are a wave of the wand like the heat scale. It'd take a lot more ******* around than most people realize to implement size restrictions on hardpoints. I can practically guarantee you that anything that involves the Mechlab is a huge pain in the *** to change.

To be clear, I support hardpoint restrictions as a general principle. Not as a solution to boating and not in the immediate future, but I do hope they're eventually implemented to prevent redundancy.

[Roland]

Homeless Bill, on 05 August 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

I think it's funny that you and most people seem to think hardpoint restrictions are a wave of the wand like the heat scale. It'd take a lot more ******* around than most people realize to implement size restrictions on hardpoints. I can practically guarantee you that anything that involves the Mechlab is a huge pain in the *** to change.

To be clear, I support hardpoint restrictions as a general principle. Not as a solution to boating and not in the immediate future, but I do hope they're eventually implemented to prevent redundancy.

Honestly, unless the system was terribly designed, I suspect you could implement it with a fairly limited set of changes... and it doesn't seem like it'd require any significantly new features. You're basically making one additional check when a weapon is placed, and it's a check that is based on information which is effectively already being checked against.

The new things that'd need to be added are an additional data member on hardpoints reflecting a number of critical slots, and some kind of representation of that value in the mechlab... then just check that when you place a weapon, just like you're already checking against the number of free crit slots and the number of free critical slots in that section.

No one can say, without seeing the code of course, but it's not like it's some kind of super hard problem that requires solving complex issues.

[AnarchyBurger]

Heat scale is stupid, period.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Koniving, on 05 August 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

1) Head bob. If there was a headbob that moved your cursor (bounce) as you moved, we wouldn't have a pinpoint issue even with weapons pinpoint on the crosshair.

Demonstration of what I mean for those not familiar with it. Note my demonstration is kind of extreme.

Ever heard of modern tanks gun stabilizer?



Well if its someting modern tanks can do, probably the mechs could do better.