28 replies to this topic

[Deadmeat313]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 18 August 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

probably be a lot easier just to tweak the PPC & gauss some more so they are balanced.

long standing thing is to cut the heatcap and up dissipation. It might? work. PGI seems to have concerns with this approach. more ppc heat and gauss tweaks for dual gauss would probably be a more PGI like approach given adjustments made to date.

While I am all for the lower heat cap as per Koniving's epic post above, I think the rate of dissipation should be increased to something like 10HS = 10 heat per 6 seconds, rather than 10.

That way a pilot has to watch for heat spikes, but can still keep up an active fighting role. 10HS Mechs in the current build are painful to play, especially on hot maps!

[Koniving]

On the mechlab thing, I'll address the hardpoint size restrictions.

I can agree that an increasing/decreasing hardpoint system would be nice as it'd create a little more uniqueness among variants that are otherwise very similar. However it doesn't work with the system the art team is using for attaching weapons. Maybe if they used smaller weapons modules for smaller weapons it could work, it doesn't strike me as being too hard to change.

For example.. A Highlander's right torso laser pods made out of cubes. Say the 3 slots for a highlander 732 are 3 large slots. Large turns into 2 mediums. What if mediums were 2 side by side rectangular cubes and if it turns into 4 smalls, 4 cubes arranged in a cube formation to fit in the same space?

For example the classis large, medium, small.
A large hardpoint can fit 1 large weapon, or 2 mediums, or 3 smalls (to avoid the boating potential? I dunno. That or 4 smalls).
A medium hardpoint could fit 2 smalls.
A small hardpoint can fit 2 smalls

This, unfortunately, creates new kinds of boating and after a heat capacity fix to MWO, this truly would enable that kind of boating to the worst it could be. For example if it's too hot to run something.. My Jager DD has 6 medium hardpoints for ballistics. That's 12 MGs. O_O

Okay, so it has a 2 large hardpoints and 2 smalls. That's a bit better. Becomes 8 MGs or 8 AC2s (not practical but you know, the thought and the dream is there) or in the case of 4, it becomes 10 MGs.

The same could be said for lasers which is a much more dangerous case. 6 small lasers are super deadly and very cold.
Let's say your mech (a Stalker) is designed to carry 2 large and 4 medium hard points.
Say 1 large breaks into 3 smalls, and 1 medium breaks into 2 smalls.
I now have 14 small lasers. That's 42 damage every 3 seconds, and 28 heat per shot. Okay so it's riskier than I might have thought. But with that you have a standard 310 engine and a lot of DHS with extra tonnage to spare after maximum armor.

The only way it would work without creating new problems is hard-set hardpoint restrictions.
In example: 1 large = 1 large or 1 medium or 1 small, nothing else. Doesn't "grow."
This, unfortunately this results uh.. I just think it sucks. It would work a bit, yes. But if the "one variant is clearly superior to the other thing" wasn't bad enough already, it'd get worse.
"You're in a Stalker other than a 3H? You're a moron! You can't carry PPCs in the arms of any other stalker. Pfft, better twist on the 3F? Doesn't matter, you only get medium energy hardpoints there."

But on to replies.

Deadmeat313, on 19 August 2013 - 03:21 AM, said:

Excellent post, Koniving! I agree 100%.

Fixing heat dissipation would massively help this game in so many ways.

The reasoning behind my original post was more about how all the massive variety of designs we now have in game - and are coming to the game - are being met with "meh" from the community. They see any new designs released as just another set of hardpoints and engine cap. This bothers me.

Indeed. That brings us to option number 2, which would make them more unique.

With option number 1: If everyone gets 30 capacity (which MWO unlocks in their current state would bring up to 36 capacity once you reached Master level regardless of unlocking Master or not), it makes all the mechs have a fair and equal limit. But again, this brings us to the issue you described. Option 1 could have 40 capacity, or 50, or any set capacity but whatever the number is set to applies to every mech.
I.E. All mechs would have the same alpha strike limit and thus could do the same things.
-----------
I think this is one of the things that PGI was trying and failing to avoid with the engine double heatsink versus regular double heatsink disparity. Problem is PGI's rising system keeps all the assaults and heavies "good to play" and the mediums "bad to play" and the lights "kind of okay, depending on which ones." Worse, since it doesn't apply to standard heatsinks in terms of capacity increase, it makes it very unfair to single heatsink users and trial mechs who can barely function as it is.
-----------
So, Option 2: what if instead we followed a similar solution to what I proposed that isn't as static or general? No, not rising capacities; that's B.S. How about your heat capacity is decided by your chassis? Say, an Awesome who is largely energy-based gets a higher capacity than the Victor who is as equally reliant on low heat cannons as it is on high heat energy weapons?

This could accomplish some of PGI's goals, without the 70 capacity that 80% or more of the mechs have now. Unfortunately rather than a quick fix all like option 1, this creates some minor things that PGI needs to solve, but at the same time it makes the mechs matter a bit more.

You can do the same thing in a Stalker better than you can in an Awesome, or in a Jenner better than you can a Raven, which means that the Stalker is better than Awesome and the Jenner is better than the Raven.

What if there was something you could do better in an Awesome than you could in a Stalker or a Victor?
So let's use the example I just gave. Again, this is without Paul's penalty system.

• First assert that the average mech has 30 heat capacity (unlike MWO whose average is 50 for a new mech and optimum capacity reaches up to 88.56 realistically).
  
• What if the Awesome could handle higher heat weapons better with say a hard-set 45 capacity? It is just enough to alpha strike 3 ER PPCs at 15 heat each and shut down, and after MWO unlocks, it'd be 54 capacity... Which would be just enough to fire 3 ER PPCs at 15 heat each (if it ever gets that high) even on the hottest maps currently in MWO while moving half speed without shutting down.
  
• In comparison, the Stalker gets a hard-set heat capacity of 38. With ER PPCs at 15 heat each, that's 2 maximum safely fired. With regular PPCs it's 3 maximum safely fired. Now with unlocks you get 38+20% = 45.6 capacity, just barely enough to fire 3 ER PPCs while completely stationary at 0 degrees celsius. Closest map is Alpine (-2 degrees celsius). O.o; Go to Forest Colony and you might not be able to do even that.
  
• After this: The Awesome could fire 3 ER PPCs at 15 heat each (45 total) while moving in the very hot Caustic Valley without shutting down. But yes, he'd have to wait a bit before he could it again.
  
• After this: The Stalker could fire 3 ER PPCs at 15 heat each (45 total) but must remain stationary to avoid shutting down in the much cooler Alpine.

With that, for using PPCs the Awesome is clearly superior for the purpose of ER and regular PPCs.

This means beyond 2 ER PPCs on the Stalker, you'd probably rather have a few missiles, or some lasers because those PPCs are no longer going to be suitable for actual fights. Any more than 2 ER PPCs on a Stalker is therefore a complete waste of space, as you'd only shut down if you tried to use a third under any circumstances except sniping from a safe distance. After all even with full upgrades you can't even be moving when firing 3 ER PPCs or you'd shut down.

-----

PGI said the game was impossible to balance by heat.
"I'm trying to fit a circle into a triangle. But I can't shrink the circle far enough. If I try to coin-slot it, the circle gets stuck but it's partway through so it kinda works." (Paul's solution.) "Change the triangle." (Mine.)

"If balancing can't work within the system you're using, stop forcing it. Replace the system first and then try again." ~ Koniving. 8/19/2013.

Now actually what really helps me hash out ideas to propose ideas is to be given scenarios. So if you liked option 1, just say something. If you liked option 2 which relates to the ideas in this thread, then throw two mechs at me where one is clearly superior to the other.

To be constructive it's got to be a fair one where the inferior mech on MWO is supposed to be equal or better than the other in lore or in what's being used. I'll have a look and see what I could come up with.

Edit: Think I just hijacked a thread. Later today I'll start a new one. Sorry about that.

Edited by Koniving, 19 August 2013 - 08:48 AM.

[Deadmeat313]

Koniving, on 19 August 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Edit: Think I just hijacked a thread. Later today I'll start a new one. Sorry about that.

No worries mate. We seem to making some decent headway here. As to your points:

CHASSIS-SPECIFIC HEAT CAPS
I like the sound of that. Traditionally energy-heavy designs would probably need the buff in this area. The lowered threshold combined with increased heat dissipation would mean that a PPC / laser user would have to be careful not to generate too much of a spike. Their rate of fire would depend on how close to the wire they want to run it.

HARDPOINT RESTRICTIONS
I am in favour of the hard-set restriction. One weapon per hardpoint. Each with a pre-determined max weapon size.
The hardpoints would not all need to be directly tied to the original fitted weapon though. Some could be suitable for larger weapons, and there could be other hardpoints unused by the main variant. The canon fluff being that the final loadout of a Mech variant is rarely known at the design outset. During the design process the armament, armour and engine etc may be altered several times.
Duplicate (and some oversized) hardpoints are kind of a "junk DNA" leftover from that process.

I do feel that Mechs should reflect their design process, where possible. For example, the Stalker was designed to carry multiple different weapons of varying ranges, so that as it approaches a target it deals increasing damage as the distance closes. As a result, it carries a plentiful mixed-bag loadout that was reported in the fluff to be taxing for the pilot - and the targetting software - to manage effectively. The stock Stalker does actually give the pilot a taste of that in the game.

The Awesome was designed purely to wield PPCs as effectively as possible. I would like to think there is a reason why it is pretty much the only Mech to go beyond 2 PPCs. (pre-WarHawk )
With hardpoint limitations in place it would become a popular ride again, I think.

The Hunchback was obviously built around the Big Gun - and clearly a lot was sacrificed to carry it. The variants show some creativity once all that tonnage is freed up, but it seems that putting a bigger engine in must have been a problem.

Which brings me to:

INCREASING ENGINE SIZE
Currently I think it is too easy to load a new engine into a chassis and roar about the battlefield. Oversized engined should be possible, but penalised to give diminishing returns over the standard. Some Light Mechs should be already pretty much at their max possible engine size: They were built to go as fast as possible at the design stage, so jury-rigging the Mech to increase their mobility should be difficult.

D313

Edited by Deadmeat313, 19 August 2013 - 12:01 PM.

[HIemfire]

Deadmeat313, on 18 August 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

I have that book. The page you quote states that to change a Mech from standard to Endo Steel requires a specific refit kit, that can only be applied to the chassis in a Mech Factory. Basically they are saying this is done by the designers or not at all.

Even in the factory it is rated as difficult and time consuming.

And the Refit Kits do not give complete freedom to customise the Mech. They are pre-determined to alter a variant to a different variant of the same chassis.

The full customisation rules do allow more "creativity", but require all the same facilities as a refit job (ie Factory for the advanced stuff), and come at a significant risk of expensive failure.

And if you look at the limitations on the different refit/customization levels it is allot closer to what we do in the mech lab than the mech construction rules are. This is exempting the of swapping chassis materials, swapping heatsink types and swapping out engine types (standard to XL or XL to standard) which all were factory only refits/customizations which would likely be outside our range or capability.

The rest of what we do is fully possible in a dropships mech hangar at a relieable level (low chance of breaking down or breaking) with a veteran to elite level crew of techs, assuming they are not rushed, using the customization rules. Infact... we cannot even take those to the fullest because at class C the equipment positions become null and void and anything can go anywhere (no hardpoints).

Thus the calling a cumquat (the MWO mech mod system) an apple (Battletech mech construction rules) or an orange (Battletech mech customization/refit rules).

Edit: To the point of your most recent post. It reads like a suggestion to use cleaver to trim a fingernail. In the end the fingernail (the imbalanced boats and larger engines) are trimmed down, but you'll be removing a fair part of the finger (what balance there is will be worsened, it looks to still favor the larger and heavier mechs in their capabilites) in the process.

Edited by HIemfire, 19 August 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[Veranova]

I would be in favour of a stock mode similar to hardcore, which locks you in to Canon builds.
But what has always excited me about mechwarrior games is the sheer customisation of your chassis.
If they took this away, I and many other players would be quickly bored and stop playing.

[Deadmeat313]

HIemfire, on 19 August 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Points.

You do have a point re the Refit/Rearm rules in Strategic Ops. Around Class "C - D", MWO starts to get more restrictive than the TT rules regarding weapon placement.

Just to be clear though, I'm really not all for killing MechLab. I would like to keep many options available to the player - but at the same time I would rather we did not have the option to perform major Factory rebuilds.
Also, there should be a risk (or at least a cost) to performing modifications.

In my heart of hearts I really want the stock builds to be viable. Limiting MechLab is in itself not going to do that. There are other game issues that need to be addressed before we can expect to see players confidently rocking out in their JM6-Ss and HBK-4Gs.

[DreyfussFrost]

Instead of playing a variety of mechs that can mount PPC + Gauss, you would see players using the one mech that can mount PPC + Gauss. This will do absolutely nothing to solve your stated problem. If weapon balance is the issue then balance the weapons. Causing the metagame to be even more stale by shutting down creativity will only kill the game faster. It also sounds like a few people are thinking about introducing timers to mechlab changes, which would also be a huge quality of life issue. It doesn't matter how balanced the game is if nobody is left playing it. Figure out a solution that doesn't degrade quality of life or hinder unorthodox builds.

Edited by TheBaron, 19 August 2013 - 05:08 PM.

[Stardancer01]

Deadmeat313, on 18 August 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

MODIFICATION TAX
Everything refitted onto a chassis should weigh more (maybe 10%) to represent the difficulty of re-designing the structure and linkages etc and to keep the Mech balanced afterwards. This should apply to weapons and engines certainly - but not to armour (and maybe heat sinks).

Or give a bonus for using stock equipment (weight, range, recharge, damage, heat, speed...) chassis, variant, house/clan specific abilities & efficiencies relating to its intended load out and or role.

A new pilot jumping in the mech for the first time will take time to learn the specialist abilities of any chassis. A mech designed around a weapon system should be much more efficient than a mech with one bolted on the side as an afterthought.

Ferro-Fibrous should only take up 7 slots
Endo steel should take up 21 slots

[Prezimonto]

Or, implement a market based battle value system and let to run without interruption. Give every mech variant/weapon/upgrade a BV rating based on how rare it is and how much it's used by the player base. Supply and demand.
http://mwomercs.com/...e-value-system/

The PPC is over used: it adds BV to your mech.
One mech variant is under used: it's readily available and lowers your BV... allowing you to fit more goodies without pushing your BV up to really high levels.

The great thing about a market based BV system is it's a way to include scarcity of certain tech and economy without giving us the pain that is repair and rearm.

If matches are then limited to certain Battle Values, expensive mechs become unappealing in most situations as you get ranked against much larger/more deadly mechs.

Finally, if the current meta gets too popular then a market based system like this gives a good bleed off for players into newer builds for good benefit.

Edited by Prezimonto, 20 August 2013 - 05:36 AM.