1080 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

Okay then. I support the delay then. I just don't see how the delay will effect 2 AC/10's firing but not 2 AC/10's and 2 medium lasers (merely one example). Would it be strictly a programming thing? Hit the button for "Alpha Strike" and then it ignores the delay?

Then I have to map in that function instead of just setting a weapon group to do it...ah, well, small price, I guess...

Yea, you would still have the alpha strike button mechanic as now. Essentially what this would stop is immediate chain firing and group firing of larger ballistics while keeping the other mechanics we have.

UACs, RACs, etc. would still have their rapid fire functions untouched as well

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

The only thing I could think of would be having a slight hesitation between ballistics firing. So in exmaple

The higher the caliber the bigger the hesitation
AC20 you could do a .2 hesitation before another AC20 were fired. This prevents both weapons from firing at the exact same time. This would also have implications to things like targeting computers and advanced gyro. Those upgrades, modules, etc. could reduce that time but not completely negate it.
AC10 you could do a .1 hesitation
AC5 .05
AC2 none

That means you can still boat those bigger calibers, you'll still hit where you aim, but you wouldn't be able to put all 40 of it in the exact same spot all without changing the mechanics of how a weapon works.

In more familiar terms than "hesitation", what you're describing is a global cooldown. A very short one, and per weapon type, but a global cooldown nonetheless.

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

Yea, you would still have the alpha strike button mechanic as now. Essentially what this would stop is immediate chain firing and group firing of larger ballistics while keeping the other mechanics we have.

UACs, RACs, etc. would still have their rapid fire functions untouched as well

But if you just have AC/20's, for instance, how is an Alpha strike any different than group firing?

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 05 January 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

In more familiar terms than "hesitation", what you're describing is a global cooldown. A very short one, and per weapon type, but a global cooldown nonetheless.

That might be a better term for it, especially if it clarifies the meaning

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

But if you just have AC/20's, for instance, how is an Alpha strike any different than group firing?

That's where a discussed alpha heat penalty comes into play. If you give a penalty to alpha strikes then that either deters that action OR it leaves them combat ineffective for a period of time either from overheating and shutting down or just being too hot to follow up with additional damage.

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

That might be a better term for it, especially if it clarifies the meaning


That's where a discussed alpha heat penalty comes into play. If you give a penalty to alpha strikes then that either deters that action OR it leaves them combat ineffective for a period of time either from overheating and shutting down or just being too hot to follow up with additional damage.

In general terms, I'd say that sounds good. In specific terms of an AC/40 build, it's just increasing what Ghost heat already does, isn't it?

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

In general terms, I'd say that sounds good. In specific terms of an AC/40 build, it's just increasing what Ghost heat already does, isn't it?

No, it's across the board for alpha strikes in general. For some reason MANY in this community seem to think alpha strikes are the norm. They aren't. Alpha strikes are the very definition of "I'M screwed, I need a lot of damage put out, a prayer, a friendly deity, and a little luck in order to survive this so I'm going to fire off everything I have in hopes that the other guy bites it before I do because if I don't, I'm dead anyway so even if I overheat, etc. I'm better off than the alternative of NOT alpha striking"

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

No, it's across the board for alpha strikes in general. For some reason MANY in this community seem to think alpha strikes are the norm. They aren't. Alpha strikes are the very definition of "I'M screwed, I need a lot of damage put out, a prayer, a friendly deity, and a little luck in order to survive this so I'm going to fire off everything I have in hopes that the other guy bites it before I do because if I don't, I'm dead anyway so even if I overheat, etc. I'm better off than the alternative of NOT alpha striking"

What I mean is, in the specific case of an AC/40 build, this proposed delay with the proposed Alpha Strike heat addition would essentially just amount to a greater Ghost Heat effect, wouldn't it? I mean we're talking about adding two new functions (global cooldown and Alpha Strike Heat Penalty) across the board, yes, but secretly to deal with one specific build. And yet, that build can circumvent the cooldown by using Alpha Strike. "Then the Alpha Strike Heat penalty would kick in," well all you've really done is added an additional heat penalty to group firing two AC/20's. On top of the Ghost Heat. So really, you've just added a somewhat complex system when all you really needed to do was increase the Ghost Heat effect on two AC/20's.

Edited by Dock Steward, 05 January 2014 - 04:03 PM.

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

That might be a better term for it, especially if it clarifies the meaning

It's been suggested several times before and doesn't seem to be a very popular solution.

People are really attached to their big pin-point alphas.

I've suggested a GCD myself a couple of times, only to see it shouted down much like you and Varent are shouting down the chain-fire suggestion. It would "kill" some popular builds, therefore "kill" the game and the spirit of BattleTech; it's a shooter not a simulator, everything's balanced we don't need a GCD, bla bla bla.

Good luck.

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

What I mean is, in the specific case of an AC/40 build, this proposed delay with the proposed Alpha Strike heat addition would essentially just amount to a greater Ghost Heat effect, wouldn't it? I mean we're talking about adding two new functions (global cooldown and Alpha Strike Heat Penalty) across the board, yes, but secretly to deal with one specific build. And yet, that build can circumvent the cooldown by using Alpha Strike. "Then the Alpha Strike Heat penalty would kick in," well all you've really done is added an additional heat penalty to group firing two AC/20's. On top of the Ghost Heat. So really, you've just added a somewhat complex system when all you really needed to do was increase the Ghost Heat effect on two AC/20's.

No, you're multiplying that function by using a build like that. You have choices in this game. You have the choice to run a build like that OR you have the choice to run a more balanced loadout. If you run multiple AC10s you still run into the same thing. If you fire off 2MLs an SRM6, an LL, and an MG you run into same penalties for an alpha strike. It's not to neuter any one build, it's an across the board idea that changes things for every build.

If one build is hit harder than another build then that build is thought out differently. Ghost heat impacts energy boats more than ballistic boats but it's not intended to nerf any one particular build. This isn't an "Oh no, he's out to get my favorite build neutered" idea.

stjobe, on 05 January 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

It's been suggested several times before and doesn't seem to be a very popular solution.

People are really attached to their big pin-point alphas.

I've suggested a GCD myself a couple of times, only to see it shouted down much like you and Varent are shouting down the chain-fire suggestion. It would "kill" some popular builds, therefore "kill" the game and the spirit of BattleTech; it's a shooter not a simulator, everything's balanced we don't need a GCD, bla bla bla.

Good luck.

It doesn't "kill" anything. It makes it harder to do 40, 50, 60, etc. pinpoint alpha strikes to one single location. There's a difference. Also with the scaling it brings it in line without affecting small caliber weapons. I'm not concerned with "popularity" (I think my post history supports that ), I'm concerned with finding a little more balance across the board.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 05 January 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

It's been suggested several times before and doesn't seem to be a very popular solution.

People are really attached to their big pin-point alphas.

I've suggested a GCD myself a couple of times, only to see it shouted down much like you and Varent are shouting down the chain-fire suggestion. It would "kill" some popular builds, therefore "kill" the game and the spirit of BattleTech; it's a shooter not a simulator, everything's balanced we don't need a GCD, bla bla bla.

Good luck.

welp long as its set to the larger cannons you wont hear complaint from me *shrug*

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

No, you're multiplying that function by using a build like that. You have choices in this game. You have the choice to run a build like that OR you have the choice to run a more balanced loadout. If you run multiple AC10s you still run into the same thing. If you fire off 2MLs an SRM6, an LL, and an MG you run into same penalties for an alpha strike. It's not to neuter any one build, it's an across the board idea that changes things for every build.

If one build is hit harder than another build then that build is thought out differently. Ghost heat impacts energy boats more than ballistic boats but it's not intended to nerf any one particular build. This isn't an "Oh no, he's out to get my favorite build neutered" idea.

I'm with you, I just thought it had been discussed earlier that this idea was mostly to placate those who had particular problems with the AC/40's. Maybe I read into things too much. I don't run that build myself. Well, not often at any rate. I do think an Alpha Strike Penalty makes perfect sense. There should be so many more effects from heat in this game, IMHO.

[Sandpit]

If a half second delay in firing off that second AC20 or AC10 "kills" your build, ability, skill, or any other some such then that individual player really needs to rethink what they consider "balance" is

[Varent]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

I'm with you, I just thought it had been discussed earlier that this idea was mostly to placate those who had particular problems with the AC/40's. Maybe I read into things too much. I don't run that build myself. Well, not often at any rate. I do think an Alpha Strike Penalty makes perfect sense. There should be so many more effects from heat in this game, IMHO.

I still feel the build isnt amazing regardless so *shrug*

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

I'm not concerned with "popularity" (I think my post history supports that ), I'm concerned with finding a little more balance across the board.

You and me both. That "good luck" was sincere.

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

I'm with you, I just thought it had been discussed earlier that this idea was mostly to placate those who had particular problems with the AC/40's. Maybe I read into things too much. I don't run that build myself. Well, not often at any rate. I do think an Alpha Strike Penalty makes perfect sense. There should be so many more effects from heat in this game, IMHO.

I use that as one of the main examples because that's generally what the "nerf ballistics" crowd cite as an example. It's one of the most prevalent examples used to show how ballistics are "op"

The other examples using balanced loadouts to combine energy and ballistics? Those aren't "op" in my opinion. Those are good builds

[stjobe]

The way I see it, there's four ways to alleviate the pin-point alpha problem:
1. Cone of Fire
2. Convergence
3. Global Cooldown
4. Burst-fire

Of these, 1 tends to draw a lot of "no RNG in my game" and "you should hit what you aim at" detractors, 2 has a very real problem in that PGI has said HSR works against convergence, 3 seems to be unpopular because it limits alphaing (even though there's absolutely zero support for being able to fire all your weapons in the same instant in BT), and 4, well, we're in (one of) the thread(s) right now, so I guess people can read for themselves what objections there are.

In essence then, any suggestion to move away from the status quo seems to attract nay-sayers and prophets of doom, most of which are very vocal, post a lot, and won't budge from their position that the suggested idea is going to bring about the destruction of MWO as we know it.

So yeah, good luck. You'll need it. Me, I think I'm done for this time around.

Edit: Burst-fire, not Chain-fire

Edited by stjobe, 05 January 2014 - 04:56 PM.

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 05 January 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

The way I see it, there's four ways to alleviate the pin-point alpha problem:
1. Cone of Fire
2. Convergence
3. Global Cooldown
4. Chain-fire

Of these, 1 tends to draw a lot of "no RNG in my game" and "you should hit what you aim at" detractors, 2 has a very real problem in that PGI has said HSR works against convergence, 3 seems to be unpopular because it limits alphaing (even though there's absolutely zero support for being able to fire all your weapons in the same instant in BT), and 4, well, we're in (one of) the thread(s) right now, so I guess people can read for themselves what objections there are.

In essence then, any suggestion to move away from the status quo seems to attract nay-sayers and prophets of doom, most of which are very vocal, post a lot, and won't budge from their position that the suggested idea is going to bring about the destruction of MWO as we know it.

So yeah, good luck. You'll need it. Me, I think I'm done for this time around.

There's NEVER going to be a universal balance that everyone likes because it's always going to affect someone's favorite build or weapon. That's neither here nor there. Regardless of the cynicism, apathy, etc. PGI DOES listen to the forums. They do listen to player ideas and suggestions. I'm more concerned with what THEY think about ideas.

[Dock Steward]

stjobe, on 05 January 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

The way I see it, there's four ways to alleviate the pin-point alpha problem:
1. Cone of Fire
2. Convergence
3. Global Cooldown
4. Chain-fire

Of these, 1 tends to draw a lot of "no RNG in my game" and "you should hit what you aim at" detractors, 2 has a very real problem in that PGI has said HSR works against convergence, 3 seems to be unpopular because it limits alphaing (even though there's absolutely zero support for being able to fire all your weapons in the same instant in BT), and 4, well, we're in (one of) the thread(s) right now, so I guess people can read for themselves what objections there are.

In essence then, any suggestion to move away from the status quo seems to attract nay-sayers and prophets of doom, most of which are very vocal, post a lot, and won't budge from their position that the suggested idea is going to bring about the destruction of MWO as we know it.

So yeah, good luck. You'll need it. Me, I think I'm done for this time around.

By "Chain Fire," do you mean burst fire?

If these are my only choices, my order of preferred fix would be 3 (if I could still Alpha somehow..sorry), 4 (if that's the burst-fire option), then 1. I don't consider 2 to even be an option.

[Tombstoner]

stjobe, on 05 January 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

The way I see it, there's four ways to alleviate the pin-point alpha problem:
1. Cone of Fire
2. Convergence
3. Global Cooldown
4. Chain-fire

Of these, 1 tends to draw a lot of "no RNG in my game" and "you should hit what you aim at" detractors, 2 has a very real problem in that PGI has said HSR works against convergence, 3 seems to be unpopular because it limits alphaing (even though there's absolutely zero support for being able to fire all your weapons in the same instant in BT), and 4, well, we're in (one of) the thread(s) right now, so I guess people can read for themselves what objections there are.

In essence then, any suggestion to move away from the status quo seems to attract nay-sayers and prophets of doom, most of which are very vocal, post a lot, and won't budge from their position that the suggested idea is going to bring about the destruction of MWO as we know it.

So yeah, good luck. You'll need it. Me, I think I'm done for this time around.

A fifth option exists that fully embraces pin point damage. That is to increase the hit locations on all mechs by ~1000x fold. each location gets some armor. what damage that penetrates is applied to whats underneath. it would require a complete over haul of just about everything, but it would add the needed detail to adsorb the consequences of pin point group fire from a TT to FPS shooter.

It would also mean that some shots will pass through the mech doing nothing.

[stjobe]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

By "Chain Fire," do you mean burst fire?

Yes, of course; I meant "Burst-fire". Chain-fire would be the GCD (option 3, sometimes referred to as "forced chain-fire").

Tombstoner, on 05 January 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

it would add the needed detail to adsorb the consequences of pin point group fire from a TT to FPS shooter.

There was no "pin point group fire" in TT to translate to this FPS shooter, hence why some of us think there shouldn't be in the shooter either.

Edited by stjobe, 05 January 2014 - 04:58 PM.