79 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

East Indy, on 19 February 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

I love ya, Joe, but what you want isn't so great for the game.

Love ya too, and I can say the same thing about your ideas. Cause the way we play games should not be nerfed. Power players spend money just as much as whirling dervish players. Both have a place in a PvP game.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

Love ya too, and I can say the same thing about your ideas. Cause the way we play games should not be nerfed. Power players spend money just as much as whirling dervish players. Both have a place in a PvP game.

Ah, but that's where you're mistaken Joe.

If the types of damage-dealing were equally effective, you'd be correct; but they aren't. Instant pin-point damage is much more effective than any other method of dealing damage, and one cannot disregard that when trying to balance things to be fair in a PvP game.

If alphaing all your weapons had some drawback; increased cooldown time, or spread damage, or something, it would be fine - but as MWO currently stands it has none, and that is why we have Ghost Heat and other silly mechanics to try and curb the instant pin-point alphaing.

The instant-damage weapons (ACs and PPCs) are just plain more effective killers than missiles or lasers. Hence the constant threads that call for some kind of balance - often in the form of nerfs.

Edited by stjobe, 19 February 2014 - 12:47 PM.

[Shae Starfyre]

I was always in favor of a Weapons Link Item that took up one slot, and weighed .5 tons and depending on where you positioned it, you could link weapons.

Now, what happens when that link is destroyed; automatic chain fire event on that group of weapons.

This makes it realistic, and can by means of battle and role warfare mitigate it all.

[Ordellus]

WarZ, on 19 February 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

A mechanic I've endorsed for a while is "power requirement" for weapons.

Example:
- An engine generates 100 power / second.
- A ppc requires 50 power to fire.
- Therefore the most you could fire at one time is 2 ppc's. As they would max your 100 p/s.
- AC20 could require 60 power / second. Now you can only fire 1 at a time.

They would have to work up the precise and balanced numbers for all th weapons, but using this mechanic they now have a layer of PRECISE control over how total and different types of weapons could be fired.

Its VERY simple. It would work great once balanced numbers are in. It gives the devs a layer for further control and tweaking in terms of player builds. Still offers the players the ability to boat if they want.

ALSO, importantly it gets rid of the need for the ghost heat system. It is no longer necessary with this mechanic. Plus the power mechanic gives a far superior level of control for balancing.

Inspiration comes from the battletech novels themselves. The clan guass rifle requires so much power to fire that during battles you could only fire it by itself. No other weapons could be fired at the same time because the power it required was so high.

It would limit the use of "heavy" weapons on light mechs too. Wouldn't mind that.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 19 February 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Ah, but that's where you're mistaken Joe.

If the types of damage-dealing were equally effective, you'd be correct; but they aren't. Instant pin-point damage is much more effective than any other method of dealing damage, and one cannot disregard that when trying to balance things to be fair in a PvP game.

If alphaing all your weapons had some drawback; increased cooldown time, or spread damage, or something, it would be fine - but as MWO currently stands it has none, and that is why we have Ghost Heat and other silly mechanics to try and curb the instant pin-point alphaing.

The instant-damage weapons (ACs and PPCs) are just plain more effective killers than missiles or lasers. Hence the constant threads that call for some kind of balance - often in the form of nerfs.

Then fix the pin point issue. Fix the problem no the symptoms. Ghost heat has not affected my ability to Alpha at all (except the Jager40. So I am against anything that will Nerf my already perfectly acceptable 40-64 (non pin point) point alphas!

BTW DocBach also suggests limiting Convergence for Alpha and I support that 100%!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 February 2014 - 12:06 PM.

[East Indy]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 February 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

Then fix the pin point issue.

Joe, the only reason why I or anyone else waste a second on solutions like this one is because -- blame CryEngine or Piranha or both -- anything other than perfect convergence is not possible.

[stjobe]

East Indy, on 20 February 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Joe, the only reason why I or anyone else waste a second on solutions like this one is because -- blame CryEngine or Piranha or both -- anything other than perfect convergence is not possible.

As far as I've understood it's HSR that throws a spanner in the works as regards to pin-point damage. Keeping track of more than one target point is apparently more than HSR can handle in a timely fashion.

So all our weapons hit one point and we have to look at other solutions to the pin-point instant alpha problem.
* Forced chain-fire is one (no alpha, so you can keep your 20 instant damage)
* TCL is another (lessening of damage totals)
* Burst-fire ACs and PPCs is a third (no instant-damage, so you can keep your alpha)

Lots of suggestions, good and bad; not much dev action or even acknowledgement of the issue.

Edited by stjobe, 20 February 2014 - 03:05 PM.

[Varent]

1) why so much srm hate?

2) this wouldnt really effect much of anything and only half of the jump snipers.

3) why not just change jump jets and call it a day. Decrease thrust and make it so heavier chasis need to run more then one based off of there weight.

4) for as much as people complain about FLD. It really isnt the problem. At all.

[Rebas Kradd]

1) I love how the anti-convergence crowd that has been preaching vehemently and completely theoretically against ANY AND ALL "artificial systems" is suddenly okay with this because it agrees with their goals.

2) The system, while well-presented and refreshingly brief, just screams "lurking cases" that will severely confine customization in ways you're not anticipating. Which is pretty much the case for every solution that people have offered around here.

3) Those 1-second and 2-second cooldowns are going to introduce a very jerky, staccato feel to ALL weapons firing that will probably be too intrusive to most gamers. It's the same problem with taking away convergence - pinpoint frustrations aside, PGI needs to consider that players generally want their weapons to hit where they're pointing. Just kind of a basic human desire there.

4) This does little to directly stop dual Gauss, 4xAC5, or 3xUAC5 boaters, and given that a pair of AC5s is vastly superior to a single AC20 in every conceivable way already, this will only shift the meta even more heavily towards seven variants. And we'll still have complaining. (You might not care, of course, but it's not so simple for PGI.)

5) Your values also kill almost every specialist in the game and force mixed builds far too heavy-handedly. "Light-hunter" and mixed-laser builds, which nobody was complaining about, are massively marginalized. You nerf the Kintaro, Catapult, Stalker, Battlemaster, and the Awesome even further (notice certain patterns in the weight classes there?), as well as the Hunchback 4P, four Atlas variants, the CTF-1X, and two Thunderbolts being sledgehammered into close-in brawling roles and most mediums getting tossed into the Trebuchet bin. As irritating as AC40 Jagers, hot builds, and Koniving's triple Gauss Cataphract can be if you're not prepared, they have massive downsides that their pilots enjoy gambling with and that I enjoy taking advantage of. I don't want to lose that part of the spectrum and I don't like the "hypercontrolling" cramp on wide-open customization that this idea would give the game. People should be free to experiment and choose their roles, not forced to grind C-bills to pick the mechs that they want for their jobs.


All that said, the system actually is a more effective version of Ghost Heat. It'll boost TTK, promote brawling. I like it better than any other. But I still don't like the cost to customization, you'll still have a meta (and all the current PPC+AC tryhards will shift directly to it), and you'll have to justify stepping on a bunch of other specialist builds along with the meta, which is a barrier that the anti-convergence crowd can never seem to get around.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 20 February 2014 - 04:23 PM.

[Sephlock]

The Jagermech should be a walking dakka stick.

I miss the days of my 4x UAC Jager facing down an enemy Atlas.

You DARE to challenge me? KNEEL BEFORE YOUR MASTER!

[East Indy]

stjobe, on 20 February 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

As far as I've understood it's HSR that throws a spanner in the works as regards to pin-point damage. Keeping track of more than one target point is apparently more than HSR can handle in a timely fashion.

If that's the technical explanation, I'll believe it. There are a couple of threads in which some guys pieced together the timeline of delayed convergence, and at one point it was eliminated.

Rebas Kradd, on 20 February 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

2) The system, while well-presented and refreshingly brief, just screams "lurking cases" that will severely confine customization in ways you're not anticipating.

Maybe, although I anticipated a fair bit, and offer quirks as a means for exceptions favoring 'Mechs (like the Awesome) overshadowed by lenient customization. I'd also question what expectations for customization are reasonable, PGI's laissez-faire statements aside.

Quote

Those 1-second and 2-second cooldowns are going to introduce a very jerky, staccato feel to ALL weapons firing that will probably be too intrusive to most gamers.

I'm confident, especially with a little tweaking, that they won't — for two reasons. First, players are used to CDs. Whether or not it's dignified, click-click-click-click of the button-mash is still how games are played to full efficiency; really, any delay is too short when you've got to squeeze that next shot off. Second, to continue the music analogy, most MWO players don't play the legato of chained lasers. They opt for punchy sforzandos punctuating rests, even if they're not bending all the rules for alphas, and often wait longer than 1 or 2 seconds without a weapon readied to fire.

Many builds will be able to sit right under the 55% mark; and one second is almost unnoticeable in this game's pacing.

Quote

This does little to directly stop dual Gauss, 4xAC5, or 3xUAC5 boaters, and given that a pair of AC5s is vastly superior to a single AC20 in every conceivable way already, this will only shift the meta even more heavily towards seven variants. And we'll still have complaining. (You might not care, of course, but it's not so simple for PGI.)

On that I'd disagree. Quad AC/5 loses 33% fire rate (2-second GCD versus 1.5-second reload) unless pairs are staggered. Triple UAC/5s have performance, space and weight limitations. And as a counter-player (not a user) I'd say dual Gauss builds are actually quite vulnerable, hence their limited popularity.

As for complaining, someone will always do it. What matters is how many are complaining, and whether they have a point.

Quote

I don't want to lose that part of the spectrum and I don't like the "hypercontrolling" cramp on wide-open customization that this idea would give the game. People should be free to experiment and choose their roles, not forced to grind C-bills to pick the mechs that they want for their jobs.

This far into the franchise's latest journey, I just don't believe it. It's like the false promise of peace in anarchy, or something. Any developer wants free customization until he realizes how 1) ingenious and 2) economical his players are. Then he watches them build fairways through loopholes in rules and generally ignore his intentions for the game. All a game, I suppose, but it's still his game, and he's got a right to try to fix it.

I'd beware more of hyper-efficient, because it discourages variety and customization much more thoroughly than stricter rules. Freedom to customize means nothing when there are only a few practical choices.

Quote

All that said, the system actually is a more effective version of Ghost Heat. It'll boost TTK, promote brawling. I like it better than any other. But I still don't like the cost to customization, you'll still have a meta (and all the current PPC+AC tryhards will shift directly to it), and you'll have to justify stepping on a bunch of other specialist builds along with the meta, which is a barrier that the anti-convergence crowd can never seem to get around.

All fair. The critical analysis is much, much appreciated.

Edited by East Indy, 20 February 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[Varent]

East Indy, on 20 February 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

Maybe, although I anticipated a fair bit, and offer quirks as a means for exceptions favoring 'Mechs (like the Awesome) overshadowed by lenient customization. I'd also question what expectations for customization are reasonable, PGI's laissez-faire statements aside.

You killed most srm brawlers actually.

[Vercinaigh]

DV McKenna, on 19 February 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

Believe me i have tried it, im a jump sniper by trade since MW4. Charge time weapons are not optimal for jump sniping.
Which is why they aren't used.

Then get better because this statement is woefully false in upper level competitive play, they -DO- get used, and are starting to re-surge in quite a bit greater numbers

Edited by Vercinaigh, 20 February 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[Roland]

Vercinaigh, on 20 February 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

Then get better because this statement is woefully false in upper level competitive play, they -DO- get used, and are starting to re-surge in quite a bit greater numbers

Doesn't McKenna play for the Snow Ravens? In that case, I think he kind of knows what top level competitive play is.

[Mister Blastman]

East Indy, on 18 February 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

I've been burying a lot of balance ideas in threads, lately. This one seemed worth its own thread, if only for my own catharsis (I think of stuff, I share it, I move on).

This would replace heat scale.

Weapon Type	Damage Limit/Firing Group
Direct-Fire Instant (PPCs, ACs)	20
Direct-Fire Charge (Gauss)	30
Beam	30
Long-Range Missile	40
Short-Range Missile	24

General rules:
• Firing groups may only include weapons of the same type.
• No firing group may exceed damage limit.
• When initiated, firing groups are calculated and engaged sequentially but cumulatively.
• Firing groups of different type do not contribute to each other's limits.
• Reaching 55%-75% of a firing group's limit invokes a 1-second global cooldown.
• Reaching 76%-100% of a firing group's limit invokes a 2-second global cooldown.
• If no 50% mark is reached, targeting computer resets aftet 0.5 seconds.

Examples of chassis-specific exceptions:
• Awesome's Direct-Fire Instant limit is 30.
• Jagermech's Direct-Fire Instant limit is 26.
• Stalker's Long-Range Missile limit is 50.

So, there it is.

Targeting computer doesn't need this stuff. Targeting computer needs... Targeting computer!

Like, the actual TT Targeting Computer rules, penalties and lack-of functionality if you don't pony up the crits and tonnage to fit one.

[Ordellus]

Sephlock, on 20 February 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

The Jagermech should be a walking dakka stick.

I miss the days of my 4x UAC Jager facing down an enemy Atlas.

You DARE to challenge me? KNEEL BEFORE YOUR MASTER!

I'm glad you miss it, b/c anything facing an atlas head on and living is ******* ********.

P.S. Ret@ard is an actual word, with an actual meaning. Can we stop censoring basic english now?

Edited by Ordellus, 20 February 2014 - 07:42 PM.

[Sephlock]

Ordellus, on 20 February 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

I'm glad you miss it, b/c anything facing an atlas head on and living is ******* ********.

P.S. Ret@ard is an actual word, with an actual meaning. Can we stop censoring basic english now?

reatard?

[Roland]

Realtard?

[Sephlock]

Roland, on 20 February 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

Realtard?

Retatard?

[Roland]

Sephlock, on 20 February 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Retatard?

Potatard?