418 replies to this topic

[terrycloth]

The current implementation is close to the real heat scale. You add capacity from heat sinks because in the actual rules heat sinks sink their rating in heat before it even goes on the scale. All that's missing is the chance for random explosions and things starting at 50%.

Heat is actually much much worse in MWO than in TT because they made heat sinks worse, weapons hotter per shot, and increased the rate of fire. In MWO it takes something like 22 double heat sinks to keep up with two ER large lasers, when it should be what, 8?

Edited by terrycloth, 07 October 2014 - 09:56 AM.

[ShadowbaneX]

I like the idea of sized hard points, but I think there still needs to be some flexibility. For instance, I see little problem with Shadow Hawks, Wolverines, Jagermechs or Cataphracts (and other mid-tonnage mechs) mounting AC/10s in the place of their AC/5s. Or AC/10s being upgraded to Gauss Rifles or AC/20s. I do have a bit of a problem with MGs being replaced with AC/10s or larger Ballistics. I don't really have a problem with MLs being upgraded to (ER) LLs, although perhaps LPLs or PPCs are a bit much.

I will admit, there is some personal bias here. I run my CPLT-K2 with a pair of uAC/5s and 4 MLs. I run my SHD-2H with an AC/10 in the LT, an ER LL in the RA, and a pair of SRM4s. My SHD-2D2 runs quad Streaks, a pair of MLs and an LB-10/X. I run my CTF-4X with anything from 2 AC/2s & 2 uAC/5s, to quad AC/4s, to paired 10s to dual Gauss. Given the flexibility of the variant I could give up the dual Gauss, but I rather like the dual LB-10/X build.

I sorta had a fast and lose idea that you could only mount something in a weapon slot that's twice the size of the stock weapon that's there, but that still means that you can mount a LL in the space of a SL, Gauss Rifles in place of AC/5s and MG's are just a mess. Missiles would be interesting though.

[Asyres]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

I found this poll by searching the forums. People seem to like the idea over ghost heat 4 to 1 http://mwomercs.com/...e__show__st__80

So, would people quit or would people come back?

It's a poll from over a year ago, with only 140 respondents.

[Eddrick]

Asyres, on 07 October 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

It's a poll from over a year ago, with only 140 respondents.

Make a new poll and see if the result changes

[Darwins Dog]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 07 October 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

Exactly, since most 'Mechs are just generic skins that can all hold the same weapons, players choose 'Mechs based on the hardpoint locations and hitboxes rather than what the 'Mech's loadout and intended role in lore was. You end up with very sterile builds despite cries for "customization" -- everyone up top runs the same 'Mech, with the exact same guns.

It doesn't matter how much or little you are able to customize a mech, the people up top will always use the same mechs with the same guns. Whatever gives the biggest advantave (no matter how slight) will see the most use.

[Tastian]

Asyres, on 07 October 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

It's a poll from over a year ago, with only 140 respondents.

That's a larger audience then this thread has. I don't think the opinion would change.

[IceSerpent]

terrycloth, on 07 October 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

The current implementation is close to the real heat scale. You add capacity from heat sinks because in the actual rules heat sinks sink their rating in heat before it even goes on the scale.

Not quite - in TT heat dissipation is exactly the same as heat capacity, because heat is checked at 10s intervals. Heat generated by "alpha strike" in TT takes into account heat dissipated during that turn. MWO is real time, so heat capacity should be separate from dissipation - former limits size of alpha strike and latter limits RoF.

ShadowbaneX, on 07 October 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

I like the idea of sized hard points, but I think there still needs to be some flexibility. For instance, I see little problem with Shadow Hawks, Wolverines, Jagermechs or Cataphracts (and other mid-tonnage mechs) mounting AC/10s in the place of their AC/5s. Or AC/10s being upgraded to Gauss Rifles or AC/20s. I do have a bit of a problem with MGs being replaced with AC/10s or larger Ballistics. I don't really have a problem with MLs being upgraded to (ER) LLs, although perhaps LPLs or PPCs are a bit much.

There is flexibility - the idea is to impose limits on case-by-case (mech-by-mech) basis. There's no reason to never allow upgrade from AC5 to AC20, but there is a reason to prevent that on mechs that can potentially mount too many AC20s (more than 2 for example).

[Eddrick]

Darwins Dog, on 07 October 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

It doesn't matter how much or little you are able to customize a mech, the people up top will always use the same mechs with the same guns. Whatever gives the biggest advantave (no matter how slight) will see the most use.

A meta will always exist. It's inevitable. All you can do is try to keep the meta from being dominent. A decent balance allows for counter-meta play.

[Sybreed]

Sprouticus, on 07 October 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

I tend to disagree that the maps are the issue, let me explain:

People want to progress
To progress in MWO you need CB and XP/GXP
To get CB and XP/GXP you focus on rewards in game
The current reward system is extremely limited and favors damage and kills


You can build the best role warfaresystem in the world and no one will ever play scouts if they dont get CB and XP for doing their job.



**** NOW, hopefully there are major changes for the reward system upcoming. and hopefully those rewards will make running a scout worthwhile. Only time will tell. ****


My system (proposed many many times since before closed beta):

1) You choose a role when you ready up (scout/attack/support/Commander)
2) MM takes role into account as part of the MM process (1-3 scouts, 3-6 attack, 2-4 support, 1-2 commander)
3) Rewards are based upon role, (scouts get points for spotting/UAV, attack for kils, support for assists, command for ??)


Do that and people will be far more plikely to play other roles, even if the mechs involved are non optimal.

and again the maps are an issue because:

1) why scout when there are only so few path options
2) maps are small enough you can usually see mechs from one side of the map to the other (with a few exceptions)
3) they're all battle arenas, in that they're square or circular and have specific "meeting" points.
4) Game modes don't allow for much in terms of gameplay. Eliminate enemy team is pretty much the way to go.

Edited by Sybreed, 07 October 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[Almond Brown]

Eddrick, on 07 October 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

A meta will always exist. It's inevitable. All you can do is try to keep the meta from being dominent. A decent balance allows for counter-meta play.

And FIXED hard points will create "One Final Meta" that cannot be easily circumvented, because, well, the Hard Points are Fixed. (doh!)

Edited by Almond Brown, 07 October 2014 - 10:16 AM.

[Asyres]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

That's a larger audience then this thread has. I don't think the opinion would change.

If you got 140 people to respond today, and got the exact same results, it would be just as meaningless. 140 is barely a meaningful sample of the people who are currently browsing the forums, let alone the game community as a whole.

Edited by Asyres, 07 October 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Regarding the OP suggestion:

Your system is ok, I dont hate it. But mechs able to boat smaller weapons would have a distinct advantage if GH were removed. Sure the Nova and 4SP are hot, but they can do a LOT of damage. Same with a 4 ERLL/4LL mech

One thought would be to enact this system and combine it with lowering the heat scale to roughly 3/4 of its current level. That would limit the small weapon boating significantly because yu simply would not be able to fire a large number of energy weapons without shutting down.

[kapusta11]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

That's a larger audience then this thread has. I don't think the opinion would change.

Yeah, add "Both options will change little" and "Just implement the damn Heat Scale already" variants and see what happens.

[Sprouticus]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

and again the maps are an issue because:

1) why scout when there are only so few path options

a good reward system will fix this: Example: initial spotting 50 XP/500CB. Continued spotting: 1XP/50CB per mech per 10 seconds continuous. Secondary spotting/re-spotting 2XP/100CB (only once per 30 seconds). All of this would ONLY be available for the scout role. Scout would also get significant XP/CB for narc assists, counter ECM, UAV, etc. (values are examples, and would obviously need to be tuned)

This gives llight mechs a reason to scout., and more importantly a reason to keep solid info coming to the rest of the team.

Quote

2) maps are small enough you can usually mechs from one side of the map to the other (with a few exceptions)

and?

Quote

3) they're all battle arenas, in that they're square or circular and have specific "meeting" points.

and?

Quote

4) Game modes don't allow for much in terms of gameplay. Eliminate enemy team is pretty much the way to go.

and?
#2-#4 are just statement that do nothing to support your assertion that the maps reduce role warfare. We can argue about map size (increased value of scouting vs making mech trundle around doing nothing for 5 minutes). I tend towards bigger maps myself, but I do see the point of people who want aciton over positioning. Not my favorite thing but I understand it.

Edited by Sprouticus, 07 October 2014 - 10:27 AM.

[Eddrick]

Almond Brown, on 07 October 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

And FIXED hard points will create "One Final Meta" that cannot be easily circumvented, because, well, the Hard Points are Fixed. (doh!)

Only as long as pinpoint damage is dominent. Only a fix for pinpoint damage can remady that. Which, hardpoints fixed into a certain size does nothing to address. It just covers it up. Kind of like Ghost Heat.

Edited by Eddrick, 07 October 2014 - 10:27 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Asyres, on 07 October 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

If you got 140 people to respond today, and got the exact same results, it would be just as meaningless. 140 is barely a meaningful sample of the people who are currently browsing the forums, let alone the game community as a whole.

You have some solid info about overall size of the community? Care to share it with the rest of us?

[Tastian]

Asyres, on 07 October 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

If you got 140 people to respond today, and got the exact same results, it would be just as meaningless. 140 is barely a meaningful sample of the people who are currently browsing the forums, let alone the game community as a whole.

It's a start. And it gives me hope. Where's any kind of meaningful proof that the majority of people would reject the idea or rage quit? And yes, I would love to add additional options to the poll to include such things as "leave it alone" and "fix heat scale instead".

Just remember that heat scale would not answer the dual gauss builds or even 2 AC + 2 PPC builds.

Edited by Tastian, 07 October 2014 - 10:39 AM.

[Asyres]

IceSerpent, on 07 October 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

You have some solid info about overall size of the community? Care to share it with the rest of us?

I don't, but I think we can agree that it's bigger than the (currently) 2290 people looking at the forums. The reality, however, is that margin of error is largely a function of sample size, and here the sample size is minuscule.

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

It's a start. And it gives me hope. Where's any kind of meaningful proof that the majority of people would reject the idea or rage quit? And yes, I would love to add additional options to the poll to include such things as "leave it alone" and "fix heat scale instead".

Just remember that heat scale would not answer the dual gauss builds or even 2 AC + 2 PPC builds.

I wasn't suggesting anything other than that the poll wasn't a good source of data regarding people's opinions.

[Lyoto Machida]

Victor Morson, on 06 October 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

I hate to tell you that most of what everyone hates is Cone of Fire and Growing Reticle. People don't like those ideas at all and I understand. People would probably be accepting of it if the player could have direct control over how much it grows (like an FPS) but ultimately, you can't in this environment.

I think the number of builds PER VARIANT will go down, but the desire to own more variants will go up. That's the big thing. In MW4 you could almost always find a 'mech to fit the niche you're looking for, and the same thing should happen here. Want to run 6 SRM4s? Well, there's a 'mech for that. Want to run ballistic+energy, there's a 'mech for that. Want to run 5 Large Lasers, there's a 'mech for that. And so on, and so on.
Then those specific 'mechs can be balanced according to that. All punishing mechs does now is make the same concepts jump to a new build.

I am a major "Fit anything you can, bring the best that you can to the fight" kind of player. This helps keep that within reason.

This! I don't know why some people can't see this. Maybe they just want to play the same mechs over and over and use different loadouts on the same variants. I've got over 100 variants and would love to see all of them useful in SOME capacity (which is far from currently true).

What am I supposed to do with three useless Trebuchets? I guess I could sell them for C-bills but I consider it a sunk cost already.

Again...why take a Hunchback over a Shadow Hawk if tonnage limitations are not going to be implemented? That HBK better get some serious quirks to make it close to worth taking over the 5 ton heavier SHD.

[Night Fury76]

Role warfare will never work while the option of 12 kills = a win.
Just look at how conquest plays out when one side goes for kills.