470 replies to this topic

[Shredhead]

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 09 August 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

TBH, most of that were for penalties for overheating... besides damage... like slower movement, lower heat dissipation, chance for ammo explosion...etc. I'm not speaking of overheating above 100% either... just getting into the 80 to 100% heat capacity territory.

no no no, according to "genius man" up there, ghost heat is the only option for balancing that. Not like a good heat scale with more consequences for overheating than shutting down for 5 seconds would have worked....

Adiuvo, on 09 August 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Yeah I'll take that over being one shot by a 45 damage Highlander or a 60 shot from a Stalker.

yea? why not take a system that doesn't ahve that problem at all instead of defending a system that didn't address the issue in the first place...?

FFs
wake up people. I don't get it. People actually defend things like ghost heat as a "good" system in teh face of NUMEROUS VIABLE ALTERNATIVES that actually would have addressed FLD PPD.
smh

I really just don't get it. How can anyone actually sit there and say ghost heat is BETTER than 90% of the viable optiosn players have suggested over the years?

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 August 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

no no no, according to "genius man" up there, ghost heat is the only option for balancing that. Not like a good heat scale with more consequences for overheating than shutting down for 5 seconds would have worked....


yea? why not take a system that doesn't ahve that problem at all instead of defending a system that didn't address the issue in the first place...?

FFs
wake up people. I don't get it. People actually defend things like ghost heat as a "good" system in teh face of NUMEROUS VIABLE ALTERNATIVES that actually would have addressed FLD PPD.
smh

I really just don't get it. How can anyone actually sit there and say ghost heat is BETTER than 90% of the viable optiosn players have suggested over the years?

These options generally include things such as convergence adjustments which create more of a ping disadvantage, or are low heat cap/high dissip whose math doesn't work out and/or requires rebalancing of literally every weapon.

I'm sure there are better things out there, but I haven't seen it. Then again I try not to spend too much time on the forums, so I don't see everything...

Edited by Adiuvo, 09 August 2014 - 03:19 PM.

[YueFei]

Wingbreaker, on 09 August 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

"It hampered everything else..."

Yeah, because Novas would've been totally balanced without GH.

Genius, Sandpit. ******* genius.

He's smarter than you are, cuz he can think of a bunch of alternative solutions that would've accomplished the same thing in a much better, more transparent, and more intuitive way. Ghost Heat is *stupid*.

You know, ideas that players have kicked around since Closed Beta? Like hard-capping heat at 30? A Nova would've darn near shut-down instantly from firing even 6 cERML simultaneously under such a system. A 6 PPC Stalker would've hit 200% heat and just died right away.

That 2xPPC + 2xAC5 combo that's been so dominant for so long? Shoots nine consecutive salvos every 4 seconds under current MWO heat system, if you're on a heat neutral map and use Coolant Flush.

Put that into the hard-capped 30 heat system? Shuts down on the 2nd consecutive salvo, and reaches past 150% heat.

Edited by YueFei, 09 August 2014 - 03:18 PM.

[Sandpit]

Adiuvo, on 09 August 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

These options generally include things such as convergence adjustments which create more of a ping disadvantage, or are low heat cap/high dissip who's math doesn't work out and/or requires rebalancing of literally every weapon.

I'm sure there are better things out there, but I haven't seen it. Then again I try not to spend too much time on the forums, so I don't see everything...

really?
explain to me how this

adding a new crosshair or two (which is already coded) "creates more of a ping"?

That's just it, we have people who comment on balancing issues that have been thoroughly discussed, refined, and explained to prevent just about any argument you can come up with because when they were first suggested the same people said the same things you are now. It's just frustrating because there are tons of better options that DO fix FLD and PPD issues

I used to think the exact same thing you did, until I actually started reading and understanding instead of taking "PGI's word" for it. They made a mistake when it comes to this and the heat scale in general. They're just too stubborn, arrogant, inept, oblivious, etc. whatever, to admit it.

It's frustrating to watch the community HAND them alternatives that would work, only to be ignored. THEN watch players "tow the company line" without even researching. At leas you admit you haven't researched them much, but if you're gong to comment on balancing issues you really should do the research and understand the options first.

That above gif solves every single FLD and PPD issue currently plaguing the game and gets rid of the need for something as clunky, poorly implemented, and unneeded as ghost heat.

Edited by Sandpit, 09 August 2014 - 03:34 PM.

[Deathlike]

YueFei, on 09 August 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

He's smarter than you are, cuz he can think of a bunch of alternative solutions that would've accomplished the same thing in a much better, more transparent, and more intuitive way. Ghost Heat is *stupid*.

You know, ideas that players have kicked around since Closed Beta? Like hard-capping heat at 30? A Nova would've darn near shut-down instantly from firing even 6 cERML simultaneously under such a system. A 6 PPC Stalker would've hit 200% heat and just died right away.

That 2xPPC + 2xAC5 combo that's been so dominant for so long? Shoots nine consecutive salvos every 4 seconds under current MWO heat system, if you're on a heat neutral map and use Coolant Flush.

Put that into the hard-capped 30 heat system? Shuts down on the 2nd consecutive salvo, and reaches past 150% heat.

We can't have logic or nice things.

[Sandpit]

as far as viable alternative to the heat scale?

TT gave them one.

Heat scale is hard capped.
Heat for weapons, movement, jumping, etc. are all scaled to that.
as you get hotter you progressively have harsher penalties

that right there solves every single heat issue.

Where anyone looked at ghost heat and the current heat scale and thought "A 5 second shut down for completely overheating your mech is a good idea for a game that is based in and revolves around heat management" is beyond me. Again, simple, elegant, actually SOLVES problems, and works.

3 years of
ghost heat
buffs
nerfs
etc.
and not a single one of those has done ANYTHING to solve FLD and PPD except to shift around the combination of weapons to circumvent the mechanics in the first place.

I don't get how anyone can sit there and say PGI's system "works" when it hasn't worked in 3 years. How long does a broken system have to stay broken and not solve an issue before people say "this isn't working"?
3 years.....

[Noesis]

Lower cap and higher dissipation as a way to reduce alpha use would be prefereable to Ghost heat. Been said by many before.

Dead horse due to PGI not wanting to reduce capability or significant presence of heat neutral builds. The idea being that all builds should in some way ideally try to consider how to manage heat as a consideration to the skill of piloting a mech.

Heat penalties could be interesting and would be an equally useful addition but it would need the rebalancing of heat or hps values we have atm else the system would penalise the more energy orientated weapons and mechs using those weapon sets that are more heat dependant atm.

Edited by Noesis, 09 August 2014 - 03:34 PM.

[Gyrok]

Bluetavius, on 09 August 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

There were only over 9000 threads about wanting such a system in CB (because lol HBK-4P)

Yeah...LOL...that might have been OP then, but look at what that seriously "uberl33t 4P" did to the game in terms of balance...?

This system is proper f*ck3d. GG people that know nothing about balance making suggestions to balance something.

[Y E O N N E]

Adiuvo, on 09 August 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

These options generally include things such as convergence adjustments which create more of a ping disadvantage, or are low heat cap/high dissip whose math doesn't work out and/or requires rebalancing of literally every weapon.

I honestly think that is ultimately required anyway. You do comp, so you should know better than anybody else that there is an extremely limited amount of equipment and resulting tactics that are viable up there. That's not a balanced game; you don't see that in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, DOTA 2, etc. That MWO does have this problem is why the competitive scene will never take off to eSports level as it currently stands.

[Sandpit]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 August 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

I honestly think that is ultimately required anyway. You do comp, so you should know better than anybody else that there is an extremely limited amount of equipment and resulting tactics that are viable up there. That's not a balanced game; you don't see that in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, DOTA 2, etc. That MWO does have this problem is why the competitive scene will never take off to eSports level as it currently stands.

no you don't, you see them observe the "competitive" players and see where imbalances begin. Then they take a look at teh game for the other 98% of the population. That's common sense though and proper data collection. Both of which seem to be in short supply around here....

The PPC was only "op" in certain builds and when boated. So instead of looking at thigns that balance THAT, they seem to think nerfing an individual weapon is the answer. Which hasn't worked since day 1...

[Noesis]

Convergance is not a complete solution to PPD/FLD when applied to all weapons. All it does it delay its use. Which as previously mentioned only then helps with edge cases and is just another band aid.

What it does do is add a significant change to gaming mechanics and development investment by PGI that would then not neccesarily be the complete cure for all the issues associated with them.

Snipers who are not so mobile or using range or time to make best use of PPD/FLD would use that time still to get a good shot. Others have to do the same at range so it would be equalised here to some extent with application, so nothing really changing to the attrition game.

Though more mobile mechs needed to close would have their "snap shots" more spread out due to this application unless again they also wait. With shorter durations for shorter range weapons the Sniper again wins. if the duration is longer than the shorter weapons sets.

Also the shotgun effect of spreading weapons effectively skews the damage potential more towards mechs that can load or fit more weapons with more damage potential. Which if also have the larger armour spread also with the spreading of weapons fire also significantly benefit. So how would it help to balance the weapons use for say lights that are trying to focus say a handfull of weapons to achieve the same. And if everyone simply waits for the delay to get best FLD/PPD then it hasnt changed anything as it is a relative change.

I would envisage then that even before considering the technical impact to the game or the resources needed to produce the use of a convergance of multiple reticles that the game would need to be re-tested to rebalance the overall effects of weapons due to the change in weapon mechanics. Which largely may not be as helpful to change or even end removing the use of all situations of FLD/PPD.

But if people want PGI to invest this time for the interests of science to find out how much real value it has, that hopefully doesnt significantly delay CW with new engine tools, hud changes and rebalancing testing and time then it might be a useful thing to introduce. Then again it could end up just being another limited band aid that doesnt acheive any significant help with the current gaming issues. At worst it could just add a convoluted targeting system that ends up being annoying and remains more prefereable for people who have time to aim and are less mobile?

Not convinced by some of the claims made for the support to this idea, but I would be open to at least looking into the potential it may or may not have.

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 August 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

really?
explain to me how this

adding a new crosshair or two (which is already coded) "creates more of a ping"?

I'm guessing this is a timed convergence system?

You look at target -> server -> you look at ground behind target as you adjust aim -> server confirms -> you look at target again -> server confirms -> etc..

The game is server authoritative for basically everything important. Furthermore, I really don't think PPFLD is overpowered anymore given the effectiveness of brawlers and the massive range reduction in PPFLD weaponry.

Sandpit, on 09 August 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

no you don't, you see them observe the "competitive" players and see where imbalances begin. Then they take a look at teh game for the other 98% of the population. That's common sense though and proper data collection. Both of which seem to be in short supply around here....

The PPC was only "op" in certain builds and when boated. So instead of looking at thigns that balance THAT, they seem to think nerfing an individual weapon is the answer. Which hasn't worked since day 1...

Using 2 PPCs is not 'boating' them.

[C E Dwyer]

nehebkau, on 08 August 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

From the patch notes`:

"...had some of the high competitive players look at it...

Well there`s your problem!

Your competitive players looked at your changes in their meta heavies and assaults and said its OK. Meanwhile us in the lights and mediums prepare our vasaline....


That`s like asking a race-car driver what is wrong with your scooter. It`s like asking your fighter jet pilot what`s wrong with the passenger liner. Like asking a chef what`s wrong with your dog`s kibble.


If PGI want`s a balance of mechs on the field, then they should consult the public in general. I have seen more games put in the crapper by companies taking the advice of the `competitive` players.

When they say competitive players they mean their cronies at NGNG, which means they could have the ppc shooting flowers and the 'competitive' players would say its ok.

[Noesis]

Adiuvo, on 09 August 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

The game is server authoritative for basically everything important. Furthermore, I really don't think PPFLD is overpowered anymore given the effectiveness of brawlers and the massive range reduction in PPFLD weaponry.

And herin lies a valid alternative, in that the tweaking of the numbers of existing mechanics can achieve similar results without having to introduce a convoluted system that requires investment into, that is not guaranteed to even deliver on the issues.

Edited by Noesis, 09 August 2014 - 04:00 PM.

[Sandpit]

Gyrok, on 09 August 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

Yeah...LOL...that might have been OP then, but look at what that seriously "uberl33t 4P" did to the game in terms of balance...?

This system is proper f*ck3d. GG people that know nothing about balance making suggestions to balance something.

see convergence fixes that though. with a delayed convergence mechanic it's impossible to get instant pinpoint accuracy for multiple weapon systems like the ones creating chaos with the game balance. It doesn't eliminate PPD and FLD (which shouldn't be completely eliminated in an FPS game) but it does prevent an instantaneous pinpoint accuracy situation.

Everyone still hits where they aim, they just have to wait if they want it all to hit the same location. So if you have to stand out in the open for 2 extra seconds (and judging from the complaints about the new CERLL burn time at 2 seconds it's a heckuva penalty) before being able to put all those weapon on the same location, you either choose to chain fire, alpha and spread your damage slightly, or stand in the open for return fire while waiting for your crosshairs to converge.

It hampers and mitigates without eliminating. The crosshairs are already coded so it wouldn't take a lot of resources to tweak and adjust them and give a slight delay to certain weapons.
AC20 -.5 second delay
AC10 = .4
AC5 = .2
AC2 = 0
PPC/ERPPC = .3

with each weapon set to a different delay it works on the same principle that PGI is stating for the recent PPC nerf in that it desyncs those weapons. Instead of having to nerf individual weapons that are only considered "op" when baoted or in very specific weapon combinations. Since the crossharis are already in, it doesn't require a lot of resources and could be coded relatively easily. It would also eliminate the need for constant nerf and buff cycles like we've had for 3 years that STILL haven't fixed the high alpha PPF and FLD issues.

Adiuvo, on 09 August 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

The game is server authoritative for basically everything important. Furthermore, I really don't think PPFLD is overpowered anymore given the effectiveness of brawlers and the massive range reduction in PPFLD weaponry.

Using 2 PPCs is not 'boating' them.

you're either just being argumentative or you're oblivious...
seriously, FLD and PPD are the biggest issues in the game and have been since day 1. The recent PPC nerf was specifically to address its synergy with Gauss because of PPD and FLD. If you're going to comment, at least make them comments that are grounded in the reality of this game...

No?
That's strange since PGI disagrees with you. 2 CERLL was considered "boating" yesterday wasn't it?

I fail to see what that has to do with anything that I'm discussing regarding convergence speeds

[XX Sulla XX]

You know with the current changes it really is pretty close to a nice balance from the games I played Friday. Some thing need small adjustments but at this point we do not need to do anything drastic to the game. Probably they just need to add some negative quirks to the Dire Wolf and tweek some weapons that are not used much.

[Deathlike]

AFAIK, PGI struggled netcode-wise with convergence (it was essentially the official statement in ATDs long ago).

If you think about it, PGI's original idea was a good one (actual convergence, not the instant one we have now), but something like that would have to be added later after a stable and consistent netcode (of which is seemingly missing at the moment with the mass desyncs) is implemented. Right now, what we have is a testament to that original problem.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 August 2014 - 04:06 PM.

[Sandpit]

XX Sulla XX, on 09 August 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

You know with the current changes it really is pretty close to a nice balance from the games I played Friday. Some thing need small adjustments but at this point we do not need to do anything drastic to the game. Probably they just need to add some negative quirks to the Dire Wolf and tweek some weapons that are not used much.

then why does PGI constantly keep nerfing and buffing weapons (like they ahve for 3 years now) in direct response to combat high alpha PPD?

I've always thought the weapons are fairly balanced. Individual weapon balance has nothing to do with FLD and PPD though. It has to do with being able to instantaneously put all that damage into a single location.

Deathlike, on 09 August 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

AFAIK, PGI struggled netcode-wise with convergence (it was essentially the official statement in ATDs long ago).

If you think about it, PGI's original idea was a good one (actual convergence, not the instant one we have now), but something like that would have to be added later after a stable and consistent netcode (of which is seemingly missing at the moment with the mass desyncs) is implemented. Right now, what we have is a testament to that original problem.

the problem is I'm not talking about anything that requires HSR consideration. It's no different that the current crosshairs we already have for missiles. It doesn't mess HSR, ping, lag, etc. at all

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 August 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

you're either just being argumentative or you're oblivious...
seriously, FLD and PPD are the biggest issues in the game and have been since day 1. The recent PPC nerf was specifically to address its synergy with Gauss because of PPD and FLD. If you're going to comment, at least make them comments that are grounded in the reality of this game...

No?
That's strange since PGI disagrees with you. 2 CERLL was considered "boating" yesterday wasn't it?

I fail to see what that has to do with anything that I'm discussing regarding convergence speeds

I think my understanding of the game is far above yours considering you're still hopped up on PPFLD like it was the 1xGauss/3xPPC HGN days. PPFLD began to trend towards balance with a few recent changes.

1) Autocannon range reduction.
2) JJ nerfs.
3) SRM fix.
4) PPC nerf.

Combined, it really is not that big of a problem anymore.

As for convergence speeds, the point is that the server needs to recognize what you're actually doing before convergence can actually begin, and due to this being a FPS, the number of times that has to happen can be rather high.

Sandpit, on 09 August 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

then why does PGI constantly keep nerfing and buffing weapons (like they ahve for 3 years now) in direct response to combat high alpha PPD?

I've always thought the weapons are fairly balanced. Individual weapon balance has nothing to do with FLD and PPD though. It has to do with being able to instantaneously put all that damage into a single location.


the problem is I'm not talking about anything that requires HSR consideration. It's no different that the current crosshairs we already have for missiles. It doesn't mess HSR, ping, lag, etc. at all

You've... always thought the weapons were balanced? Erm. Alrighty then...

Anyways, does your convergence system do what the image described automatically? Is it timed without external input? Or does it work based on what you're aiming at?