PP FLD. Needs to be tweaked.
6
90 replies to this topic
#41
-
-
- Big Daddy
- 26,736 posts
Member
- LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.
Posted 18 September 2014 - 06:27 PM
#42
-
-
- CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
- 17,987 posts
Member
- LocationSnow
Posted 18 September 2014 - 06:31 PM
Heat levels on every small and medium laser in the game.
Each and every one is inflated.
200% for the isSL
130% for the isML
115% for the isMPL (if could use the same 3 heat as the isML if anything)
120% for the isSPL
150% heat for the cERSL
120% heat for the cERML
150% heat for the cMPL
170% heat for the cSPL
Those values make me sad. I'll also second the pulse laser buffs. The only reason I use them is for a challenge, and the lulz.
Not a terrible weapon (Hey, why don't we bring the Flamer up!) but certainly not a good one. Too many downsides. They are hot, heavy, short ranged, and simply not worth all the downsides.
Each and every one is inflated.
200% for the isSL
130% for the isML
115% for the isMPL (if could use the same 3 heat as the isML if anything)
120% for the isSPL
150% heat for the cERSL
120% heat for the cERML
150% heat for the cMPL
170% heat for the cSPL
Those values make me sad. I'll also second the pulse laser buffs. The only reason I use them is for a challenge, and the lulz.
Not a terrible weapon (Hey, why don't we bring the Flamer up!) but certainly not a good one. Too many downsides. They are hot, heavy, short ranged, and simply not worth all the downsides.
#43
-
-
- Mercenary
- 6,499 posts
Member
- LocationIn a shutdown overheated mech near you.
Posted 18 September 2014 - 06:49 PM
1) ECM (including associated assets. i.e. IW, LRM's, etc. Rolands proposal seems pretty much perfect to me)
2) 12v10 (While i don't mind changes to small bits of BT, lances and stars are big bits!)
3) Stock mech IS v clan queue (again, will require different team sizes)
2) 12v10 (While i don't mind changes to small bits of BT, lances and stars are big bits!)
3) Stock mech IS v clan queue (again, will require different team sizes)
#44
-
-
- 2,382 posts
Member
Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:22 PM
New players:
Separate que for players with 30 matches or less, and players using trial mechs.
A counter on the home page and mech lab that counts to 30 matches for new players. On match 31 the counter disappears.
a full tutorial option, with voice, as an option for training grounds. Basically MW2 Mercs tutorial for MWO.
a tutorial for the mech lab.
Information warfare.
ECM, sensors, environmental effects, missile targeting/spotting, are all one holistic issue. Think about how they would effect each other and design from that point of view.
Separate que for players with 30 matches or less, and players using trial mechs.
A counter on the home page and mech lab that counts to 30 matches for new players. On match 31 the counter disappears.
a full tutorial option, with voice, as an option for training grounds. Basically MW2 Mercs tutorial for MWO.
a tutorial for the mech lab.
Information warfare.
ECM, sensors, environmental effects, missile targeting/spotting, are all one holistic issue. Think about how they would effect each other and design from that point of view.
Edited by Dirus Nigh, 18 September 2014 - 07:23 PM.
#45
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 9,682 posts
Member
- LocationCalifornia
Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:24 PM
Dirus Nigh, on 18 September 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:
New players:
Separate que for players with 30 matches or less, and players using trial mechs.
Separate que for players with 30 matches or less, and players using trial mechs.
Seconded, probably extend it up to 50 matches? (30 is just 5 more after your cadet bonus. Still not enough to know which end of the PPC to point at the enemy)
#46
-
-
- Developer
- 909 posts
President
Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:27 PM
Dracol, on 18 September 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:
Wild Idea Here
Preface: Personally, I feel MW:O is at a pretty close balance point at the moment compared to prior iterations of MW as well as prior versions of MW:O. What PGI has laid out as their next few areas of adjustment should (and maybe a small tweek to that ECM range were it can be spotted : ) Should bring the IS v Clan win rate pretty close to 50/50.
We're bringing the community back together all over MW:O.... a game. Why don't we advocate for a real role within the game itself?
Ask for Player Voting to determine planets to attack in role warfare
Each attack phase of the day would have a simple poll per faction of a selection of worlds to attack. Players have a window of time to vote on, then the battle begins as it has been outlined by the PGI team. Only players with faction allegiance would be able to vote in their related faction poll.
Preface: Personally, I feel MW:O is at a pretty close balance point at the moment compared to prior iterations of MW as well as prior versions of MW:O. What PGI has laid out as their next few areas of adjustment should (and maybe a small tweek to that ECM range were it can be spotted : ) Should bring the IS v Clan win rate pretty close to 50/50.
We're bringing the community back together all over MW:O.... a game. Why don't we advocate for a real role within the game itself?
Ask for Player Voting to determine planets to attack in role warfare
Each attack phase of the day would have a simple poll per faction of a selection of worlds to attack. Players have a window of time to vote on, then the battle begins as it has been outlined by the PGI team. Only players with faction allegiance would be able to vote in their related faction poll.
First off thanks for stating that we have better balance than past MW titles. We can debate the Heat Scale system and we certainly will, but we have to admit it has at least brought some balance to the force.
Cool ideas on CW. I am really looking forward to the next update on CW but I can tell you that players will have pretty good flexibility on where they attack, not limitless but factions will have few choices on each border. Enough of that for now.
#47
-
-
- 1,281 posts
Member
- LocationNorth Idaho
Posted 18 September 2014 - 07:56 PM
So many things.
Before you fix ECM you must address the elephant in the room. Why did PGI put stealth into ecm? The answer is target sharing. PGI implemented C3 (future tech in BT) which allows any team member to target a mech which allows every team member to target that mech. They did this without a cost of tonnage or crit slots. They did this for all 12 team members. Because of this, they had to put stealth in to combat the op of this decision.
So, they can either rip out target sharing and then rip out stealth for ecm. Then rebalance LRMs. Or leave target sharing in, remove stealth and just add a delay to target lock for mechs not in line of sight. My suggestion would be to have the delay start at 6 seconds and reduce it based on things like BAP and Command Console. Then also have TAG, NARC and UAV completely remove target lock delay or severely reduce it. BAP reduces lock by two seconds. Command Console by 4 seconds. TAG, NARC and UAV should if not eliminate delay reduce it to two seconds.
This would go a long way to deal with ECM Stealth and Target sharing while also bringing back Role Warfare as lights with TAG, NARC or UAV would be more important.
Lets talk about Heat next. In Battle Tech, when you overheat there are many things that happen. Currently in MWO the only thing that happens is you shut down and eventually will kill your mech from heat damage. We need over heating to cause your mech to become slower. Meaning you get to 50% heat and then your mechs base speed goes down. 75% and it slows down even more. Example an Atlas that does max speed 54kph reaches 50% heat and his speed is reduced to 30kph, 75% heat and speed is reduced to 20 kph. This can be extrapolated for all mechs easily and brings skill into using your heat and mech wisely.
Second when overheating in Battle Tech it also reduces your accuracy. This can also be done easily in MWO. Add slight cockpit shake when at 50% heat. Add moderate cockpit shake at 75% heat. For locking weapons such as ssrm and lrm either add lock delay time or give the missiles a larger spread. I would say longer locking time.
We need to bring back real collisions and knockdown. It is a must. We now have modules for things we really don't need. A module to reduce knockdown would be immense. Mechs that are more steady (Dragon) would have bonuses but not overwhelming. It was a minor bonus. Mech quirks would be ideal here.
We need melee, I absolutely hate when a light runs upto my assault mech and I can barely see it. When in Battletech if any light ever got near my Atlas one single kick and I would destroy its legs if I connected so no light would ever get near my assault mechs. And rightly so. Plus melee for hatchets, Yen Lo Wang is so much more scary when its left handed hatchet comes to play. So is an Awesome with its left handed club, yes the awesome does not have a ppc in the left hand so it can punch and does so awesomely.
Artillery, Airstrikes. As implemented they have no place in a company sized game. The way PGI has them now they are the equivalent of a Regimental Battery. Meaning way more support than a company would ever receive in the field. In Battletech to get a single arty shot of a single arty vehicle say a Long Tom which would do a total of 20 damage in a 30 meter diameter. It would cost you the loss of a single Heavy mech for your unit. Because that is what it weighed. It delievered a single shot every 10 seconds. It had to have someone target the shot and was not fire and forget. So TAG would be appropriate. With a flight time. Arty only ever damaged legs. This would be nice.
Airstrikes was the same way. A single aero unit would have to replace a mech in the field. It would be able to sweep the area once every minute or so. It would come in a straight line and would hit friend and foe. What we have now is way more powerful.
Either remove or severely limit air strikes and arty strikes. Command console to use them. Period. Role warfare once again implemented as promised by PGI.
Get rid of coolant shots altogether. Once again future tech, out of timeline, no tonnage or crit slots and complete and utter BS and promise breaking from PGI. Learn to manage your heat, stop cheating. Just cause MW4 had it and it was used as a crutch by alpha boating poor skill meta players. Does not mean it belongs in this game. It doesn't.
Mech Quirks. Any mech that is not using its original stock loadout should have negative quirks. This is how Battle Tech works. If you change something from the factory in the field it came with negatives. IS mechs are not omni and should not be able to get swapped around and tinkered with. You can do it, but it should come with a cost. My suggestion would be to add ghost heat to all non stock mechs. Stock mechs would never have ghost heat ever. Also if you add more weapons, you should either get cockpit shake or target delays depending on the type of weapons.
What does this do, oh it will make some cry about not getting to tinker. You still get to tinker but it costs you something. Always. In Battle Tech when you changed a mech in the field it was called making a Franken Mech. Because it took out the perfectly fitted factory made and designed gear and put in something akin to bubblegum and bailing wire and duct tape holding it together using systems not designed to work together. In Battletech there was a way around this. You could buy refit kits for known variants and known changes. This came at a steep price. In our broken game this would not work. Since cbills are never an issue in this game for long time players.
I will keep adding over the next few weeks.
Chris
Before you fix ECM you must address the elephant in the room. Why did PGI put stealth into ecm? The answer is target sharing. PGI implemented C3 (future tech in BT) which allows any team member to target a mech which allows every team member to target that mech. They did this without a cost of tonnage or crit slots. They did this for all 12 team members. Because of this, they had to put stealth in to combat the op of this decision.
So, they can either rip out target sharing and then rip out stealth for ecm. Then rebalance LRMs. Or leave target sharing in, remove stealth and just add a delay to target lock for mechs not in line of sight. My suggestion would be to have the delay start at 6 seconds and reduce it based on things like BAP and Command Console. Then also have TAG, NARC and UAV completely remove target lock delay or severely reduce it. BAP reduces lock by two seconds. Command Console by 4 seconds. TAG, NARC and UAV should if not eliminate delay reduce it to two seconds.
This would go a long way to deal with ECM Stealth and Target sharing while also bringing back Role Warfare as lights with TAG, NARC or UAV would be more important.
Lets talk about Heat next. In Battle Tech, when you overheat there are many things that happen. Currently in MWO the only thing that happens is you shut down and eventually will kill your mech from heat damage. We need over heating to cause your mech to become slower. Meaning you get to 50% heat and then your mechs base speed goes down. 75% and it slows down even more. Example an Atlas that does max speed 54kph reaches 50% heat and his speed is reduced to 30kph, 75% heat and speed is reduced to 20 kph. This can be extrapolated for all mechs easily and brings skill into using your heat and mech wisely.
Second when overheating in Battle Tech it also reduces your accuracy. This can also be done easily in MWO. Add slight cockpit shake when at 50% heat. Add moderate cockpit shake at 75% heat. For locking weapons such as ssrm and lrm either add lock delay time or give the missiles a larger spread. I would say longer locking time.
We need to bring back real collisions and knockdown. It is a must. We now have modules for things we really don't need. A module to reduce knockdown would be immense. Mechs that are more steady (Dragon) would have bonuses but not overwhelming. It was a minor bonus. Mech quirks would be ideal here.
We need melee, I absolutely hate when a light runs upto my assault mech and I can barely see it. When in Battletech if any light ever got near my Atlas one single kick and I would destroy its legs if I connected so no light would ever get near my assault mechs. And rightly so. Plus melee for hatchets, Yen Lo Wang is so much more scary when its left handed hatchet comes to play. So is an Awesome with its left handed club, yes the awesome does not have a ppc in the left hand so it can punch and does so awesomely.
Artillery, Airstrikes. As implemented they have no place in a company sized game. The way PGI has them now they are the equivalent of a Regimental Battery. Meaning way more support than a company would ever receive in the field. In Battletech to get a single arty shot of a single arty vehicle say a Long Tom which would do a total of 20 damage in a 30 meter diameter. It would cost you the loss of a single Heavy mech for your unit. Because that is what it weighed. It delievered a single shot every 10 seconds. It had to have someone target the shot and was not fire and forget. So TAG would be appropriate. With a flight time. Arty only ever damaged legs. This would be nice.
Airstrikes was the same way. A single aero unit would have to replace a mech in the field. It would be able to sweep the area once every minute or so. It would come in a straight line and would hit friend and foe. What we have now is way more powerful.
Either remove or severely limit air strikes and arty strikes. Command console to use them. Period. Role warfare once again implemented as promised by PGI.
Get rid of coolant shots altogether. Once again future tech, out of timeline, no tonnage or crit slots and complete and utter BS and promise breaking from PGI. Learn to manage your heat, stop cheating. Just cause MW4 had it and it was used as a crutch by alpha boating poor skill meta players. Does not mean it belongs in this game. It doesn't.
Mech Quirks. Any mech that is not using its original stock loadout should have negative quirks. This is how Battle Tech works. If you change something from the factory in the field it came with negatives. IS mechs are not omni and should not be able to get swapped around and tinkered with. You can do it, but it should come with a cost. My suggestion would be to add ghost heat to all non stock mechs. Stock mechs would never have ghost heat ever. Also if you add more weapons, you should either get cockpit shake or target delays depending on the type of weapons.
What does this do, oh it will make some cry about not getting to tinker. You still get to tinker but it costs you something. Always. In Battle Tech when you changed a mech in the field it was called making a Franken Mech. Because it took out the perfectly fitted factory made and designed gear and put in something akin to bubblegum and bailing wire and duct tape holding it together using systems not designed to work together. In Battletech there was a way around this. You could buy refit kits for known variants and known changes. This came at a steep price. In our broken game this would not work. Since cbills are never an issue in this game for long time players.
I will keep adding over the next few weeks.
Chris
#48
-
-
- Mercenary
- 4,763 posts
Member
- LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted 18 September 2014 - 08:01 PM
Weapon cooldowns.
Electronic Warfare (ECM, TAG, NARC, BAP, Artemis IV, modules).
Module differentiation (for instance, splitting Mech modules further into Sensor and Mobility subtypes), to further distinguish variants one from another.
Heat (talk about a contraversial topic that would benefit from some attention).
Jump Jets.
Electronic Warfare (ECM, TAG, NARC, BAP, Artemis IV, modules).
Module differentiation (for instance, splitting Mech modules further into Sensor and Mobility subtypes), to further distinguish variants one from another.
Heat (talk about a contraversial topic that would benefit from some attention).
Jump Jets.
#49
-
-
- The Grizzly
- 81 posts
Member
- LocationUnited Kingdom
Posted 18 September 2014 - 08:05 PM
IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:
Seconded, probably extend it up to 50 matches? (30 is just 5 more after your cadet bonus. Still not enough to know which end of the PPC to point at the enemy)
I would say that there should be leagues. Like there are divisions in the UK Football, have leagues where the people with Higher ELO fight in the upper tiers and the people with lower ELOs fight in lower tiers. I know that is how its supposed to work anyway, but, you could hard code it and have some leaderboards on the website, give the community things to shoot for. It might stop the PUGs from standing in one spot hoping their team wins.
#50
-
-
- Galaxy Commander III
- 184 posts
Member
Posted 18 September 2014 - 08:07 PM
1. Ghost heat - needs to be removed, really. We need to find a different mechanic to address what this was supposed to address (and really just nerfed a bunch of random chassis that didn't need it). Definitely a fan of the heat scale effects that many have mentioned (from BattleTech). Higher dissipation, etc. - there's lots of great ideas here.
2. Goes along with ghost heat, but certain weapons need some...anything. AC/2, flamers, pulse lasers are the big ones I think.
3. Comm rose - I know I'd use the commander role more often if I could use a hotkey to place markers wherever my cursor is pointed, and give orders that way (without bringing up the map, at least for simple "move here" orders). This *may* help encourage more teamwork (remains to be seen...)
4. More "time to live", less "time to kill." Make our war machines a little more durable. I've seen excellent posts on this as to what type of play is reinforced when new players get torn apart in seconds...
Bonus: Atlas glowing eyes toggle! (This one should be such an easy one to implement....)
EDIT: forgot jump jets. We really need to have the way these work re-thought. They should violently catapault a mech up and forward, for mobility, not hover/floatyness. If the "jump" is sufficiently violent to launch a multi-ton machine through the air, it would probably be hard to aim during acceleration at least - and if it's launched up and forward, you can't just pop up and back down into cover (solving the pop-tart issue).
2. Goes along with ghost heat, but certain weapons need some...anything. AC/2, flamers, pulse lasers are the big ones I think.
3. Comm rose - I know I'd use the commander role more often if I could use a hotkey to place markers wherever my cursor is pointed, and give orders that way (without bringing up the map, at least for simple "move here" orders). This *may* help encourage more teamwork (remains to be seen...)
4. More "time to live", less "time to kill." Make our war machines a little more durable. I've seen excellent posts on this as to what type of play is reinforced when new players get torn apart in seconds...
Bonus: Atlas glowing eyes toggle! (This one should be such an easy one to implement....)
EDIT: forgot jump jets. We really need to have the way these work re-thought. They should violently catapault a mech up and forward, for mobility, not hover/floatyness. If the "jump" is sufficiently violent to launch a multi-ton machine through the air, it would probably be hard to aim during acceleration at least - and if it's launched up and forward, you can't just pop up and back down into cover (solving the pop-tart issue).
Edited by MercJ, 18 September 2014 - 08:10 PM.
#52
-
-
- The Mercenary
- 1,255 posts
Member
- LocationKlendathu
Posted 18 September 2014 - 08:43 PM
Russ Bullock, on 18 September 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:
First off thanks for stating that we have better balance than past MW titles. We can debate the Heat Scale system and we certainly will, but we have to admit it has at least brought some balance to the force.
some yes, but it hurts already struggling builds
The heatscale kills mechs like the Adder
I simple fix would be some new quirks for it to lower it's heat, but why do that when the entire system needs to be looked over?
A lot of good mechs suffer while problem builds still beat around it.
#53
-
-
- The Grizzly
- 81 posts
Member
- LocationUnited Kingdom
Posted 18 September 2014 - 08:45 PM
How about allowing us a full mech lab. Where, with our money spent we can make our own mechs? From determining weight, structure, amount of armour, look of the chassis, all of that good stuff from the ground up rather than simply modifying an existing mech?
#54
-
-
- The Mercenary
- 1,255 posts
Member
- LocationKlendathu
Posted 18 September 2014 - 08:58 PM
DeathjesterUK, on 18 September 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:
How about allowing us a full mech lab. Where, with our money spent we can make our own mechs? From determining weight, structure, amount of armour, look of the chassis, all of that good stuff from the ground up rather than simply modifying an existing mech?
While yeah, that sounds nice, it probably will have to wait until CW is finished
I'd rather have more maps and features before fluff.
Again
I like the idea
It's just not terribly important right now.
Edited by Destructicus, 18 September 2014 - 08:59 PM.
#55
-
-
- The Mercenary
- 1,255 posts
Member
- LocationKlendathu
Posted 18 September 2014 - 09:02 PM
MercJ, on 18 September 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:
Bonus: Atlas glowing eyes toggle! (This one should be such an easy one to implement....)
Right?
They could just bind that **** to the missile door toggle key
It'd work just fine since Atlas' don't even have doors.
Those who want it can toggle it and those who don't can toggle it off
Everybody wins
Hell
I'd love it even if the eyes only glowed red on kills, kinda like a visual warhorn.
#56
Posted 18 September 2014 - 09:06 PM
MercJ, on 18 September 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:
1. Ghost heat - needs to be removed, really. We need to find a different mechanic to address what this was supposed to address (and really just nerfed a bunch of random chassis that didn't need it). Definitely a fan of the heat scale effects that many have mentioned (from BattleTech). Higher dissipation, etc. - there's lots of great ideas here.
Am I minority who actually think ghost heat is a good way of decreasing DPS and overall TTK? Why do you want more RNG to MWO?
#57
-
-
- The Messenger
- 63 posts
Member
Posted 18 September 2014 - 09:23 PM
1. I would like to see an improved way of communication between teammates, be it voip or a command wheel. Voip is a good idea but i think having everyone and their mother screaming through my headphones would be a bit much. Maybe limit voip to each lance commander.
2. Invisible walls on many maps is a must fix for smooth game play. Period.
3. Ghost heat needs to go. There are better ways to implement heat penalties while increasing the immersion of piloting a mech.
More to come once i compile my thoughts.
2. Invisible walls on many maps is a must fix for smooth game play. Period.
3. Ghost heat needs to go. There are better ways to implement heat penalties while increasing the immersion of piloting a mech.
More to come once i compile my thoughts.
#58
-
-
- 39 posts
Member
Posted 18 September 2014 - 10:03 PM
I would like to see critical hits in the game. Currently, we can only crit weapons, ammo, and ecm/bap. I would like to be able to crit every part of the mech especially the engine on both clan and IS mechs. Also having the ability to crit actuators in legs and arms would be nice. If you crit the arms then the mech loses some percentage of arm movement on the critted arm there by throwing off the reticles for that arm. If a leg is crippled then reduced movement speed. Less movement speed than no damage but more movement speed than destroyed leg. Also being able to crit heat sinks. Having a maximum number of engine crits before destruction of engine. Heat spike for damaged engine.
Movement of crosshairs when moving. Not wild movements for the cross hairs but it would cause bouncing. Along with this turn back on the feature that caused the cross hairs to not always be alligned. Our mech trees already have an ability to reduce the amount of movement but we need the movement to fix alot of other issues.
Movement of crosshairs when moving. Not wild movements for the cross hairs but it would cause bouncing. Along with this turn back on the feature that caused the cross hairs to not always be alligned. Our mech trees already have an ability to reduce the amount of movement but we need the movement to fix alot of other issues.
#59
-
-
- The CyberKnight
- 3,691 posts
Member
- LocationUnited States
Posted 18 September 2014 - 10:05 PM
I think the first "easy" fix that might get the overwhelming approval to prove the process is removing 3PV. unless people don't care about that anymore.
#60
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 5,581 posts
Member
Posted 18 September 2014 - 10:11 PM
*In response to the original topic*
I really, truly think that Information Warfare, as a pillar of the game, needs to be revisited. Community Warfare has been everyone's personal rallying cry/top-list demand/whipping boy for so long, with Role Warfare a distant but still visible second, that in many cases I've despaired of people even remembering that Information Warfare is supposed to exist. I would adore a rich and rewarding IW layer that actually contributes to tactical play and rewards intelligent, information-centric players.
So...I suppose I want to see ECM first after all, but not really. I just wish that Information Warfare got even a tenth the attention that Community Warfare did, or a fifth of the attention Role Warfare gets.
I really, truly think that Information Warfare, as a pillar of the game, needs to be revisited. Community Warfare has been everyone's personal rallying cry/top-list demand/whipping boy for so long, with Role Warfare a distant but still visible second, that in many cases I've despaired of people even remembering that Information Warfare is supposed to exist. I would adore a rich and rewarding IW layer that actually contributes to tactical play and rewards intelligent, information-centric players.
So...I suppose I want to see ECM first after all, but not really. I just wish that Information Warfare got even a tenth the attention that Community Warfare did, or a fifth of the attention Role Warfare gets.
8 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 8 guests, 0 anonymous users
