141 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Roland, on 10 October 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

A lot of players tout the idea that increased time to kill is desirable, because they think that this will make them more competitive.

Is that a stated opinon by said players, or speculation on your part?

I personally want TTK to be high for the same reason that Russ Bullock mentioned in the recent Town hall meeting. Namely, much of the charm of Mechwarrior-games is the feeling of relative invulnerability, because you're piloting a huge warmachine. You take 20 missiles to the face and you barely drop to 95% health.

And this changes the whole way combat works out, so instead of being a fast twitch shooter, it becomes a war of attrition. You don't just need to get the first hit, you need to consistently be better than your opponent over a longer period of time. And you have more time to make decisions as you make the kill. What do I aim for? Where do I move? What is he expecting me to do now? How can I surprise him?

Questions like these are typically more about taste and preference rather than lack of ability, or some people thinking a change in balance will make them more competitive, I think. I dont have any more proof to show than you do, but at least my argument has the merit of not underestimating people's intelligence.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 10 October 2014 - 10:53 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Aresye, on 10 October 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

It's a shooter with a "FEW" simulator aspects. Those "FEW" simulator aspects, such as torso twisting vs. leg direction, heat management, etc. are enough to throw off a good amount of the current player base.

Add things like weapon sway, more in-depth EW such as Active/Passive radar, slow and/or manually set convergence, etc. and you've successfully alienated 3/4 of the player base.

I'm all for adding more complicated systems, but the only thing this will do will do is make the game harder for new players, when already most of them can't even manage basic aim to save their life.

sad but likely true.

But we certainly also don't need to dumb it down even further, by turning it into death of 1000 papercuts, as the OP is suggesting.

Also, at some point, this title DOES have to decide who it is trying to cater to. The original "close to BTech as we can make it" crowd they sold the Founders packs,(in which case, it is already WAY too watered down) the Casual CoD crowd (which is what it is leaning toward, though not there yet) or somewhere in between.

The issue is, this game, even totally watered down will never land them the size of a casual crowd needed, and casuals are notoriously fickle, and move on far too soon. Apparently too "sim like" and there are not enough Hardcore Whales to support? So it has to be in between somewhere, but which direction does it lean? ATM, imo it's leaning way too much to the console side of the equation.


Also, at what point do we disconnect the "Comp Experience" from the game 95% or more of the populace are playing? Because the issue with catering to the "educated" opinions of the Comp players and elite, is the game they are playing is at it's core, a very different experience than the vast majority of players game experience, and the real "balance" issue come sin when those "elites" end up mixed in with Gen Pop. (and issue not generally helped by the swaggering arrogance too many of the 1337s display).

The Comps will ALWAYS play min-max meta warrior. And by nature, when faced against casuals, will always stomp them. 99% of the time, the issues in complaints from TTK result from this. Average match length in I play in most times, 7-10 minutes. Have a comp team pop up on the other side, win or lose, it's decided in 3 minute or less.

That seems to indicate that even with systems as is, for the AVERAGE gamer, TTK is neither too low, nor too high. But when one factors in skill difference, and the attendant focus fire and unit discipline, the TTK drops catastrophically. And it's not a "L2P" thing, despite what many Lords or other players will say, since by the very nature of gameplay the average will ALWAYS be average. (or Bads, in 1337-speak).

Perhaps we should let iron sharpen iron? Have a much more solid gate for High Elo Group play, that lets the 1337 face off primarily with each other, so they don't have to suffer through playing against or with, BADS, and then the general player base can see if TTK really is that low without the Mongol Hordes pushing through them?

(Or better yet, leave it like it is, and quit crying about EVERYTHING. But this is the internet, so that will never happen)

[Lordred]

Quite the discussion that propped up around this.

Just remember to smile for the Camera Commando if you see it on the battle field.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alistair Winter, on 10 October 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Is that a stated opinon by said players, or speculation on your part?

I personally want TTK to be high for the same reason that Russ Bullock mentioned in the recent Town hall meeting. Namely, much of the charm of Mechwarrior-games is the feeling of relative invulnerability, because you're piloting a huge warmachine. You take 20 missiles to the face and you barely drop to 95% health.

And this changes the whole way combat works out, so instead of being a fast twitch shooter, it becomes a war of attrition. You don't just need to get the first hit, you need to consistently be better than your opponent over a longer period of time. And you have more time to make decisions as you make the kill. What do I aim for? Where do I move? What is he expecting me to do now? How can I surprise him?

Questions like these are typically more about taste and preference rather than lack of ability, or some people thinking a change in balance will make them more competitive, I think. I dont have any more proof to show than you do, but at least my argument has the merit of not underestimating people's intelligence.

You ever try out SMM? Stock Mech Mondays?

Not suggesting it as a way for players to get slower TTK. or that private matches are the answer. But because, the nature of heat, weapons and such in it DO indeed contribute to lower TTK. Armor is the same. Damage, the same. What's different, mostly is the sustainable RoF and Alphas.

A perfect double ac20 shot to the rear of a Jenner SHOULD kill it. That is Battltech. But conversely, combat was also much slower in most regards. Perhaps, like Koniving has argued, heat cap is one of the most essential ways to achieve that? Simply reducing the amount of sustainable incoming fire, to me would be greatly preferred to adding more armor, or neutering the weapons themselves.

I think too many people want to take what appears to be the simplest approach to achieving it, when the system of combat is so multi-layered in MWO, that simplest is seldom actually, best.

-Heat Cap/Scale
-Weapon RoF slowdown (Gauss every 7 seconds, PPC and ac20 every 6, etc)

and possible looks into the combat peripherals, like reticle sway, etc if more is needed, or even sized hardpoints in the mechlab to put something of a limit on boating, IMO, would all be preferable, and long term healthier, than "Up armor, Down damage".

[Ketzktl]

I know that this is not TT, but the translation of the mechanics from TT to computer should preserve the feel of TT. I am not advocating for random rolls, but take this scenario for instance:

An atlas rounds a corner and is suddenly faced with 4 atlas's (atli?). Assuming range 4, the 4 mechs who weren't moving and have average gunnery. They need 7 to hit on 2d6 so right off the top a little more than half of their weapons hit. The single atlas gets hit with 5 med lasers, 3 AC20 and 2 SRM6. These shots are distributed across the mech with only about 17% hitting the CT. Easily survivable, he isn't going to win that fight but he also can now back around the corner before he gets shot again (unless the 4 chase him down).

My experience in MWO is that in the same scenario, the single atlas rounds the corner and the first thing that happens is substantially more weapons hit him, even with average pilots. The second thing that happens is that the vast majority of those hits will be against his torsos with the CT bearing the brunt of those shots. Finally it is likely that he will be shot at least one more time before he can back around the corner. In the same scenario, the atlas will likely die.

In the TT scenario, even putting in the worst case scenario, the lone atlas is facing elite pilots who hit him with everything, 4 AC20, 4 sRM6 and 8 mL (since 2 are rear facing ;P ), that is still survivable though he will be a hurting unit after that punishment.

I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, I am just pointing out the difference in feel as I see it, the mechs seem to die too easily. Again, just talking about feel here from my perspective, in the TT you would see mechs with all sorts of critical damage before they were destroyed. They were "ground down" so to speak, but as pointed out crits here don't mean much. If you are taking internals you are seconds from losing everything in that section from straight internal destruction. Again, losing the "battletechy" feel.

Just some thoughts without any solutions on the subject.

[Ultimax]

Fierostetz, on 10 October 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

ALSO - laser weapons bring that old bugbear... "hit detection". Hitscan weapons currently have rubbish hit detection for some players. My personal hit detection is great for ballistics everywhere, terrible for hitscan weapons from home, downright heroic for hitscan weapons from my dad's house or my office where I've occasionally played while eating lunch... Online gaming is maddening

While I agree completely that is an underlying optimization issue with the game engine.

Not something designed as a balancing factor for weapons.

Roland, on 10 October 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

This is true in some ways, but what makes it a problem is that other elements of the game are effectively assuming that certain elements of TT balance are in place, and instant weapons convergence makes that assumption untrue.

For instance, the most straightforward example of this is the armor model.

The armor model in MWO is basically taken directly from TT, with its values doubled.

Yet, even with doubling values, the underlying damage model is still effectively assuming that weapons will spread damage all over a mech randomly.

Since they don't do that, and since I can fire a ton of weapons and have them all hit the same location, this kind of breaks the damage model... An assault mech like an atlas, for instance, has a MOUNTAIN of armor... but against a skilled shooter, most of that armor midaswell not even be there. For instance, unless he's stripped his legs and I see that as a vulnerability, I'm pretty much never going to ACCIDENTALLY hit his legs. That's 168 points of armor (and another 84 points of internal structure) that basically has no utility when deciding how much damage that mech can survive. And yet the damage model, taken from TT, is still assuming that the armor and strucure there will be absorbing damage, and using that to balance that mech's survivability against that of other mechs.

So, consider this holistically. An atlas has a total of 614 points of armor. A Jenner has 238 points. So the atlas can take an extra 376 damage to its overall armor. That's a lot of punishment.

But if I'm focusing damage on his CT, then the difference is reduced to 124 vs. 44.. or only 80 points. That's a mere 21% of the punishment difference assuming random damage spread.

At the same time, and I'm relying on people with knowledge of TT so I'm out of my depth, is it fair to say that defensively we also have options not available in TT?

I can move in front of a friendly who has taken too much fire, and tank for them. Let them use me as a shield so they can continue to fire.

I can find a secure position and fire repeatedly on the enemy with LRMs from behind "just enough" cover that I can still lock onto them but not so little that they can fire on me. (Is this possible in TT? Honest question).

Is there often a situation like on Caustic where one team has "ALL THE LRMS!" and the other team has none, and no ECM with no easy way to breach the endless rain or fire back? While the TKK of one team has plummeted, the Time to survive for Team-LRMs is extremely high. (Showing that TTK is very subjective to the situation, and not based on weapon damage/refire rates alone).

My point is that while we break TT concepts offensively with our ability to aim, we also have the opportunity to break it defensively as well.

[Adiuvo]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 October 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

That seems to indicate that even with systems as is, for the AVERAGE gamer, TTK is neither too low, nor too high. But when one factors in skill difference, and the attendant focus fire and unit discipline, the TTK drops catastrophically. And it's not a "L2P" thing, despite what many Lords or other players will say, since by the very nature of gameplay the average will ALWAYS be average. (or Bads, in 1337-speak).

What successful competitive game is balanced around the average player?

None, none are.

I really don't see why we can't just say 'learn to torso twist better' to people who complain about TTK. Every game has required counterplay if you want to be successful. Tired of getting ganked in LoL? Buy wards, use flash. Tired of getting CC'd to death in Smite? Buy beads, Magi's. Tired of getting CT cored in MWO? Torso twist.

Skill differential to that scale isn't even much of a problem. Lords has around 65 people in it. Maybe 25 of those play competitively on a regular basis. SJR has like 20 people in it entirely. How many people are running into top teams regularly throughout a day? That's easy to answer.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ketzktl, on 10 October 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

I know that this is not TT, but the translation of the mechanics from TT to computer should preserve the feel of TT. I am not advocating for random rolls, but take this scenario for instance:

An atlas rounds a corner and is suddenly faced with 4 atlas's (atli?). Assuming range 4, the 4 mechs who weren't moving and have average gunnery. They need 7 to hit on 2d6 so right off the top a little more than half of their weapons hit. The single atlas gets hit with 5 med lasers, 3 AC20 and 2 SRM6. These shots are distributed across the mech with only about 17% hitting the CT. Easily survivable, he isn't going to win that fight but he also can now back around the corner before he gets shot again (unless the 4 chase him down).

My experience in MWO is that in the same scenario, the single atlas rounds the corner and the first thing that happens is substantially more weapons hit him, even with average pilots. The second thing that happens is that the vast majority of those hits will be against his torsos with the CT bearing the brunt of those shots. Finally it is likely that he will be shot at least one more time before he can back around the corner. In the same scenario, the atlas will likely die.

In the TT scenario, even putting in the worst case scenario, the lone atlas is facing elite pilots who hit him with everything, 4 AC20, 4 sRM6 and 8 mL (since 2 are rear facing ;P ), that is still survivable though he will be a hurting unit after that punishment.

I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, I am just pointing out the difference in feel as I see it, the mechs seem to die too easily. Again, just talking about feel here from my perspective, in the TT you would see mechs with all sorts of critical damage before they were destroyed. They were "ground down" so to speak, but as pointed out crits here don't mean much. If you are taking internals you are seconds from losing everything in that section from straight internal destruction. Again, losing the "battletechy" feel.

Just some thoughts without any solutions on the subject.

Actually, in random rolling of 2d6, 7 is by far the most common total number combo. Add in the fact that a 2 also hits CT (critically, no less) and a 12 hit the head (most of which MWO mitigates to CT) and you are well above 17% hitting CT. In fact, on average closer to 30% CT hits, on a RNG game. Which is why, not coincidentally, there is such a huge differential in CT armor vs ST armor, even in TT.

[Lyoto Machida]

RazorbeastFXK3, on 10 October 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Lowering the amount of damage weapons deal isn't going to solve anything other than increase frustration of the average player.. As someone else mentioned it will just turn into a giant pillow fight without feathers flying around. [RANT]Are we going to put our 'mechs in a bikini next? "TASTE MY MAMMARIES OF DEWM!"[/rant]

Raising the armor point allowance was a good deal. The only thing that influences the damage/death rate is the level of skill and luck of the pilots involved on both the serving and receiving end of the weapons used along with efficient and effective armor placement (and possible latency mismatching issues). I appreciate your effort in trying to offer suggestion to balance the game but this isn't the proper angle of attack.

Is that where this is headed?

I, for one, welcome our Mammaries of Dewm overlordesses.

[Alistair Winter]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 October 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

You ever try out SMM? Stock Mech Mondays?

I would love to and I've been meaning to for quite some time. But I live in Europe, so every time I want to participate, I have to ask myself if it's worth wasting the next day because I was up all night gaming.

Bishop Steiner, on 10 October 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

I think too many people want to take what appears to be the simplest approach to achieving it, when the system of combat is so multi-layered in MWO, that simplest is seldom actually, best.

Yeah, but you also risk exarcerbating the problem when you keep adding complex mechanics to adjust gameplay. I think the solution is replacing some of the complex systems with new and better systems. For example, there is no easy solution for ECM, LRM, NARC, etc. You can't just say "remove indirect fire" and then it's all good. But you can't add a complex layer of rules on top of what we have already (as PGI tried to do with a million soft counters and modules) to fix the problem either.

Sometimes you just have to start from scratch, or at least take a few steps back.

Bishop Steiner, on 10 October 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

-Heat Cap/Scale
-Weapon RoF slowdown (Gauss every 7 seconds, PPC and ac20 every 6, etc)

Would be nice.

Adiuvo, on 10 October 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

What successful competitive game is balanced around the average player?
None, none are.
I really don't see why we can't just say 'learn to torso twist better' to people who complain about TTK. Every game has required counterplay if you want to be successful. Tired of getting ganked in LoL? Buy wards, use flash. Tired of getting CC'd to death in Smite? Buy beads, Magi's. Tired of getting CT cored in MWO? Torso twist

I don't really have experience from those games, but the competitive games I have played have one of these two advantages over MWO, or even both:
1) A better learning curve. Easy to learn, hard to master. You don't have to be an astronaut to figure out how CS:S works, but getting to the top is a slow and steady journey where you improve aim, tactics, knowledge of the maps, 360 no-scope techniques, etc.
2) Tutorials and/or a single player campaign that prepares the player for multiplayer. Imagine StarCraft without any kind of single player campaign, and forcing all new players to learn how all the units work by bitter experience or even just making information available on the forums, as MWO does. If you want to learn about how ECM/NARC/TAG/LRM/PPC interact, you pretty much have to go out and do some research on your own. Now, I'm sure online gameplay in StarCraft 2 is considerably different from how most people play the singleplayer campaign. But at least you get some of the basics. You learn a bit about resource management, which units do what, etc. In MWO, there's none of that. Hence, you get LRM boats face-hugging their target, Kit Foxes repeatedly throwing NARC missiles at targets protected by an ECM bubble, etc.

So yeah, I agree the game needs to be balanced based on what happens at high levels of gameplay. But if this game is going to be harder to play, then PGI also needs to compensate for that somehow. In fact, they should have done that ages ago.

Adiuvo, on 10 October 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

Skill differential to that scale isn't even much of a problem. Lords has around 65 people in it. Maybe 25 of those play competitively on a regular basis. SJR has like 20 people in it entirely. How many people are running into top teams regularly throughout a day? That's easy to answer.

Is the drop-off that significant, that it's not actually worth talking about the other 8 teams in the top 10? Is a hypothetical nr 3 ranked team basically a bunch of casual players?

[Ketzktl]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 October 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Actually, in random rolling of 2d6, 7 is by far the most common total number combo. Add in the fact that a 2 also hits CT (critically, no less) and a 12 hit the head (most of which MWO mitigates to CT) and you are well above 17% hitting CT. In fact, on average closer to 30% CT hits, on a RNG game. Which is why, not coincidentally, there is such a huge differential in CT armor vs ST armor, even in TT.

Chance to roll a 7 on 2d6 is 16.7%. You are right about the 2 also hitting the CT (TAC) though, so that adds another 2.8%. (Hitting head is also 2.8%) so you are only looking at 19ish % of shots hitting CT. I agree that is why the CT in TT (lets see how many acronyms we can use here) has the highest IS and armour.
2 2.8% 3 5.6% 4 8.3% 5 11.1% 6 13.9% 7 16.7% 8 13.9% 9 11.1% 10 8.3% 11 5.6% 12 2.8%

[RazorbeastFXK3]

So snipers would be a thing of the past as if they wanted to hit anything over 500M they'd risk assaulting the terrain or worse yet any friendlies that may be within the same vicinity.. yeah.. Oh.. better yet.. let's have the missile/laser/ballistic weaponry have a chance of hitting the one using the weapon. Like... oh.. let's say a misfiring Autocannon that hits the pilot using it in the chest/arm/leg. Or.. a missile goes astray or doesn't launch and explodes in the missile pod or maybe an energy weapon that refracts within the barrel and deals damage to the weapon itself potentially destroying the weapon.

Technology makes machinery more precise as surgical tools in the sense that they aren't going to act like derringers.

Kirkland Langue, on 10 October 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

As others have said, the problem is the convergence and pin point accuracy.

To be honest, every weapon in the game should get a new attribute: accuracy - and then make the actual hit spot a random location within a radius determined by that weapon's accuracy rating.

Then even if every weapon you fire is aimed at exactly the same location - their actual hit spots would vary a little bit.

[Adiuvo]

Alistair Winter, on 10 October 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

So yeah, I agree the game needs to be balanced based on what happens at high levels of gameplay. But if this game is going to be harder to play, then PGI also needs to compensate for that somehow. In fact, they should have done that ages ago.

100% agreed. After community warfare tutorials and help for new players really needs to be the focus. Like you said, if you're going to balance around the top you need to make sure that people know how to get there to begin with.

Quote

Is the drop-off that significant, that it's not actually worth talking about the other 8 teams in the top 10? Is a hypothetical nr 3 ranked team basically a bunch of casual players?

The drop off is pretty bad... yeah. Especially for NA.

It's basically Lords>SJR>>>>228th>>4ish other teams>>>>>>>>>everyone else. The drop off isn't so bad that those teams are filled with casual players though, at least until you get to the 'everyone else' stage.

The comp scene is growing heavily lately though. MRBC has 48 teams entered in it. EU is incredibly healthy, with 4 teams all fighting for the top spot. In EU you can't clearly identify a specific team as 'number 1'.

[topgun505]

Depends on the light. Get a Spider running around and if most of the mechs on the opposite team are laser based it will end up taking FOREEEEEEEVVVVVVVVER to kill that bloody pest. Whereas a Jenner gets smacked down quickly (by comparison) since it is almost all CT hitbox.

But regardless ... TTK for most lights (if played by a good light pilot) takes way longer to kill than a typical assault. I've seen plenty of assaults go from fresh to hosed in seconds and they weren't even getting focused by the entire team.

TTK is laughable presently (actually it always has been). The problem, as was stated already, is the perfect instantaneous convergence.

Lordred, on 10 October 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

TTK for lights is woefully quick to be honest, I pilot 20 and 25 toners more often then heavier mechs, and rounding a corner is a death sentence.

[Kain Demos]

Seems like the last guy alive is always, always a light or Cicada.

[Adiuvo]

Kain Thul, on 10 October 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

Seems like the last guy alive is always, always a light or Cicada.

That's because they're avoiding the fight and/or getting ignored. Not because they're more durable.

[Kirkland Langue]

RazorbeastFXK3, on 10 October 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Technology makes machinery more precise as surgical tools in the sense that they aren't going to act like derringers.

Technology? You are sitting in a giant humanoid robot that doesn't have a rear view mirror.

[Xanquil]

As stated by many in this thread (and others) the way alpha strikes are done in MWO has more to do with short TTK than any other game mechanic.
The funniest part is MWO alpha strikes reduce the skill needed to defeat your enemy. The more weapons you can fire at once that will hit and will also always hit the location reduces the number of shots that are needed to kill said enemy. Reducing the hits to kill, reducing the skill needed to kill, and reducing the TTK.
Torso twisting to avoid being "cored" only works in a system where not every weapon is going to hit the same location. Spreading alpha damage doesn't happen, no amount of torso twisting is going to stop that. Which in turn makes alphas require less skill to kill the target.
Increasing armor again doesn't do anything to change the problems with alpha strikes hitting the same location, and would nave a minor effect on TTK.
It would be nice to have skill matter again, It would also be nice if the more weapons fired at once would require more skill.

[Koniving]

FupDup, on 10 October 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

In general it might be okay, but there are exceptions...

I.e. your numbers/TT numbers make the 2-rated ACs, 5-rated ACs, LRM5, and 2-rated [S]SRMs nearly unusable. The 10-rated ACs also get smashed hard. Even the Small Pulse, already gimped, gets hammered (the Clan one in particular gets utterly nerfed into the ground).

In the end, the problem isn't how much damage something does in an arbitrary 10-second window assuming that everybody stands stationary and face-tanks enemy fire. The problem is all of that damage instantly converging onto a single spot.

Combine said chart with my hardpoint system.
Where 1 hardpoint meant for a medium laser can equip two small lasers.
1 hardpoint where an AC/10 could be equipped can be swapped for 2 AC/5s.
One SRM-6 hardpoint can be swapped for 3 SRM-2s or 2 Streak-2s.
One LRM-20 can be swapped for 4 LRM-5s, or an LRM-10 and SRM-6, or an LRM-10, LRM-5, and SRM-4.

Basically you can downgrade (to a point) for favorable numbers of smaller weapons.

Small weapons are weak and light. They are meant to be boated.
AC/2s are light for what they are and weak with very few slots; their advantage is range. Take their range, combine with boating, and you have a fire suppression weapon that doesn't need ghost heat.

Trade 12 ER ML for 24 ER SL. Canon heat values it's too hot to alpha strike 24 of them, but at 24 heat per 12 ER SL, at least you have the option of using the smaller Nova arms (with the 3 slots per arm, allowing you to carry 12 ER SL) with the higher agility for your trouble.

If you really think about it when looking at the heat values of lasers, it's pretty obvious the smaller they were, the more they were meant to be boated. The larger they were, the less. Same with ACs, and boy did they try hard in BT to make sure going too insane with AC/20s would be about impossible.

Edited by Koniving, 10 October 2014 - 01:58 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Awesome discussion, many interesting thoughts to keep in mind.



For me going forward, from where we currently are, here is what I'd try, to adjust these values:

Easiest, boost Armor 25% (something mentioned by the devs at one point as being on the table) and I'd distribute that increase first between increased max torso sections, with remainder for legs.

This would give 40 STD units per ton, 44.8 IS FF units & 48 Clan FF with these max values:

Spoiler

Second would be to lower Heat Capacity to 30 plus 0.1 per SHS or DHS. For example stock AWS-8Q with 28 SHS would be 32.8 Capacity from 28 SHS DWF-Prime would be 32 from 22 DHS.

Third would be to have IS AC weapons emulate Clan Ballistics (burst damage and so on) somewhat and other weapon tweaks for the intent of adding to MWO and adjustments on Heat, Cooldown, DPS and HPS as necessary for how players can currently target.

Fourth would be to have heat effects that emulate the original Heat Effects Table starting with an avoidable shutdown at 14 heat plus 0.1 per SHS or DHS, along with other heat effects since MWO is real-time (would be 16.8 for a stock AWS-8Q or 16 for a stock DWF-Prime for example).

Fifth after having Heat for Weapons being tweaked earlier, adjust dissipation in relation to the reduced Heat Capacity as necessary (such as true external Dubs).

There's more I'd look at, but in relation to the original idea of this thread, this is what I'd try out first.

---

Other issues to look at are Mech Efficiencies, Missile targeting in relation to ECM, further Hitbox tweaks and adding to the modules system so that they are not only an endgame item.