So full damage to armor and 50-75% to structure maybe?
Any Ratio that would make carrying both weapon types preferred. Although, to change MWO in any real fashion, it would require that 3 types be needed. Sadly we only have to 2 structure types. Armor and Internals. Add Components and somehow work them in to make 3...
Why would you nerf the AC/2's anti-internals ability? The weapon is incredibly bad as it is.
Also, having different weapons being better at certain duties than other weapons, while being worse at other duties, is not an "imbalance." That's the definition of regular balance.
Why would you nerf the AC/2's anti-internals ability? The weapon is incredibly bad as it is.
Also, having different weapons being better at certain duties than other weapons, while being worse at other duties, is not an "imbalance." That's the definition of regular balance.
IIRC, isn't the explanation for most min ranges just the weapon being hard to bring to bear up close? The shell would do the same damage...it would just be harder to hit the spot you want.
I also never understood why they gave that gun (and the AC/5) min ranges in the first place...were they afraid of a long-range weapon with less damage than a Small Laser being OP?
Personally I would just increase internal structure across the board. Then give certain weapons like SRMs bonus damage to internal structure. That basically has the same effect but more streamlined. Also makes crits more meaningful since items will have more chances to get critted out before the entire internal structure gets blown out.
I still like my idea of boosting internal structure based on non-upgraded components. Stock engine = 50% more internal HP in the center torso. ect. ect. ect.... check my signature if you're interested enough to read more ideas along that line.
Bravo for addressing the meta without throwing foundational gameplay mechanics out the window. Quite refreshing. Double damage by anything might be overkill, but it's an interesting idea and should be brought up to the devs.
But before we try this, let's just address jump jets. Have you noticed that nobody ever complains about (or sees) meta-equipped Atlases? Stalkers? Battlemasters? Orions? They're all decent chassis capable of running the meta. What do they have in common? No jump jets. Meaning they're vulnerable to LRM rain and to all the stray fire and attrition that everyone else takes. THAT is the real problem. Otherwise the meta wouldn't be widely considered to be confined to the JJ-equipped chassis.
I always thought, just glowing from heat damage from lasers would attract srms a little would be nice.
But having certain weapons acting like this is setting this game up to be worse than it is. On a single mech, sure sounds nifty, get an organized 12 man with dedicated armor strippers and dedicated internal destroyers, TTK will drop to seconds.
I guess that's the idea?
and gives some value to have different stages during the game. It's a 12 man drop meta.
BlackDrakon, on 04 June 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:
PGI will never do this, they don't have the brain to fix SRMS just imagine tweaking all the other wpns. LOL!!
They got fixed and will roll out in the next(?) patch.
Friends, perhaps the problems with gameplay stem not from balance, but a lack of designed imbalance.
[trunicated] Ladies, gentlemen, and friends, for your consideration. -Jack.
The simplified version is this with a video demonstration.
The simplified version is this with a video demonstration.
Ok that is interesting but does MWO have enough variety for their theory to work? This is basically the argument that E N E R G Y presents in stating that there will always be a meta in a game, players will just react to it as it shifts. What I am wondering is if MWO has enough permutations to find a counter to the "jumpjet/ppc" option we have now. I am not saying that doesn't, I am just questioning.
Ok that is interesting but does MWO have enough variety for their theory to work? This is basically the argument that E N E R G Y presents in stating that there will always be a meta in a game, players will just react to it as it shifts. What I am wondering is if MWO has enough permutations to find a counter to the "jumpjet/ppc" option we have now. I am not saying that doesn't, I am just questioning.
Good question.
I've been spreading such ideas around.
Take the Cataphract 3D.
In its first iteration, it was jumpjets + slower than dirt + Gauss Rifle + PPCs.
Hit the rifle, it goes boom. Get close, it can't escape.
Gauss Rifle got nerfed for lack of foresight.
Cataphract 3D shifts to AC/5. PPCs and AC/5 complement each other.
It's lighter, so more heatsinks means more frequent poptarting means more frequent damage. More space also includes more engine power which means higher jumping. This made it worse.
From this stage we can do a few things. Lets study that!
ACs to burst fire...
this shifts the poptart back to the Gauss Rifles where they are easy to counter. Yes they will be more dangerous at range but when you get close they are screwed.
Change PPCs to a charge mechanic.
This while mechanically implied by the lore of PPCs (the field inhibitor degrading performance of the PPC's capacitor [a system involved with charging and building power] in such a way that requires a longer charge up to fire. Interestingly enough, the minimum range -- implied also by the Gauss Rifle having a charge up by lore and reality for coil guns and rail guns -- is subsequently removed if you turn off the field inhibitor. The result is a description of a shorter charge-up time that can manage easier hits at close range at the risk of causing damage to your mech, weapon, and other systems to the point of the weapon exploding in your face.) Food for thought.
Lock thresholds to 30.
This significantly reduces the frequency that the poptart can fire as 2 PPCs = 66.67% threshold, not counting any other weapons fire or jumpjet or engine heat. It would take 7 seconds to cool enough to fire safely with 15 TRUE DHS, not the mixed true and '1.4' ones we have now.
While this would greatly improve gameplay, the chain reaction would make ACs the new meta weapon, requiring us to look back again at the "make ACs burst fire" idea.
Increase LRM damage to double its current value, (but to avoid outlashes, double its reload time).
This causes dumbfired LRMs (without locks) to have significantly more tactical value. You can shotgun a series of LRMs in the air -- which give NO WARNING -- so when they leap into the missiles it devastates them. However if the damage isn't doubled all you will do is tickle them.
After doing this, there would be a significant need to reduce the ammunition count of LRMs per ton, as 180 missiles would have become as valuable as 360 missiles. My proposed reduction is 120 missiles, which would be as valuable as 240 (and twice as easy to 'waste' foolishly).
Fix the hardpoints.
The 3D would NOT be effective as a poptart if the hardpoints were as originally designed by FASA and Battletech. Those shoulder energy hardpoints face BACKWARD. Only the arm-mounted energy weapon could be converted into a PPC that fires forward.
So instead, the meta would be 1 PPC + 2 AC/5 = 20 damage or 1 PPC + 2 Gauss Rifles = a jumping bomb (and 25 damage). This specific problem is solved.
Apply Koniving's armor concept.
The Cataphract 3D has the best hardpoints. It is fast. It jumps. It's perfect for the poptart meta. It can manage the same armor as the Cataphract 4X which is slow, has no jump ability, has many other disadvantages including poor hardpoints.
Know what PGI never based on stock? Armor.
Consider this: The Cataphract 3D has the least armor of any available Cataphract (aside from 1X). The Cataphract 0x; a failed prototype, has more armor. Meanwhile the 4X has more armor than even the Muromets. (Specifically it is stated to have 0.5 tons more in armor but currently you cannot place this on the mech, it stops at 2 points of armor). The difference is over 100 points of armor.
After this, the Cataphract 3D would be a poptarting mech with armor barely greater than the most armored a medium mechs. Meanwhile the 4X will be a walking tank that can take more abuse than the most armored a Stalkers (through having half a ton more armor).
The armor concept has a side effect of also nerfing Victors, whose armors are significantly inferior to the Awesome, who is thusly buffed since every Awesome has armor that rivals Battlemasters and many not-available-yet 85, 90, and 95 ton battlemechs..
Subsequently Victors could get their torso twist speed back.
That's just a couple of things. Just a smidgeon of little options.
heh were you waiting with a crtl-v just for a post like that?
I'm not versed as deep in the TT rules as a lot of forumites here but two things jumped out at me right away.
The charge mechanic on the ppc gives you the option to snapshot it at a percentage risk to damaging your mech? If so this tradeoff sounds fair as long as the perecentage was balanced correctly of course.
Also the true armor values seems to only make sense in all forms to me. The TT rules were balanced around these armor values and the game worked fine. What kept the Victors and Jaegers in check in the TT game was their weak armor, in MWO they have the benefits of the great firepower plus the benefits of increased armor. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out why they are so popular.
My problem with any balance suggestions such as these is not that they would not work or not that they haven't been well thought out or presented, its that how huge would the sh@tstorm be if they were implemented? We are talking about taking likely the most popular mechs/play styles and changing them and no matter what the benefits of this may be the fact is that alot of players would be upset because we have changed how they enjoy the game. I am sure that this is what PGI is thinking. You and I may agree that a charge mechanic on ppcs is a good idea and you could likely convince me that LRMs would be better with twice the damage/recharge rate but not everyone will agree. It has gone on for years now and does PGI see it as being too late to change it?
Not needed. Not wanted. Charge mechanic shouldnt exist on ANY weapon because its NOT FUN. PPCs just need the same arcing damage mechanic that the CERPPC will have.
Quote
Lock thresholds to 30.
No. terrible idea. You would instantly bring about a new gauss meta and kill energy builds overnight. Because the 30 threshold doesnt punish gauss at all and punishes energy weapons excessively. This idea also has zero basis in battletech/solaris because in both those games your heatsinks added to your overall heat capacity, and they should in MWO too.
Quote
Increase LRM damage to double its current value, (but to avoid outlashes, double its reload time)
I agree with increasing LRM damage/cooldown. However ECM also needs to lose its AOE stealth bubble. ECM should only grant stealth to the mech its equipped on. The combination of those things would put LRMs in a fairly good place I think.
Quote
Apply Koniving's armor concept.
The only way that idea works is if you reduce pinpoint damage across the board. Lowering armor while leaving pinpoint the same will just make mechs die that much faster.
That means burstfire ACs, arcing damage PPCs, and a damage nerf to Gauss (but give it a cool ability like armor piercing to keep it worth using). That gets pinpoint damage under control.
No. terrible idea. You would instantly bring about a new gauss meta and kill energy builds overnight. Because the 30 threshold doesnt punish gauss at all and punishes energy weapons excessively. This idea also has zero basis in battletech/solaris because in both those games your heatsinks added to your overall heat capacity, and they should in MWO too.
Actually 100% basis.
1) Thresold is ALWAYS 30.
2) Heatsink count DID NOT add. In fact, it limited to LESS in Advanced rules. For example 10 SHS limited you to 10 heat "safe," and 15 heat would be damaging and penalizing.
(Double checked. It's under the Advanced Rule "Heatsink taxing." If you fire more 5 points or more heat than you have heatsinks for, you must roll to see if you have melted heatsinks. A 10 SHS mech firing 20 heat could potentially kill itself, even though it's well below 30 and at the end of the turn it's only had "10 out of 30.")
30 is simply a mandatory shutdown point beyond which no engine can safely function. Hit 30, you shutdown. Period. With standard rules you must hit 30 at the conclusion of 10 seconds. This of course could be in any method in real time. For example you could be riding 29 and then start moving forward, adding that extra heat. You could be at 28 and fire that 1 medium laser. It really didn't matter to be honest.
But at the same time, you could fire 60+ heat and be fine in standard rules. Broken down you're just firing one weapon at a time. Sometimes two weapons at once. So long as you never touch 30, you could do whatever you want. Just don't linger above 50% heat for long as that's when the penalties really begin to kick in. A few seconds? No problem. But keep it there... keep it there and things melt and they go boom.
3) Simply watch this.
4 ER PPC Warhawk, 20 DHS.
Rules are: 10 seconds per turn. 20 DHS provides 40 cooling per 10 seconds.
Fire 4 ER PPCs, generate 60 heat spread out over 10 seconds. Minus 40 heat spread out over 10 seconds.
End result: Generate 60 heat, cool 40 heat, end result 20 heat. Roll for ammo explosion. Movement affected; speed reduced. (But we haven't moved). Level 2 shutdown risk, roll to prevent shutdown. If shutdown, roll to prevent fall. Roll to remain conscious.
Now, here it is in real time.
It'd work more like this. Warhawk, 4 ER PPCs, 20 DHS. We're using tabletop. Here we go!
Cooling rate: 4/sec.
Threshold: 30.
Spoiler
0 seconds. Fires 1 ER PPC. WHOOSH!. + 15 heat. (15) 50%.
1 second. -4. 11 heat.
2 seconds. -4. 7 heat.
3 seconds. -4. 3 heat. Fire 1 ER PPC. Whoosh + 15 heat. (18). 60%.
4 seconds. -4. 14 heat.
5 seconds - 4. 10 heat. Pilot's overzealous! Fire 1 ER PPC! Whoosh + 15 heat = 25 heat 83.33%!!! Ammo is cooking!
6 seconds - 4. 21 heat. 70%.
7 seconds - 4. 17 heat. 56.67%.
8 seconds - 4. 13 heat.
9 seconds - 4. 9 heat. Fire 1 ER PPC. Whoosh + 15 heat = 24 heat. 80%!
10 seconds -4. 20 heat. 66.67%.
End result: Generate 60 heat, cool 40 heat, end result 20 heat. Roll for ammo explosion. Movement affected; speed reduced. (But we haven't moved). Level 2 shutdown risk, roll to prevent shutdown. If shutdown, roll to prevent fall. Roll to remain conscious.
That's a pretty fiesty order with true DHS. Then again ER PPCs only fired once in a ten second period anyway. But what if you did fire them all at once?
But that's with 10 seconds cooling.
What happens if you fire them all at once?
Remember that 20 DHS cool 40 heat in 10 seconds. That's 4 heat in 1 second.
Fire 4 ER PPCS = 60 heat. -4 for one second of cooling = 56 heat = Level 5 MANDATORY SHUTDOWN, Level 3+ ammo explosion risk (15% chance), Pilot takes physical injuries from heat, Pilot has to roll to maintain battlemech balance, usually fails. Pilot has to roll to remain conscious. At this high, the pilot usually fails and is unconscious. The mech cannot be started again until it has been reduced to 14 heat which is less than 50%.
In one test, using a 6 ER PPC stalker with 18 DHS and a 340 engine, the pilot died. And that's firing one at a time, as all weapons in TT fire one at a time even if you queue them all up for the same turn.
Here's some simple solutions to your Gauss fear.
1) Reduce Gauss Ammunition back to 8 shots per ton.
2) Gauss is a bomb. Who cares? They go boom.
When thresholds in MWO were 31 to 47 on average, we did NOT have problems with Gaussapults once the explosive nature of the Gauss Rifle was put into the game. They found themselves extremely easily killed.
They quickly became BoomCats. At 7 heat per use and with burst fire, that problem would be fairly gone too.
3) Use PGI's Gauss solution, but 1 Gauss at a time.
Problem instantly gone.
The end result?
This with faster mechs.
Want to know the only change necessary?
Streaks back to this.
That's chain firing, NO PINPOINT ISSUES AT ALL (back then delayed convergence solved that. Now, burst fire ACs and Gauss Rifles waiting to explode on a hairline trigger). Typically people fired no more than 4 ML at once (though you could fire 7 with MWO heat without ghost heat and fit within 30 threshold. With proper TT heat for ML, you could fire 9 so long as MWO doesn't do heat penalties and if they do, 8 would be the safe number.) If anything it sounds like we just enhanced energy weapons. Isn't that awesome?
(Now, yes 7 to 9 ML would scream "issue," but while with rising thresholds and standard heatsinks you could do 9 ML at 4 heat each (36 heat) twice in 4 seconds before shutting down...
Here with 3 heat per ML and 30 threshold, you'd hit 27, and even with 15 DHS, you're cooling 30 heat in 10 seconds. So that's 9 seconds of NOT being able to fire again if you wanted to fire another 9 ML. Or you could chain fire and fire as often as you like and squeeze in many more shots but not as focused. And ultimately that was the merit of reward for not alpha striking; more frequent ability to fire.)
The only thing to disappear is your pinpoint issue. But, if that isn't enough then we can add this idea which will affect firing while moving in the most basic of ways without taking away 'skill'.
There's a bit more to heatsinks than "Okay 20 SHS, I take 30 and add 20." In fact that couldn't be farther from the truth. That's PGI's interpretation. The first game in the HISTORY of Battletech and Mechwarrior to do this.
It's "This is 30 threshold, and this over here is 20 SHS. So I take my 25 heat generated in a 10 second turn, now subtract 20 because I cooled 20 points in 10 seconds, I have 5 out of 30 left after all my cooling. Now if I were doing advanced rules and heatsink taxing, by firing 25 heat, I just overtaxed my heatsinks. I must roll. Oh no! Heatsinks have melted. I've lost cooling power. Explosions?! Why? I haven't even fired 30 heat!"
30 heat is the mandatory shutdown. The big boom risk. Even 2 AC/20s = 14 heat = punishments. But that's TT.
Just to add, Khobai... Here's an MWO example of 47 threshold.
This is 17 Standard Heatsinks.
It created a threshold of 47. There were no pilot skills, no faster cooling, no enhancing thresholds beyond what PGI did in ignorance similar to your mistaken interpretation.
Skip to 3:17.
Those PPCs are generating 8 heat each. That's 2 MWO medium lasers per shot. I'm doing pretty damn good about it, and look at that cooling speed. That's Single Heatsinks, it was recorded in July 2012 when the pilot system was about to come out. There isn't even a Wang, which came out in October 2012. Double heatsinks were just coming around but too expensive to upgrade to with repair costs. Most of us had been accustomed to SHS for so long we didn't even care. There wasn't any reason to. I mean look how cold that thing is. No need for ghost heat. No problems with energy weapons.
In fact. People fired energy weapons one at a time, which made ALL mechs live LONGER.
Simple. Easy. Effective. After all, the SMALLER your threshold, the faster it appears to cool off.
Heatsinks did NOTHING to enhance your threshold in Battletech. It was cooling only. You cooled by that much, and because you cooled by that much, you could fire that much safely across TEN SECONDS.
Know what else you can fire safely across 10 seconds? 7 medium lasers. All at once or one at a time. 4 Large Lasers without ghost heat. All at once or one at a time. 2 PPCs. At once. In fact at one at a time you can squeeze out 5 PPCs with 15 DHS before you really have to hold back. That's with 30 threshold, and NO ENHANCING IT.
But I bet you are wondering about Autocannons? Frankly they were TOO HOT. People kept complaining about how hot autocannons were. They couldn't pack on the tons when only standard engines, standard structure and armor existed. They had to choose between ammo or heatsinks. Then PGI kept getting bugged, "Autocannons are too hot.. Nerf the heat, buff the autocannon!" "We need more ammo. MOAR AMMO! Oh god the ammo, why no ammo?" And now we have the autocannons of today with too much ammo.
Ready to copy/paste? No. But I've been working on ideas for a few years as problems arise. I'm working on a degree in game development and among frequent assignments are "solving" problems found in existing games.
trtw, on 09 June 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:
The charge mechanic on the ppc gives you the option to snapshot it at a percentage risk to damaging your mech? If so this tradeoff sounds fair as long as the percentage was balanced correctly of course.
The 'charge' idea I had isn't what PGI implemented mind you. That was to save ammo on misfire. Mine has always be a tap and delay. Tap the fire button and the game does the rest for you. No macro needed, no 'failure to fire', nothing of the sort. It'd be like the video up above with the mech dancing. Those PPCs are firing 0.5 seconds after I press the button -- this was originally due to lag. But if you add an effect, a sound with a light show, it'd be really cool looking and will give you the impression that PPCs are powerful. Which they are; in lore they are more powerful than a single round of the largest AC/20 (as they need multiple shots to do 20 damage in lore).
It's based off of this
and this (which later became mechwarrior online). Listen to that PPC. The sound blows, I know, but it charges before it fires. The Warhammer pilot is priming each shot before he pops out of cover.
Note: Smith and Tinker has several members from the original FASA which is the original creators of Battletech (and thusly Mechwarrior).
So if you tap the button, half a second later it fires. Well if we use that as an example... And what's happened in Megamek (Battletech digital tabletop) when I tried it.. If you take a regular PPC and flip off the field inhibitor, you have a significantly better chance of hitting your target by essentially removing the charge up. However of the 3 times I tried it, I always got extra heat. But furthermore, one of the three times I tried it, the PPC exploded.
In theory, the ER PPC would charge up too, but without a field inhibitor the charge up would be very short. Picture 0.1 seconds, just a random number. Just enough to throw the aim off slightly. Compared to the PPC's 0.5 (and possible removal of minimum range damage-wise), the regular PPC would have its frequent users but some would convert to the ER PPC in spite of the heat.
trtw, on 09 June 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:
My problem with any balance suggestions such as these is not that they would not work or not that they haven't been well thought out or presented, its that how huge would the sh@tstorm be if they were implemented? We are talking about taking likely the most popular mechs/play styles and changing them and no matter what the benefits of this may be the fact is that alot of players would be upset because we have changed how they enjoy the game. I am sure that this is what PGI is thinking. You and I may agree that a charge mechanic on ppcs is a good idea and you could likely convince me that LRMs would be better with twice the damage/recharge rate but not everyone will agree. It has gone on for years now and does PGI see it as being too late to change it?
Very true. And actually I believe PGI is using the Clans to test its ideas. If players react favorably then they can be 'weened' over to accept the changes to the IS as well.
Convincing about LRMs is marginally easy. Spam reduction means less server stress means better hit detection and fewer annoyed people. (Ever been hit by 12 LRM-5s, constantly fired in a river? It's like a death of a thousand needles. even the hud becomes impossible to read).
Khobai, on 09 June 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:
The only way that idea works is if you reduce pinpoint damage across the board. Lowering armor while leaving pinpoint the same will just make mechs die that much faster.
For the armor concept, across the board it enhances armor by giving us more per chassis. For example the Locust with 4 tons of armor gets 7 tons of armor, so 224 points with standard or 252 points with ferro.
The Locust with 1 ton of armor (which in lore carries the heaviest weapons of Locusts) becomes (4 tons) 128 max standard and 144 max with ferro (138 is the current max armor in MWO for 20 ton mechs). Obviously in keeping with the lore, with THAT Locust you'd want to favor the heaviest weapons you can since they all have the same engine limit.
Even one of the Victors (not the Dragon Slayer as it and many hero mechs will need adjustments) will surpass the 494 armor limit (by 2 points with standard armor), even after they are 'nerfed' into oblivion by the armor concept. It's just that the Awesomes already started at 480 and 494(+, the Awesome 9M's listed armor tonnage is half a ton more than it can hold due to the point system) and so it'd be well into the 500s for them. The Atlas just using standard armor goes from 608 to 704 (+ 3 tons or 96.)
The Ratio from the 4 ton armor Locust to the 19 ton armor Atlas is 480 points of armor. Whether at stock, the new max, or the new ferro max, the difference is exactly 480 points of armor. Essentially it's stock enhanced. The ratio from the same Atlas compared to the 1 ton armor Locust is 576 points of armor. And whether both are stock, both have the new max or both at ferro max, it will be 576 points of armor difference. All armor ratios are preserved.
There is only one exception to any mech getting 'better' armor values to what they have currently as a maximum, and it's the Jagermech. Its most armored variant will fall 20 points short. But in lore, it's supposed to be paper thin armor.
Even the Trebuchet -- whose armor is disturbingly low for a 50 ton medium mech -- still has variants that will get higher than current max.
(It takes stock and adds 96 points. If it's ferro, it divides stock by /36 to find the armor tonnage, changes that to standard by multiplying with 32, and then says that + 96 is the standard max. For ferro, it's the total armor tonnage [standard divide by 32, ferro divide by 36. Add 3 tons, times by 36. New ferro max).
3
Joseph Mallan, on 04 June 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:
