Quote
Having a low heat cap would not prevent high damage alphas, in fact to a certain point it just encourages high alpha sniping by taking a shot than hiding till you cool down, e.g. the most extreme Direstar, or more realistically any 2x gauss build is pretty much heatless.
Quote
The Gaussapult was the first. Then the Gaussjager, and all the way up to things like the quad-UAC/10 Direwolf ,Mauler AC boats, etc. etc.
Driving up heat problems only will make dakka more efficient. Dakka can and does death-star targets. You change nothing, only the sounds people make when you core them and the frustration level of people using energy weapons outside of the boat-a-geddon.
It would not prevent them, it will make them much less efficient, because at any point when you're trying to alpha everything you see, you'd overheat yourself and die, rather than just kill the offender one after another.
Like I've said, I see no an element of imbalance with Dual Gauss in either shape. It was a big offender before the charge mechanics, and it no longer is. It's the laser-vomit, that gives almost identical damage potential with little to none of enforced requirements or weaknesses.
When you see a typical Gauss/Laser Ebon Jaguar, it's not the Gauss that is a problem, but it's lasers, that it can use to defend itself, unhindered by anything. Don't even talking about a DireWhales, they're born with a target on their backs and deserve to be good for what they're loaded up for. Each Gauss and a ballistic weapon is a huge loadout investment and deserve to work as it is intended to. And yeah, some dakka's, like aforementioned UAC/10 Dires
are limited by heat capacity.
Quote
Convergence effectively lowers the damage of high alphas by spreading the damage across multiple sections, so instead of getting hit for 40 in one section you get hit for 20 in two, that is a big difference.
Convergence will effectively going to make any independent Solo Queue marksmanship abandoned, by enforcing counterintuitive rules. It would not just lower the damage, but will make them almost impossible. I cannot imagine how new players are going to play MWO, when they're going to continuously try to hit a target, and would not be able to, since all their rounds would just go past the target for no apparent reason. Useless bug reports will perpetuate indefinitely.
But please, do give me an example of a long range alpha, that can strike me with 40 damage pinpoint. I'm curious what the hell is that you're ralking about.
Quote
I think your missing the whole point here, this change is while it adds more reward to scouting, is more about reducing the effectiveness of long range high alpha sniping and adding meaning for people to get locks (which in turn adds value to information warfare quirks, modules, and equipment).
Im not missing it, I'm just presupposing that that the end result will make sniping as a whole completely meaningless. It would impede snipers to the point of denial on a basis, that they themselves cannot control.
Wanderer basically just suggesting to address a problem with a solution of unequal scale. The same way some people are arguing for balancing IS/Clan by weapon calibration.
If you or anyone personally do not value getting locks, doesn't means there's no value. I've already elaborated on that.
Quote
You would still be able to snipe, but you would have to stagger your shots or spread your damage across multiple sections, e.g. 2x gauss jagermech vs a target moving from right to left at range without a lock; you lead a bit less with the left gauss and a bit more with the right gauss or take both shots at once and have the couple meter spread of the mech's hardpoints. So if anything it adds some skills to the current lowest skill play style you can have of long range sniping.
Do you realize, that
when you leading your target, you're already converging at the ground beside it?
Quote
So this change would encourage pugs to play more like competitive players, this is bad?
No. It will make the game a pain for
everyone, for no good reason.
Quote
When I had the chance to run with folks, I was seeing people boring into unlocked targets with mechanical efficiency. I know, I was the guy in the LRM boat behind you watching it happen while getting my own locks on whatever -wasn't- being shot at.
It's a question of focus from multiple sources, not of how precise one can be without locks. It is also not a question of locks being maningless, but the question of it is possible to acquire a lock in the first place.
I'm regularly sniping for my unit with my Dual-Gauss JM6-A, mostly on Boreal Vault, and I still would be very, very grateful to have locks to disable components already damaged and to track enemy position and movement. It's not that I'm so ultra-pro killing machine that I
do not need locks, it's just that I
do not have them, and working with what I do have, which at the ranges in question results in 3 kills and roughly 600-700 total damage tops with a mech, that has 1200 damage potential (unless we're playing against Davions or something. These guys are hilarious).
Quote
In an ECM-heavy world, whatever value it has tends to vanish under "kill them by the numbers". I've seen games where locks lasted so little time, I just ended up wading in with my Orion and blasting things with my MPL/MG popguns, as 15 minutes and about 6 dead 'Mechs in, I hadn't seen a red box last more than 5-6 seconds. At least half the enemy team had ECM capacity.
I want ECM to go away as it exists now, as Jesusbox breaks the entire sensor game anyway. I want alpha damage to drop or end up having drawbacks, as we're up to the point of OSKing mediums in many cases. I want to stop seeing people casually OSK'ing lights and mediums with 180 degree noscope LPL snapshots. But I don't want them to whiff. I just want the damage to not all magically hit the same point like Luke Skywalker torpedoing an exhaust port with point-click-destroy.
Then address ECM, not a set of totally unrelated mechanics. If I remember correctly, PGI is planning to cut ECm cover range in half, which means that the effective coverage will be 4 times smaller. That's a good enough start I think.
What I'm trying to make you understand, is that when you have an issue, and you realize there is an issue, it is also important to determine what the source of that issue is, and then address it directly. If there's TTK problem, you address TTK, not some particular mech, that stands out from it. If there's a problem with IS/Clan balance, you adress IS/Clan balance, not the weapon balance. And so on. All the values and features in a game are interconnected. If you're trying to fix an issue trough an invalid node, you're getting something like Ghost-Heat, or present IS quirk system. Hoping to fix one issue, you're creating sever new issues, and trying to fixing them, you're creating even more. Or you're ending up "healing an arm by amputating it".
If PGI would consider something alike to what you're suggesting, we'll end up not with "Luke Skywalker torpedo run", but with "Clone troopers and rebels unable to hit each-other with particle rifles on 10m distances".
Edited by DivineEvil, 16 September 2015 - 11:50 PM.
6
), I hope.
