131 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

Khobai, on 24 October 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Players should not bargain with PGI.

No bargaining? What do you propose then?

Agent 0 Fortune, on 24 October 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

I would actually like to see the pilot/mech tree open up. Instead of having an extra module as the top reward make it a unique benefit for the chassis. Like reduced heat for PPCs for the Awesome. Or an ECM unlock for the Raven, etc

This is also a good idea.

[Khobai]

Quote

No bargaining? What do you propose then?

Removing ghost heat. Implementing a different solution that players actually like. Something that isnt convoluted and arbitrary.

[Heffay]

Khobai, on 24 October 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Removing ghost heat. Implementing a different solution that players actually like. Something that isnt convoluted and arbitrary.

OK. What's your plan B? Cause Plan A isn't feasible.

[Sandpit]

I still do not see a problem with ghost heat unless all you do is alpha strike. If a mech can fire off 5LLs in a continuous stream and not overheat then where's the issue outside of "Hey I boated all of these weapons so I am going to fire them all off at the same time every time I click the button". There's a reason alpha strikes were considered last-ditch efforts and not how weapons and mechs were generally designed to operate. Chain fire is your friend.

[mike29tw]

Sandpit, on 24 October 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I have to disagree completely. I run a 5LL Stalker-5M and have no problems with heat. I also don't alpha strike every time I hit the trigger and know how to use chain fire to have a steady stream of damage without having heat issues. I easily rack up 300+ and many times 500+ damage in a game unless I'm taken out early. Ghost heat doesn't kill beam designs at all. It just makes you play a little smarter if you're going to boat that many weapons in a mech. It's an alpha deterrent (which in my opinion is a good thing although they could have handled the mechanics of how to deter that a bit better) but not a build deterrent at all. If I can steadily fire of 5LLs without overheating then so can anyone else.

Sandpit, on 24 October 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

I still do not see a problem with ghost heat unless all you do is alpha strike. If a mech can fire off 5LLs in a continuous stream and not overheat then where's the issue outside of "Hey I boated all of these weapons so I am going to fire them all off at the same time every time I click the button". There's a reason alpha strikes were considered last-ditch efforts and not how weapons and mechs were generally designed to operate. Chain fire is your friend.

That mech is called Stalker, and only Stalker can pull it off consistently because of its tiny frontal profile and high placed arms. Try it on other mechs that has 4+ energy hardpoint and you will reach an entirely opposite conclusion.

[Khobai]

Quote

OK. What's your plan B? Cause Plan A isn't feasible.

Stricter hardpoints on mechs. Were getting to the point where new mechs are almost identical to existing mechs if not outright inferior. Having stricter hardpoints would go a long way to differentiating each mech and allow PGI to artificially limit damage in a way that adheres to canon. Stricter hardpoints could mean having large and small hardpoints as well as having hardpoints that can only be used for specific weapons (i.e. laser hardpoint that can only be used for lasers)

Changing the hardpoint system does basically the same thing as ghost heat, but does it in a way that isnt arbitrary, and is instead based on the canon loadout and role of each mech.

[Heffay]

Khobai, on 24 October 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Stricter hardpoints on mechs. Were getting to the point where new mechs are almost identical to existing mechs if not outright inferior. Having stricter hardpoints would go a long way to differentiating each mech and allow PGI to artificially limit damage in a way that adheres to canon. Stricter hardpoints could mean having large and small hardpoints as well as having hardpoints that can only be used for specific weapons (i.e. laser hardpoint that can only be used for lasers)

Changing the hardpoint system does basically the same thing as ghost heat, but does it in a way that isnt arbitrary, and is instead based on the canon loadout and role of each mech.

How will this work? The Stalker will only have 1 energy hardpoint in each arm? 1 missile hearpoint in each torso? Then vary on that?

Give some examples, please.

[Khobai]

Quote

How will this work? The Stalker will only have 1 energy hardpoint in each arm? 1 missile hearpoint in each torso? Then vary on that?

Small Hardpoint = can only equip small weapons (weapons which take up 1 crit slot or less)
Large Hardpoint = can equip any size weapon

Stalker-5M would have 2 large energy hardpoints, 3 small energy hardpoints, and 5 missile hardpoints.

Awesome-8Q would have 3 large energy hardpoints and 4 small energy hardpoints.

Atlas-D would have 2 large energy hardpoints, 2 small energy hardpoints, 2 large ballistic hardpoints, and 2 large missile hardpoints.

Etc...

Edited by Khobai, 24 October 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Heffay]

Khobai, on 24 October 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Small Hardpoint = can only equip small weapons (weapons which take up 1 crit slot or less)
Large Hardpoint = can equip any size weapon

Stalker-5M would have 2 large energy hardpoints, 3 small energy hardpoints, and 5 missile hardpoints.

Awesome-8Q would have 3 large energy hardpoints and 4 small energy hardpoints.

Atlas-D would have 2 large energy hardpoints, 2 small energy hardpoints, 2 large ballistic hardpoints, and 2 large missile hardpoints.

Etc...

This seems reasonable. I actually think small vs large hardpoints make a lot of sense.

The K2 for example should have small ballistic slots in the side torsos. I mean...good bye AC20 cat, but it does make a lot of sense.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Heffay, on 24 October 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

How will this work? The Stalker will only have 1 energy hardpoint in each arm? 1 missile hearpoint in each torso? Then vary on that?

Give some examples, please.

Another aspect could be to reduce the number of available hardpoints also, where it makes sense.

For example, the D-DC could lose one ballistic and missile hardpoint. The AWS-8R wouldn't be able to mount more than two LRM 15s (one in each ST) in the torsos and so on.

One thing that's confused me has been the difference between IS BattleMechs that we are supposed to have, that are supposed to have fixed configurations, and OmniMechs, with how we can customize our mechs in MWO.

Edit: grammar

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 24 October 2013 - 11:06 AM.

[3rdworld]

Praetor Shepard, on 24 October 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Another aspect could be to reduce the number of available hardpoints also, where it makes sense.

For example, the D-DC could lose one ballistic and missile hardpoint. The AWS-8R wouldn't be able to mount more than two LRM 15s (one in each ST) in the torsos and so on.

One thing that's confused me has been the difference between IS BattleMechs that we are supposed to have, that are supposed to have fixed configurations, and OmniMechs, with how we can customize our mechs in MWO.

Edit: grammar

Reducing some mechs is all well and good, but then you have mechs which mount a huge number of base weapons BLR-1G for example. Also if Atlas's do not need a nerf.

Because we are playing Mechwarrior online. not Battletech online.

[Khobai]

Quote

Reducing some mechs is all well and good, but then you have mechs which mount a huge number of base weapons BLR-1G for example.

The BLR-1G can be balanced simply by forcing it to use small energy weapons.

For example it might have 1 large energy hardpoint, 6 small energy hardpoints, 1 large missile hardpoint, and 2 large ballistic hardpoints.

And to balance the fact it has less large energy hardpoints than other assaults, it could gain a positive quirk, like reducing the heat generated by its mediums lasers by 15%. Although giving positive quirks to mechs is somewhat outside the context of this particular discussion, but its an example of how to balance mechs with inferior hardpoints (or negative quirks in the case of superior hardpoints).

Edited by Khobai, 24 October 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

3rdworld, on 24 October 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Reducing some mechs is all well and good, but then you have mechs which mount a huge number of base weapons BLR-1G for example. Also if Atlas's do not need a nerf.

Because we are playing Mechwarrior online. not Battletech online.

There would be differences in the hardpoint sizes though, and the devs can still lower heat capacity and can use ghost heat when necessary.

[3rdworld]

Khobai, on 24 October 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

The BLR-1G can be balanced simply by forcing it to use small energy weapons.

For example it might have 1 large energy hardpoint, 6 small energy hardpoints, 1 large missile hardpoint, and 2 large ballistic hardpoints.

And to balance the fact it has less large energy hardpoints than other assaults, it could gain a positive quirk, like reducing the heat generated by mediums lasers by 15%. Although giving positive quirks to mechs is somewhat outside the context of this particular discussion.

So lets take a system of mechs & hardpoints which PGI cannot balance, and institute another new more complicated system that would require PGI to balance it.

This will end well.

Not saying it is an awful idea, but you are basically giving the burglar the key to the vault and asking him not to steal anything. And it also doesn't account for mechs that carry many large weapons in their stock configurations or grossly weapon restricted mechs.

Edited by 3rdworld, 24 October 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

3rdworld, on 24 October 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

So lets take a system of mechs & hardpoints which PGI cannot balance, and institute another new more complicated system that would require PGI to balance it.

This will end well.

Not saying it is an awful idea, but you are basically giving the burglar the key to the vault and asking him not to steal anything. And it also doesn't account for mechs that carry many large weapons in their stock configurations or grossly weapon restricted mechs.

I dunno if it would really be worse, since we have gotten stuck with high heat capacity and as a result ghost heat with the current system.

So maybe it wouldn't be too bad having only certain mechs capable of carrying certain weapon loadouts. Hopefully making balancing easier with less variables for the devs to deal with.

[Lyoto Machida]

Wispsy, on 24 October 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

I fail to see how one would need an external program to get around ghost heat...is shooting the 2nd half of your weapons half a second later for continuous dps really that challenging?

Whatever...


I would not be opposed to Large Lasers and Large Pulse being different though...

It's the same argument one could make in regards to automatic transmissions vs manuals these days. Most normal drivers (ie: non-race/pro drivers) are faster with a higher end automatic (DCT, etc) than in the same car with a manual transmission.

Yes, you don't really need the macro (and I personally don't use them) but it's just more efficient and I can't blame players for using tools at their disposals. Some others would rather not use them...just like the guys that choose to drive manuals for the feeling of actually shifting a machine but are slower because of it.

Khobai, on 24 October 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Players should not bargain with PGI. We do not want ghost heat. Increasing the large laser simply is not a solution because it does not remove ghost heat from the game.

I agree with this...I'd rather fight it untll the game is in the ground than make concessions (just out of principle).

[Sandpit]

mike29tw, on 24 October 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

That mech is called Stalker, and only Stalker can pull it off consistently because of its tiny frontal profile and high placed arms. Try it on other mechs that has 4+ energy hardpoint and you will reach an entirely opposite conclusion.

I do the same thing with my Bmasters..... Although it's only 4 LLs and not a 5LL mod. So again, I stand by my earlier statements

[Bront]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 24 October 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

It'd rather see a module that increases the limit for a specific weapon/weapon type.

I do find it 'unrealistic' that medium lasers are the only ones not suffering.

They do suffer though, there are some BJ and Hunchie builds that have more than 6 MLs stock, and those have issues.

Large Lasers suffer more than any other weapon due to their weight. 3 is a much better number than 2 IMHO for ghost heat setup on them, as it allows some flexibility in mounting them and allows for mechs to have some level of long range laser support fire against things like AC2/5s or even 10s.

[MustrumRidcully]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 October 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Please, don't complicate ghost heat even further with special modules interacting with this totally abritrary game mechanic!

Please give Modules something cool to do, to make role warfare interesting, and not to tweak some arbitrary game statistic. We already have way too many of those.

And Medium Lasers do have a max alpha, not sure why you think they are not suffering. The Limit happens to be 6, which means only Hunchback 4P and the Battlemaster might suffer from it, but it's there.

Okay, seeing the new modules described in the Command Chair teaches me that you are really going for being modules mostly being tiny percentage bonuses to stuff.

They are basically slotted modules.

But game design wise, I think it's dangerous to mix tiny numerical bonuses with new abilities. It's better to segregate this into different mechanical aspects or "silos". So you might have a type of "efficiency module" that boosts stats by some percentage, and you have "ability modules" that grant new abilities.

+25 % sensor range or -20 % climb speed reduction would be "efficiency modules", while Seismic Sensor or Artillery Strike are "ability modules".

[Khobai]

Quote

So lets take a system of mechs & hardpoints which PGI cannot balance, and institute another new more complicated system that would require PGI to balance it.

Actually its not complicated at all. Its just large and small hardpoints. Its quite simple actually. Much simpler than ghost heat. And actually its quite easy to balance, because you can precisely balance the loadout of every mech in the game, which is something the current system is incapable of doing. The current system just allows every mech to have any weapons its hardpoints permit and includes no provisions whatsoever for fine balance tuning. The current hardpoint system is completely asinine and it needs to change.

Quote

And it also doesn't account for mechs that carry many large weapons in their stock configurations or grossly weapon restricted mechs.

Yes it does. You obviously didnt read my examples where the Awesome gets more large energy hardpoints than the Stalker or Atlas. And in reality, its the current ghost heat system that doesnt account for mechs that carry many large weapons in their stock configurations because mechs like the Awesome are unfairly punished for using their stock loadout of 3 PPCs.

Quote

I agree with this...I'd rather fight it untll the game is in the ground than make concessions (just out of principle).

Pretty much. The more concessions the player base makes on important issues like ghost heat, the more PGI will continue to take advantage of player indifference by not fixing the game properly. Just say no to ghost heat.

Quote

But game design wise, I think it's dangerous to mix tiny numerical bonuses with new abilities.

Agreed. A good example of this is action RPG games like Diablo. Your generic bonuses come from equipping items in your inventory. While your new abilities generally come from a skill or talent tree. MWO needs to do the same thing. We need modules for generic bonuses and skill trees for learning role warfare abilities. The reason we need skill trees is simple, its so you have to choose one skill tree to specialize in, while completely neglecting at least two other skill trees. It means one person cant do everything, which is exactly what we want in a team game.

Edited by Khobai, 24 October 2013 - 12:56 PM.