227 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

YueFei, on 23 April 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

Yeah.... 3-second-Jenners and all that, too.

Wait you mean the reason why our DHS don't have 2.0 dissipation

[Rasc4l]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 April 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

HA as if! Someone else did the math and it comes out to 9.44 damage at 1 km

Even at ranges of 700m, 2 PPCs and 2 AC5s is only pinpoint if the target is standing still. At that range they will impact at different times on different locations if you are moving, even at Atlas speeds.

Yes, it is entirely possible to not understand what I'm saying if one tries very hard.

For simplicity, imagine a situation where a meta highlander is 'dueling' a brawler atlas. If contact is made at longer ranges than ~300 m, the atlas doesn't stand a chance. If MWO maps were the size of 600 m x 600 m boxes, we could argue that the current long range vs. short range weapon balance is ok, because in roughly ~50 % cases the fight happens also in brawler ranges. But maps are much larger than that. If contact is made at ranges 300-1000 m it will cost the atlas an arm and a leg (well most probably both side torsos) to get close and by the time his weapons would start to have an effect, the atlas has been severely beaten.

So it doesn't matter that the metamech can make "only" 10 points of damage at extreme range, because SRM-based brawlers make exactly 0 damage until they can see the eyeballs. Sure, I've managed the leg the occasional jenner at 500 m with AC/20 even with the slowed down projectile speed but effectively we are talking about the highlander having 3x-4x the range of the atlas. This is of course fine, because mechs have different roles but when the brawler atlas is FINALLY in range, it should be devastating to anyone. The first instinct of a metahighlander upon seeing an atlas close by should be to flee, not go "well, I'm pretty much on even ground, let's see if I can take him out".

Breakdown is roughly something like this:

close range (0-270 m) damage potential, Atlas: 66 alpha
close range (0-270 m) damage potential, Highlander: 40 points pinpoint (0-90 m less of course)

medium range (270-600 m) damage potential, Atlas: 0 (sometimes u hit with AC/20 but it's nothing significant)
medium range (270-600 m) damage potential, Highlander: 30-40 points pinpoint

long range (600-1000 m) damage potential, Atlas: 0
long range (600-1000 m) damage potential, Highlander: 10-20 points

Please don't get hung up on my numbers, which I'm sure are not completely accurate but I think you should be able to get the point. So maybe you think that "well, as a brawler you're not supposed cross the vast glaciers of alpine but sneak into their backs and hit them hard". Well that's what I basically always do. But to engage the 2 highlanders I just surprised alone from behind at 200 m leaves me usually quite broken and many times dead, because it is so easy for them to maneuver with JJs and keep me at 90+ meters so that their PPCs work. If they now nerf the SRMs, I don't think brawlers will have a chance.

[AlmightyAeng]

It's not that Paul doesn't understand a large section of the playerbase doesn't like ghost heat. Hell, he may even AGREE with us at this point.

It's the money they spent developing it. If a 'mech costs around $50,000, I'm sure that they probably spent around a quarter million developing heatscale. And there's no way in hell Paul is gonna tell IGP that they're abandoning a failed quarter-million dollar product because it doesn't do what it's supposed to and the players hate it. The response will be "Make it work, then" or "You're fired."

Enjoy heatscale, everybody. The better, simpler solutions you all suggested in closed beta are never going to happen.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 24 April 2014 - 05:48 AM.

[3rdworld]

Ghost Badger, on 24 April 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

It's not that Paul doesn't understand a large section of the playerbase doesn't like ghost heat. Hell, he may even AGREE with us at this point.

It's the money they spent developing it. If a 'mech costs around $50,000, I'm sure that they probably spent around a quarter million developing heatscale. And there's no way in hell Paul is gonna tell IGP that they're abandoning a failed quarter-million dollar product because it doesn't do what it's supposed to and the players hate it. The response will be "Make it work, then" or "You're fired."

Enjoy heatscale, everybody. The better, simpler solutions you all suggested in closed beta are never going to happen.

I agree. I would rather them just start actually adjusting it or actually use it for what it was intended. To punish builds they thought as abusive.

3 LL should not have Ghost Heat, LL & LPLs should not share ghost heat. etc.

[Shlkt]

I'm assuming that slug-mode LBX will have a drawback w/rt recycle time. Otherwise there's no point to cluster rounds. That could be a fun gameplay mechanic - slugs at long range, then switching to cluster up close for better DPS.

Switching between modes should not be instantaneous. The weapon has to be unloaded & reloaded, after all.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shlkt, on 24 April 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

I'm assuming that slug-mode LBX will have a drawback w/rt recycle time. Otherwise there's no point to cluster rounds. That could be a fun gameplay mechanic - slugs at long range, then switching to cluster up close for better DPS.

Switching between modes should not be instantaneous. The weapon has to be unloaded & reloaded, after all.

The point of Cluster rounds was more crit chances. If every pellet is a possible crit v a single slug... there IS a reason, depending on your intention. Me I'm a destroy the section and forget the crits kinda guy. Others want the padded paycheck from destroyed components!

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 24 April 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

I agree. I would rather them just start actually adjusting it or actually use it for what it was intended. To punish builds they thought as abusive.

3 LL should not have Ghost Heat, LL & LPLs should not share ghost heat. etc.

The ultimate problem here highlights why ghost heat really isn't going to get the job done.

Trying to specifically punish "abusive builds" will fail.. just as it's failed thus far to date. Because trying to deal with those specific builds, instead of dealing with the underlying issues that make those builds abusive, just pushes people to the next best solution which achieves the same results.

It's why PGI has now gotten to the point where they are nerfing weapons like the AC5 and AC10.... because they eventually percolated to the top of the heap in terms of being able to combine with other weapons to generate large precision alpha strikes.

[Davers]

Shlkt, on 24 April 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

I'm assuming that slug-mode LBX will have a drawback w/rt recycle time. Otherwise there's no point to cluster rounds. That could be a fun gameplay mechanic - slugs at long range, then switching to cluster up close for better DPS.

Switching between modes should not be instantaneous. The weapon has to be unloaded & reloaded, after all.

PGI thinks LB-10X is good at destroying components. Working as intended.

[Faith McCarron]

Did anyone else finish listening to this podcast utterly depressed in terms of any hope for CW? From the way Paul was talking and wording things, work hasn't even begun on CW. Hell, it sounds like plans haven't even been roughly finalized for CW. It's seeming more and more like CW is going to always be the far-off dream, replaced with short term distractions like UI 2.0, Launch Module, Clan Invasion, etc, to make us think that work is being done on CW, when it fact, it's just these small projects that dont bring us actually any closer to CW, with the normal helping of new mechs sprinkled in.

Any time you hear from them, it's always "We're really happy with where we're at right now, we're just putting the final polish on <insert shiny distraction here> and after that, we'll be setting our sights on Community Warfare to get that where you guys want to be". Over. And over. And over.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 24 April 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

The ultimate problem here highlights why ghost heat really isn't going to get the job done.

Trying to specifically punish "abusive builds" will fail.. just as it's failed thus far to date. Because trying to deal with those specific builds, instead of dealing with the underlying issues that make those builds abusive, just pushes people to the next best solution which achieves the same results.

It's why PGI has now gotten to the point where they are nerfing weapons like the AC5 and AC10.... because they eventually percolated to the top of the heap in terms of being able to combine with other weapons to generate large precision alpha strikes.

I don't disagree, but asking PGI to throw out ghost heat is pointless, it isn't going to happen.

[Mister Blastman]

Deathlike, on 23 April 2014 - 11:03 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for the 6MG Spider.

It will actually be 8. And a hero mech. For teh trololo, of course.

3rdworld, on 24 April 2014 - 07:15 AM, said:

I don't disagree, but asking PGI to throw out ghost heat is pointless, it isn't going to happen.

But we're not. Most of us are simply asking PGI to throw out Paul instead.

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 April 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

The point of Cluster rounds was more crit chances. If every pellet is a possible crit v a single slug... there IS a reason, depending on your intention. Me I'm a destroy the section and forget the crits kinda guy. Others want the padded paycheck from destroyed components!

There is also the interesting question of how PGI plans to implement the cluster rounds for the Clans' LB 2-X, LB 5-X, and LB 20-X with regard to submunitions-per-salvo and damage-per-submunition (since we can already guess that the Clan LB 10-X cluster round will work like its IS counterpart - that is, ten (10) submunitions per salvo, 1.0 units of damage per submunition).

• For example, would the Clan LB 2-X cluster round fire only two (2) submunitions at 1.0 units of damage each (for a total of 2.0 units of damage per salvo), or ten (10) submunitions at 0.2 units of damage each (again, for a total of 2.0 units of damage per salvo)?
  
• Would the Clan LB 5-X cluster round fire five (5) submunitions at 1.0 units of damage each (for a total of 5.0 units of damage per salvo), or ten (10) submunitions at 0.5 units of damage each (again, for a total of 5.0 units of damage per salvo)?
  
• Would the Clan LB 20-X cluster round fire twenty (20) submunitions at 1.0 units of damage each (for a total of 20 units of damage per salvo), or ten (10) submunitions at 2.0 units of damage each (again, for a total of 20 units of damage per salvo)?

(Note that "ten (10) submunitions" was used as an example, because we already know that PGI has working code (including animations, spread calculations, and so on) to implement it with minimal/no modification.)

Additionally, when Paul discusses the Clan LB-X ACs (from 40:40 to 42:48), he does not specifically indicate whether CLB-X slug mode would also use a burst-fire implementation (like what's described for the CUACs) or if slugs would fire as single shells (like the IS Standard ACs), though some of his his reasoning for denying ammo-switching for the IS LB 10-X might insinuate the latter.

----------

Moreover, Paul's discussion of Clan UACs (from 35:50 to 37:36) uses the 5x4 (burst of 5 shells @ 4 damage per shell) statement solely as an example ("...the [Ultra] Autocannon/20, for example - just throwing out some ideas here - is that it'll shoot a 5-round burst with every round doing 4 damage..."); the use of speculative language indicates that the 5x4 pattern was not set-in-stone as of the time of the recording - the CUAC/20 could ultimately end up firing in a 3x6.67 configuration (burst of 3 shells @ 6.67 damage per shell), or a 4x5 configuration, or a 6x3.33 configuration, and so on.

The other CUACs would probably follow the same pattern, IMO; a CUAC/10 could easily end up as 3x3.33 (burst of 3 shells @ 3.33 damage per shell) or 4x2.5 or 5x2, while a CUAC/5 could be set up as 3x1.67 (burst of 3 shells @ 1.67 damage per shell) or 4x1.25 or 5x1 & a CUAC/2 could be set up as 3x0.67 (burst of 3 shells @ 0.67 damage per shell) or 4x0.50 or 5x0.40.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 24 April 2014 - 07:30 AM.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 April 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

IS LBX is being left a PoS for absolutely no good reason

I honestly don't think the LB10X is a bad weapon. It suffers from the same "in between" syndrome that the AC10 does, but when compared just to the AC10, it has it's purposes and quite a few people equip them because of that. Not saying both of them don't need some love, though.

Khobai, on 23 April 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

Agreed. The IS ones need burst fire too. Dual AC20 certainly does not require any jumping through hoops to achieve 40 damage. People just eat the extra heat and its not a big deal.

It really sounds like this is going to be a testing case for the burst-fire of autocannons, and I'm hoping and praying that it works well from a technology standpoint so they do the same change (with differences) to all of the autocannons.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 24 April 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

I honestly don't think the LB10X is a bad weapon. It suffers from the same "in between" syndrome that the AC10 does, but when compared just to the AC10, it has it's purposes and quite a few people equip them because of that. Not saying both of them don't need some love, though.

I know. I for one only took the LBX 10 cause it was lighter, had better range and less heat. I didn't use Cluster ammo cause I am a hammer not a sand blaster.

I am not someone who is worried that an AC10 may not get used again cause X is better. I prefer to blow up trees instead of huggin' em!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 24 April 2014 - 08:32 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Cimarb, on 24 April 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

It really sounds like this is going to be a testing case for the burst-fire of autocannons, and I'm hoping and praying that it works well from a technology standpoint so they do the same change (with differences) to all of the autocannons.

Would a, could a, should a, in closed beta........

also the 30 heat from TT is a soft cap, you can exceed it, but by the end of the turn you better have suficant HS to soak that heat so your below that 30 point level. That's the part PGI seems to over look or considers what makes heat a trivial mechanic. heat neutral mechs are bad....( no need to buy cool shots???). in TT you can have a heat of 2000 only if you have 1971 hs. if not it will take you forever to cool of and most likely will slag the core.

[Trauglodyte]

3rdworld, on 24 April 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

I agree. I would rather them just start actually adjusting it or actually use it for what it was intended. To punish builds they thought as abusive.

3 LL should not have Ghost Heat, LL & LPLs should not share ghost heat. etc.

I'm alright with Ghost Heat. But, right now, we're kind of stuck with a couple of situations that make GH intolerable. First off, some mechs (see the Awesome and the Hunchback P) were built to boat a lot of energy weapons. That people alpha them isn't our fault because it is more effective killing a target when you put all of your weapons in one spot and then twist to avoid the incoming retalitory damage. The problem, though, is that full mech customization has allowed other mechs to follow suit and build copies of such (see the Stalker). Secondly, the Ghost Heat values haven't been adjusted since they were added to the game. This is detrimental because the PPC and ER version are no longer 8 and 12 heat, respectively. Thirdly, the concept of GH is sound but is sloppy in that you can fire 5 SRM2s or 3 SRM4s/6s before you get penalized. But, if you fire 4 SRM2s, 2 SRM4s, and 2 SRM6s (assuming that you have that many slots which you don't), you have no issues. The point of GH was to slow the abuse of boating and it has been semi-successful but would have been all the way successful if we had *drum roll* HEAT PENALTIES! That aside, it has forced people to slow down a bit. But, it hasn't prevented people from getting around the problem with builds like 2x PPCs and 2x AC5s, combining different missile launchers, etc. And this is the problem because we're still hosing stock builds but allowing people to circumvent the system through loop holes.

Quite frankly, GH isn't a horrible system. It is simply a little messy. There are many of us that wanted it to be based on a set alpha heat level but, with ACs being so cool, that wouldn't have worked. But, it needs to be cleaned up a bit so that it isn't so structured because we're getting around it. Why is 3 PPCs a bad thing but 2 PPCs and 2 Lrg Lasers is fine? Why is 2 LRM15s bad but 1 LRM20 and 2 LRM10s is ok? Heck, even with the lowered speed of the AC5 since this last patch, why is it ok to run 2 AC5s and 2 PPCs but 3 PPCs, which is stock, is severely broken? 2 Lrg Lasers is the GH limit but you could set it to 3 and then extremely increase the tax for firing that 4th. Or, you could keep the 2 Lrg Lasers as the limit, lower the cost for the 3rd, and then ramp up the 4th, 5th, and 6th to obscene levels.

Anyway, I think some fixing of values would help a lot. The mech quirks that are being applied to Clan mechs is going to help once they get applied to IS mechs (looking at you Mr Awesome). And making it so that weapon combinations are taking into account with GH will finish it up. Throw in some heat penalties, which we DRASTICALLY need and we're golden.

[CygnusX7]

At the rate PGI is going it will be 3050 before any of this is implemented.

[Almond Brown]

Mcgral18, on 23 April 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

Well, it makes the IS just that much better than the clans. Full customisation, with better weapons.

You're sure about that? Link to the Clan weapon stats please.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 April 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

You don't get the irony? They are making the Clan weapons worse than the IS weapons.

^^^

Hard to truly assess them without actual stats though. Supposition FTW I guess.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Almond Brown, on 24 April 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

You're sure about that? Link to the Clan weapon stats please.



Hard to truly assess them without actual stats though. Supposition FTW I guess.

So you think damage that is spread out over multiple shots is better than FLD?

[VoodooLou Kerensky]

Hmmm Clan AC 20's will be burst weapons thats diffrent. Hey Paul how about adding a Long Tom to the clan side that you can juuuuust squeeze into a Kitfox/Uller that does 56 points of damage to where ever it hits and a the ability to travel 2 KM depending on the Ballistic Trajectory and comes with 1 ton of ammo. That way I can stand waaay the hell back and lob Mech Mortars down? No? Rats! I was hoping of a return to the insanity of drops of nothing but Kitfoxes just lobbing shells willy nilly praying that at the end you end up with the highest score for league play......

How about LBX rounds that are either scatter shot or single slug for Clan LBX? And Inferno loads for missiles? So far it looks like the Cauldron Born/Ebon Jaguar wont be able to field Dual LBX 20, LBX 10 and Clan ER Medium either.