80 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Sandpit, on 01 August 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

why?
seriously

Think about it, what would be the point? This isn't going to make stock loadouts more popular. Heck, even new players dont' start in stock mechs now. Seems like a lot of wasted time, energy, resources, and testing that could be put into do something else.

This game is not centered around stock loadouts. Never has been and no matter what you do for them, it never will be. Even if you did this, you really think the majority of stock loadouts will be used or "good"? Not really. Most players like the customizing, that's one of the biggest draws. I just don't see a reason for this. Not that it's a bad idea, I just don't see the purpose and how it would improve game play or anything. The only thing it MIGHT do, is give stock leagues a few more shots before overheating. That's it.
Now adding a "disable ghost heat" button in premium private matches? go for it.

Honestly it could be a good thing... I can actually get behind what the OP's saying here.

Your first mech you BUY, will come with it's stock loadout, and it's possible you'll be stuck with that loadout for a couple of games if you buy you're mech right away without waiting for some extra cash to outfit it properly. [something a TON of new, and old players actually do, keep in mind, not all of us are sitting on a mountan of c-bills from pub stomps]

So, let's look at this, there's a good number of mechs that come stock, with ghost heat enabled designs. the Awesome is clearly one of these, so we'll continue with it as the example.

Removing ghost heat definately helps the base 8Q design, seeing as how it's stuck with single sinks until you can upgrade. removal of ghost heat for this 3ppc variant would be a godsend. Granted you can still manage that mechs heat by firing on a 2-1 scale. [which is still a total of 3ppc shots within 10 seconds, which matches CBT values.] But it would allow the mech to fire it's 3ppc's at a time without worry of splitting the groups... which definately helps the mechs role and reduces spread of the weapons.

So yeah... a good idea, and if you allow customization of sinks, structure ect... while keeping the mech's ghostheat open on that stock config, I can honestly say, that would be a good thing.

[Lightfoot]

Remove it completely because Ghost Heat doesn't actually "Balance" anything. It caps energy weapon damage, but it causes all the weapons and Mechs to become unbalanced because it does nothing to Ballistic weapons and applies a double or triple nerf to Energy weapons.

I will explain. Energy weapons are given a weakness of Heat by Battletech so causing them to double and triple the heat with Ghost Heat is the same as applying a Ghost Weight nerf to Ballistic weapons that doubles or triples the weight of the second or third ballistic weapon since weight is the weakness of Ballistics which run very cool as a group. Of course Ghost Weight is completely absurd. And in the same way, so is Ghost Heat.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 01 August 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

why?
seriously

I don't see a problem. Some people really want their stock mode. Mind you, I hate stock mechs and I agree with the idea.

Quote

Think about it, what would be the point? This isn't going to make stock loadouts more popular. Heck, even new players dont' start in stock mechs now. Seems like a lot of wasted time, energy, resources, and testing that could be put into do something else.

New players "do" start in stock mechs... once they purchase their first mech that is. The thing is, the game does a poor job letting you know how to work the mechlab... let alone build a good mech (yes, tutorials... that thing PGI does not think is worthy of adding). While long term it won't matter, it doesn't have any "ill" effects of adding said behavior (at least AFAIK).

Quote

This game is not centered around stock loadouts. Never has been and no matter what you do for them, it never will be. Even if you did this, you really think the majority of stock loadouts will be used or "good"? Not really. Most players like the customizing, that's one of the biggest draws. I just don't see a reason for this. Not that it's a bad idea, I just don't see the purpose and how it would improve game play or anything. The only thing it MIGHT do, is give stock leagues a few more shots before overheating. That's it.
Now adding a "disable ghost heat" button in premium private matches? go for it.

I hate stock loadouts... I really do. I'm sure I'm a fanatic min-maxer, so it's probably natural. I don't see the harm in letting people play like that to make the "new player experience" better. Once people finally "learn to mechlab", then they can "let go" of this particular feature... or just revert to it for their own amusement (usually for the purposes of a private match/lobby).

There's really no harm in doing this.

[Sandpit]

Yokaiko, on 01 August 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

A few would.

Off the top of my head, AWES-8Q, HBK-4P, Nova Prime, Warhawk Prime.....all of those cook the hell out of themselves stock.

that's kinda my point, a couple of them MIGHT see a little use but not much and not many

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 01 August 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

I don't see a problem. Some people really want their stock mode. Mind you, I hate stock mechs and I agree with the idea.

I hate stock loadouts... I really do. I'm sure I'm a fanatic min-maxer, so it's probably natural. I don't see the harm in letting people play like that to make the "new player experience" better. Once people finally "learn to mechlab", then they can "let go" of this particular feature... or just revert to it for their own amusement (usually for the purposes of a private match/lobby).

There's really no harm in doing this.

likewise, I'm no fan of stock loadouts (the mechlab is the best part of the game for me, by a long shot).

To me, this seems reasonable in bringing back some per chassis flavour while preserving customizability. Really, its just an excuse to add more awesome quirks.

To me, things like the awesome getting enhanced heat dissipation just make the whole game ecosystem more interesting.

Anything adding variety to mechlab play, making chassis more unique without reducing options is freaking gold.

[Kyrie]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 August 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

Just as the title says.

We can rage all we want about what "SHOULD" be done (ie, remove GH and rework the whole heat system), but at this point, it's wasted time and effort. One needs to simply accept, as long as the PGI 3 are in charge, Ghost Heat is here to stay. It has, for all intents and purposes, become a "core mechanic" of the MW:O game. All attempts at discussion on the matter fall universally on deaf ears, so please, just stop. Plus, whilst overly complicated, poorly implemented and such, it has been at least semi effective in it's given mission, even if there were dozens of better ways to get there.

So, what am I asking, exactly?

Well, TBH, the use of quirks, have breathed some degree of new life into some old and forgotten mechs, like the AWS. But in most cases, it's a start, but not really enough.

What would be a huge help, would be for the Awesome to be able to fire 3 PPCs without the GH, while keeping it's current quirks. For the HBK-4P to fire it's laser compliment without added melting. Even the Nova, realistically is insanely hot if you try to use the 12 Mlasers.

Plus...all these mechs were DESIGNED around those armaments. It makes no sense for them to be punished for using the weaponry they were engineered around.

Should an AWS get GH for a 4th PPC? Absolutely. 3 Large Lasers? Possibly. PPCs may be hotter, but they are also totally different weapons. Thus I could see it not having any advantages for Large Lasers. Plus it would simplify things, making it easy to keep track of what is GH free and what is not. And it would reward mechs for being built more closely to their intended roles.

*Note, when I say "Stock" weapons, I don't mean the mech has to stay 100% stock. Upgrades like DHS, etc, I am fine with. I mean, that loadouts that don't exceed their stock design. So removing the small laser in the head of an Awesome, or even upgrading it to a Medium, would have zero effect on it's PPC's GH. Adding a 4th PPC, switching to 3 Large Lasers, or 7+ Mediums, all would though, as they are not what the Mech was engineered around, and thus, conform to standard GH rules.

Do I have the idea perfectly formulated? Nope. But maybe we can bounce some ideas around the will get PGI's attention.

I support this suggestion.

[CHH Badkarma]

I would love to have ghost head removed from my Warhawk. After all it comes stock with 4 ERPPCs. Though some how I do not that the IS cry babies would ever allow that.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yokaiko, on 01 August 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

All pulse lasers suck.

The basic math is that for mpls and spl I can fit a second standard (or er as it were) and do MORE damage for the same burn. LPLs aren't usually worth the hit in crits, weight, AND heat.

depends entirely on build constraints. For instance, on my YLW, I have 2 energy hardpoints. I could use two tons elsewhere...but I don't need too. I got plenty of ammo, and run cool enough. But what do MPL let me do? Twist sooner. Which means protecting my core and my AC. it's almost a 1/2 second less burn time, and less heat by a lot, than 2 MLaser.

I also run 3 LPL rather well on my La Malinche, again, the beam duration to damage to heat work far better on that build than PPC or Large lasers do, regardless of the tonnage. IS MPL and LPL can be situationally useful. SPL are just crap. And for the most part, so are C-PLs-

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 01 August 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

I don't see a problem. Some people really want their stock mode. Mind you, I hate stock mechs and I agree with the idea.



New players "do" start in stock mechs... once they purchase their first mech that is. The thing is, the game does a poor job letting you know how to work the mechlab... let alone build a good mech (yes, tutorials... that thing PGI does not think is worthy of adding). While long term it won't matter, it doesn't have any "ill" effects of adding said behavior (at least AFAIK).



I hate stock loadouts... I really do. I'm sure I'm a fanatic min-maxer, so it's probably natural. I don't see the harm in letting people play like that to make the "new player experience" better. Once people finally "learn to mechlab", then they can "let go" of this particular feature... or just revert to it for their own amusement (usually for the purposes of a private match/lobby).

There's really no harm in doing this.

I'm not saying there's nobody wanting a stock mode, which is a completely different issue, I just fail to see how this improves anythign in the game really.

You spend the time and resources to implement something like this so 4-5 variants MIGHT get used once in a while? It's just not something that amounts to much

[Bishop Steiner]

Lightfoot, on 01 August 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

Remove it completely because Ghost Heat doesn't actually "Balance" anything. It caps energy weapon damage, but it causes all the weapons and Mechs to become unbalanced because it does nothing to Ballistic weapons and applies a double or triple nerf to Energy weapons.

I will explain. Energy weapons are given a weakness of Heat by Battletech so causing them to double and triple the heat with Ghost Heat is the same as applying a Ghost Weight nerf to Ballistic weapons that doubles or triples the weight of the second or third ballistic weapon since weight is the weakness of Ballistics which run very cool as a group. Of course Ghost Weight is completely absurd. And in the same way, so is Ghost Heat.

quoting from the OP

"We can rage all we want about what "SHOULD" be done (ie, remove GH and rework the whole heat system), but at this point, it's wasted time and effort. One needs to simply accept, as long as the PGI 3 are in charge, Ghost Heat is here to stay. It has, for all intents and purposes, become a "core mechanic" of the MW:O game. All attempts at discussion on the matter fall universally on deaf ears, so please, just stop. Plus, whilst overly complicated, poorly implemented and such, it has been at least semi effective in it's given mission, even if there were dozens of better ways to get there."

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 01 August 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

I'm not saying there's nobody wanting a stock mode, which is a completely different issue, I just fail to see how this improves anythign in the game really.

You spend the time and resources to implement something like this so 4-5 variants MIGHT get used once in a while? It's just not something that amounts to much

As I said... NPE, because PGI.

I don't think there's enough to repeat to a newbie that they need to save up extra money BEFORE buying their first mech... like spending the 1.5m DHS "tax" first and foremost...

It's just how bad the overall system is... I'm not happy with it (hell, I've analyzed it to death, and it falls upon deaf ears).

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 August 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

depends entirely on build constraints. For instance, on my YLW, I have 2 energy hardpoints. I could use two tons elsewhere...but I don't need too. I got plenty of ammo, and run cool enough. But what do MPL let me do? Twist sooner. Which means protecting my core and my AC. it's almost a 1/2 second less burn time, and less heat by a lot, than 2 MLaser.

I also run 3 LPL rather well on my La Malinche, again, the beam duration to damage to heat work far better on that build than PPC or Large lasers do, regardless of the tonnage. IS MPL and LPL can be situationally useful. SPL are just crap. And for the most part, so are C-PLs-

Aaaaah, I think someone hasn't looked so closely at the newer CPL stats, particularly the CLPL.

It's not necessarily good, but it's issues are solely weight and size.

You give up range for shorter beam time, yes... But you also get more damage overall (and thus much more damage per tick) and probably most importantly lower heat.

Range is great, but for the same reason that the vast majority of the Weapon Mods are terrible, in many cases the added range is useless but lower heat is useful all the time.

The CLPL fires at 600m optimum. This can be an issue on Alpine, but practically nowhere else. 600m, with a beam time the synergizes perfectly with CERML's, reduced heat and increased damage compared to a CERLL, there are a good many situations where a CLPL is a great weapon.

If I had to pick only one, it'd be the CERLL as it's amazing for 1s/4t. However, the CLPL absolutely has it's place as a decent weapon, particularly on a mech like the Warhawk with great cooling, but limited space and hardpoints.

[Livewyr]

No.

Because Troll.

-----------------------------

I support this I think, AWS could use it. Warhawk could use it... (Nova?)

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 01 August 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

Aaaaah, I think someone hasn't looked so closely at the newer CPL stats, particularly the CLPL.

It's not necessarily good, but it's issues are solely weight and size.

You give up range for shorter beam time, yes... But you also get more damage overall (and thus much more damage per tick) and probably most importantly lower heat.

Range is great, but for the same reason that the vast majority of the Weapon Mods are terrible, in many cases the added range is useless but lower heat is useful all the time.

The CLPL fires at 600m optimum. This can be an issue on Alpine, but practically nowhere else. 600m, with a beam time the synergizes perfectly with CERML's, reduced heat and increased damage compared to a CERLL, there are a good many situations where a CLPL is a great weapon.

If I had to pick only one, it'd be the CERLL as it's amazing for 1s/4t. However, the CLPL absolutely has it's place as a decent weapon, particularly on a mech like the Warhawk with great cooling, but limited space and hardpoints.

I run 2 lpl on one of my warhawks. You still stare too long for my tastes. If I want range, the ERs are far better choices, 90% of the time. For pulse lasers, I want brawling weapons for knife fighting. That means the shorter the duration the better. I am not impressed by current CPLs.

[Taelon Zero]

Stock/cannon builds realy suffer in MWO, they dont need ghost heat to help hold them back.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 August 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

I run 2 lpl on one of my warhawks. You still stare too long for my tastes. If I want range, the ERs are far better choices, 90% of the time. For pulse lasers, I want brawling weapons for knife fighting. That means the shorter the duration the better. I am not impressed by current CPLs.

Yeah, they're not a brawling weapon, or a long range weapon. Of course, if you want long range, the ER is a clear winner being smaller, lighter, and the longest ranged weapon in the game.

But if you want an effective general purpose melt-faces weapon, the CLPL is quite effective. It's like a supercharged IS LL. It's basically the weapon that lives between long range sniping weaponry and brawling weapons, right alongside the CERML (it's burn time being identical to the ERML's)

[Sephlock]

Khobai, on 01 August 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

The awesome already got a huge buff. It really doesnt need anymore.

If not for the plethora of copyright complaints, I'd have a clip of that NBC boardroom scene from Family Guy where someone makes a suggestion and is savagely beaten for it.

[Lefty Lucy]

Yokaiko, on 01 August 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

They could go back an un-nerf the IS energy weapons as well. Slas and Mlas are still left overs from CB.

http://mwomercs.com/...on-heat-values/

Bishop: we disagree about a *lot* of things on this forum, but I'm totally on board with you on this one.

[Yokaiko]

Lefty Lucy, on 01 August 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...on-heat-values/

Bishop: we disagree about a *lot* of things on this forum, but I'm totally on board with you on this one.

I'm all over that thread.

[Lefty Lucy]

Yokaiko, on 01 August 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

I'm all over that thread.

I think it's far too frequent that ideas with a lot of agreement die because the forum fosters dissension over harmony.