213 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Howdy.

Few who play this game objectively can deny that TTK, in general, can be far too fast. We have many culprits. Perfect, instance Convergence. Mass Focus Fire. Alpha Strikes without penalty. Power Creep weapons loadout capability.

Well, one thought that popped in my head this morning, was a combination of rethinking, and extending cooldowns, but also, to combine them with a GH type mechanic into a "Staggered Cooldown".

What do I mean?

Well, all weapons would have their Cooldowns re-evaluated, with many of the BFGs getting significantly longer ones, but even smaller weapons having them extended, overall. But on top of that, each weapon would have a staggered cooldown phase, where you have a "ready" cooldown, and a "safe" cooldown. Essentially, your weapon is designed to be fired every X seconds, but it can be hot loaded and fired faster, but with a GH multiplier.

For example?

A Medium Laser for instance with a 3/5 interval. Meaning that the bare minimum to fire is 3 seconds, but it's designed for a 5 second cooldown. So if you wait 5 seconds it generates the "proper" 3 pts of heat (instead of the garbage 4, now), but if you fire is in that window between 3-5 seconds it has a GH multiplier?

Make PPCs like a 5/7 window, Gauss a Hard 7 second with no charge (maybe IS get s 6 seconds), AC20s 4/6 but with their current heavy GH multiplier, and then some lesser loved weapons like AC10s etc with much less brutal multipliers. Keep the LB-X at a pretty low, near ac5 cooldown, to comp for it's lack of penetration, etc?

I'm thinking even a baseline would be double the heat. Thus what would take 3 alphas now probably would happen in two. And I would keep the Numerical GH there too, so for instance you double tap 2 ac20 during the hot mode, you are pretty much auto shutdown, like when you do dual double tapped UAC20s, atm.

Yes, the real pros will learn to ride the razors edge, but that's what they do anyhow. And that's what 1-3% of the playerbase?

Also, some weapons, like AC2, ac5 and LB-X need relatively high RoF to be useful, and it's OK if they out DPS some of the bigger weapons, since DPS never is better than PP-FLD.

The hard part would be doing UACs so their own doubletap doesn't auto cook them. That and Quirks would have to be re-evaluated (thrown away, mostly?), but perhaps instead of Cooldown, they would have ones that affect their GH mulitpliers, etc.

Anyhow, it's a vestigial idea, and the numbers are not locked in stone. But Convergence and Sized Hardpoints are pretty much off the table. Russ hates even a situational CoF (which I would champion), Fixed convergence, tbh, is kind of dumb. PGI seems disinclined to touch the Heatscale, and most people can't agree on how to fix it, anyhow. So, just trying to think outside the box, what could be done that keeps the flavor of the game, but would affect TTK without relying on these increasingly "mandatory" over the top Quirks.

As I said, not a fully fleshed out idea, but one that I think has some merit. Thoughts?

[Squirg]

No thanks.

[Juodas Varnas]

Anything's better than what we have now.

[Damien Tokala]

A potato would be better than the current heat system we have.

By like... Tenfold...

[Outlaw]

Personally, id say nix GH completely and go with a hard capped Heat scale at 30 (35-40 with skills) and heat management becomes a needed skill in the game.

Edited by Outlaw, 25 July 2015 - 04:40 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Outlaw, on 25 July 2015 - 04:40 AM, said:

Personally, id say nix GH completely and go with a hard capped Heat scale at 30 (35-40 with skills) and heat management becomes a needed skill in the game.

I'm pretty against a hard capped Heatscale for various reasons, while acknowledging that it does need a redesign (do feel that mechs with tons of DHS should increase Cap, though maybe not as much as now). Regardless, that is a different topic.

Squirg, on 25 July 2015 - 04:35 AM, said:

No thanks.

Very informative. Usually the shorter and more dismissive the answer, the less likely the answerer actually read the post.

[LORD ORION]

Reduce armor to table top levels.

You won't be forced to fight like it's the 17th century where you all line up and shoot at one target at a time with your muskets.

Pugs can be dangerous... they'll hurt a mech before they die in a blaze of concentrated firepower.

[TercieI]

Interesting. You'd have to set the numbers so that slow firing would out-DPS fast firing by a reasonable amount to make a legitite trade off between burst and DPS damage.

I'm generally opposed to massive changes, but the thought process here is intriguing.

[Juodas Varnas]

LORD ORION, on 25 July 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

Reduce armor to table top levels.

Then let's make the weapon cooldowns 10 seconds.
And add random spread. Like you'd roll a d6 to choose which location your weapon hits.

[Sarlic]

Quote

Russ hates even a situational CoF (which I would champion), Fixed convergence, tbh, is kind of dumb.

[Damien Tokala]

I would honestly prefer to play this game for two weeks with everything set to tabletop, no quirks or perks, stock loadout and proper is vs clan.

Come on pgi... Two weeks. Make an event of it, and monitor the player base reactions

[Water Bear]

Damien Tokala, on 25 July 2015 - 04:57 AM, said:

I would honestly prefer to play this game for two weeks with everything set to tabletop, no quirks or perks, stock loadout and proper is vs clan.

Come on pgi... Two weeks. Make an event of it, and monitor the player base reactions

Why? The outcome is painfully obvious to anyone who's played tabletop for many years. A stock clan mech is roughly 2-3 times better than any stock IS mech 3050. Besides that, I have read that 10v12 was tried briefly after Clans were introduced and C won that.

Bishop Steiner, on 25 July 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

Very informative. Usually the shorter and more dismissive the answer, the less likely the answerer actually read the post.

As of right now this thread is mostly OT. The only suggestion I will add now, before having thought out your idea deeply, is that it would be nice to include some indicator for the players that they were within the GH cooldown threshold. Also, are you proposing that the GH window is equal to the cooldown our weapons currently have? If it's shorter I would be worried about players chain firing at even higher rates while avoiding GH.

[TheCharlatan]

I belive that it wouldn't change anything.
The problem IMO is in the fact that long range weapons with high alphas (especially Clan ones, but also heavily quirked IS ones) are "low risk, high reward" ones.
If you pack on ER-PPCs/Gauss/long range lasers you find yourself doing extremely high damage, then moving in cover and waiting for either cooldowns or heat to go down.
Nothing except another long range sniper can challenge you, unless the enemy team manages to close the gap: something that is pretty hard, if you consider that each alpha shot could easily core a mech.
Longer cooldowns won't make a difference to a sniper, since what caps his DPS is heat, not cooldowns.
In CQC, TTK is not as short as in long range: few risk a high heat CQC build, as you simply cannot sustain it.
In a brawl you can't just disengage as soon as you are too hot (unless with some hit&run builds, that however sacrifice staying power and are easy prey of fast mechs with better Cooling Efficency) so you have to build a mech with lower alpha (or a high alpha with SRMs, that splat all over the place) and better heat efficency.
The snipers in this game can easily go up and over 100% heat (as long as you are moving back in cover when you shoot you will "drift" into safety) with a huge alpha and not even care.
The heat scale is the problem: you can use all the weapons you want and suffer very small drawbacks, as long as you are at long range.

[Bishop Steiner]

Terciel1976, on 25 July 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:

Interesting. You'd have to set the numbers so that slow firing would out-DPS fast firing by a reasonable amount to make a legitite trade off between burst and DPS damage.

I'm generally opposed to massive changes, but the thought process here is intriguing.

I'm thinking in large part that the idea is to only make it worth it for emergency fire, not something that the Pros will just run the ragged edge of exploiting. (Of course that was the TT idea behind a UAC, too, and look where we are now, with everyone wanting them to be double RoF ACs for no trade off)

But perhaps another enticement might be to give some of the weapons a slight break on heat if they wait the full cooldown. Not sure. Problem with most of these ideas, is they can almost never stay as simple as the principal thought.

LORD ORION, on 25 July 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

Reduce armor to table top levels.

You won't be forced to fight like it's the 17th century where you all line up and shoot at one target at a time with your muskets.

Pugs can be dangerous... they'll hurt a mech before they die in a blaze of concentrated firepower.

Juodas Varnas, on 25 July 2015 - 04:53 AM, said:

Then let's make the weapon cooldowns 10 seconds.
And add random spread. Like you'd roll a d6 to choose which location your weapon hits.

Or, let's keep the conversation on THIS subject, whether good or bad? K, thx.

Sarlic, on 25 July 2015 - 04:55 AM, said:

not quite sure which emotion, pro or con you were going for, lol. Cool gif though (not sure if it's "dayum, shots fired", or what, TBH)

[JernauM]

Yes, let's add some more complicated and non-transparent game mechanics.

[Bishop Steiner]

Water Bear, on 25 July 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

Why? The outcome is painfully obvious to anyone who's played tabletop for many years. A stock clan mech is roughly 2-3 times better than any stock IS mech 3050. Besides that, I have read that 10v12 was tried briefly after Clans were introduced and C won that.



As of right now this thread is mostly OT. The only suggestion I will add now, before having thought out your idea deeply, is that it would be nice to include some indicator for the players that they were within the GH cooldown threshold. Also, are you proposing that the GH window is equal to the cooldown our weapons currently have? If it's shorter I would be worried about players chain firing at even higher rates while avoiding GH.

Totally agree. We already have cooldown bars, simply had a "redline" added.

JernauM, on 25 July 2015 - 05:21 AM, said:

Yes, let's add some more complicated and non-transparent game mechanics.

It's actually neither, but thanks for playing. By all means, let's let apathy and entropy continue to determine the course of the game, instead.

[xe N on]

Simply increase armor. A medium laser in BT TT does 5 damage as it does in MWO. However, one turn is around 10 secs so a medium laser does 5 damage in 10 secs = 0.5 DPS. In MWO the DPS of the ML is 1.28, more then double as in BT TT. So should be the armor.

[Bishop Steiner]

TheCharlatan, on 25 July 2015 - 05:14 AM, said:

I belive that it wouldn't change anything.
The problem IMO is in the fact that long range weapons with high alphas (especially Clan ones, but also heavily quirked IS ones) are "low risk, high reward" ones.
If you pack on ER-PPCs/Gauss/long range lasers you find yourself doing extremely high damage, then moving in cover and waiting for either cooldowns or heat to go down.
Nothing except another long range sniper can challenge you, unless the enemy team manages to close the gap: something that is pretty hard, if you consider that each alpha shot could easily core a mech.
Longer cooldowns won't make a difference to a sniper, since what caps his DPS is heat, not cooldowns.
In CQC, TTK is not as short as in long range: few risk a high heat CQC build, as you simply cannot sustain it.
In a brawl you can't just disengage as soon as you are too hot (unless with some hit&run builds, that however sacrifice staying power and are easy prey of fast mechs with better Cooling Efficency) so you have to build a mech with lower alpha (or a high alpha with SRMs, that splat all over the place) and better heat efficency.
The snipers in this game can easily go up and over 100% heat (as long as you are moving back in cover when you shoot you will "drift" into safety) with a huge alpha and not even care.
The heat scale is the problem: you can use all the weapons you want and suffer very small drawbacks, as long as you are at long range.

Valid points, but one big problem I find with most thinking on the forums is everyone thinks in terms of "one idea to solve them alL". End of the day, we will need a mix of synergistic ideas.

As for closing the gap? That's less a weapons mechanics issue, and more of a lack of intestinal fortitude one, since the good teams aggressively do just that, already. But you pack up your Hellstar with 4 ERPPC and go alphaing, you are even more toast to any wolfpack that wants you.

xe N on, on 25 July 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

Simply increase armor. A medium laser in BT TT does 5 damage as it does in MWO. However, one turn is around 10 secs so a medium laser does 5 damage in 10 secs = 0.5 DPS. In MWO the DPS of the ML is 1.28, more then double as in BT TT. So should be the armor.

Getting tired of armor increases. Some weapons are supposed to be scary and devastating. AC20, UAC20, Gauss, even the PPC. This continued trend toward PaperCut Warrior will drive me away from the game faster than anything.

Pre-Quirks, no one feared a single AC20. That's just wrong on so many levels.

Right now, we have an issue with high damage, low risk alphas, but also, volume of fire. One thing wont fix it all, so it's time to really look at what is needed. IMO, more armor? Ain't it.

[Armorine]

Oh god no. No more armor increases. Our mechs are already double armored. We need a proper heat scale.

[Bishop Steiner]

Armorine, on 25 July 2015 - 05:30 AM, said:

Oh god no. No more armor increases. Our mechs are already double armored. We need a proper heat scale.

Indeed, though we need to really agree on just what "proper" heat scale is. TT was not truly a "hard Cap" because of the way the turns played out, nor do I feel a singular hard cap is the answer here, though a "harder" cap than what we got is needed, along with heat effects before hitting 100% on the scale.

Would like to save that conversation though for the 1001 topics already posted on heatscale, and focus on the pros or cons of this idea as a supplemental to it.

Also...with your player name, shouldn't you be 100% for more armor?