166 replies to this topic

[heimdelight]

Introducing more convoluted and arbitrary mechanics such as the ones proposed for the second PTS only adds to the games issues with complexity caused by pre-existing disorganization.

I personally feel like PGI is, again, using band-aids instead of going back to square one and fixing power creep in it's true form. Hampering the natural firepower that 12v12 brings (more mechs = statistically more firepower) to force, "infotech" into the game is causing more confusing and needless mechanics. It causes more problems than it solves.

I feel the solution to firepower is all in heatsinks, armor buffs, and a tending to edge cases (Clan 'Mechs with excess tonnage). Why?

The target crosshair should always flash red when you get a hit. Changing a mechanic that has never been complained about for the entirety of the game and can't possibly address any existing issues. This is not a change that should be made this far into the game. Players like to know when they are getting contact with their weapons, don't change that.

Damage being dependent on lock-on is my example of destroying the true nature of the game (natural firepower) to force infotech on the playerbase. This is a really, really arbitrary mechanic that causes far more issues and makes things way more confusing. It simply isn't worth bringing all these mechanics in for a solution when you have the right idea in an entirely different form. It's like you heard our complaints that infotech didnt matter, so you made it matter by requiring locks to do damage. That sounds ridiculous.

The heatsink changes are fantastic. Single heat sinks need usage. It's a step in the right direction and I support it.

However, again, I am recommending for firepower and armor balance before doing anything else. Removing all the quirks was a great idea, it removes a layer that makes it harder to balance other things.

Don't destroy the nature of the game (firepower) to get infotech working. Please.

Instead, IS 'Mechs should be the icons of armor and sustained firepower. Having more armor means your greater sustained firepower means more. This solves a lot of Clan XL/IS Engine disparity issues, since IS 'Mechs will naturally be way more tanky due to high-powered Clan Weapons.

Clan 'Mechs are quite literally designed to be power-boats. The way the Warhawk and Dire Wolf are organized (lots of weapons in arms, big torsos) makes them glass cannons.

Clan 'Mechs should be the Glass Cannons, and edge cases with excess tonnage have negative heat dissapation quirks (Since the issue with high free-tonnage builds is the ability to stack heatsinks with lots of firepower).

I really hope PGI reads this, and the playerbase, too. The introduced mechanics cannot be introduced as band-aids.

[Gas Guzzler]

heimdelight, on 14 October 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

Introducing more convoluted and arbitrary mechanics such as the ones proposed for the second PTS only adds to the games issues with complexity caused by pre-existing disorganization.

I personally feel like PGI is, again, using band-**** instead of going back to square one and fixing power creep in it's true form. Hampering the natural firepower that 12v12 brings (more mechs = statistically more firepower) to force, "infotech" into the game is causing more confusing and needless mechanics. It causes more problems than it solves.

I feel the solution to firepower is all in heatsinks, armor buffs, and a tending to edge cases (Clan 'Mechs with excess tonnage). Why?

The target crosshair should always flash red when you get a hit. Changing a mechanic that has never been complained about for the entirety of the game and can't possibly address any existing issues. This is not a change that should be made this far into the game. Players like to know when they are getting contact with their weapons, don't change that.

Damage being dependent on lock-on is my example of destroying the true nature of the game (natural firepower) to force infotech on the playerbase. This is a really, really arbitrary mechanic that causes far more issues and makes things way more confusing. It simply isn't worth bringing all these mechanics in for a solution when you have the right idea in an entirely different form. It's like you heard our complaints that infotech didnt matter, so you made it matter by requiring locks to do damage. That sounds ridiculous.

The heatsink changes are fantastic. Single heat sinks need usage. It's a step in the right direction and I support it.

However, again, I am recommending for firepower and armor balance before doing anything else. Removing all the quirks was a great idea, it removes a layer that makes it harder to balance other things.

Don't destroy the nature of the game (firepower) to get infotech working. Please.

Instead, IS 'Mechs should be the icons of armor and sustained firepower. Having more armor means your greater sustained firepower means more. This solves a lot of Clan XL/IS Engine disparity issues, since IS 'Mechs will naturally be way more tanky due to high-powered Clan Weapons.

Clan 'Mechs are quite literally designed to be power-boats. The way the Warhawk and Dire Wolf are organized (lots of weapons in arms, big torsos) makes them glass cannons.

Clan 'Mechs should be the Glass Cannons, and edge cases with excess tonnage have negative heat dissapation quirks (Since the issue with high free-tonnage builds is the ability to stack heatsinks with lots of firepower).

I really hope PGI reads this, and the playerbase, too. The introduced mechanics cannot be introduced as band-****.

Inb4 "If it is too complex for you go play CoD" Be ready

In order to add actual substance, I will say I mostly agree, but the DHS changes for IS are negligible, while over time the added dissipation of Clan DHS will prove to be more useful. That might need to be re-looked at..

[SkyHammyr]

Heimdelight, I played in the solo queue with you a few times and you are one badass dude.
I hope more of your comp buddies come and chime in here.
Game needs that.

[Lord0fHats]

My response to these changes (the ones I don't like) are as follows;

Quote

This is looking less like a rebalance and more like a "lets throw in some arbitrary mechanics to force players to play differently.

Edited by Lord0fHats, 14 October 2015 - 04:54 PM.

[heimdelight]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 October 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

Inb4 "If it is too complex for you go play CoD" Be ready

In order to add actual substance, I will say I mostly agree, but the DHS changes for IS are negligible, while over time the added dissipation of Clan DHS will prove to be more useful. That might need to be re-looked at..

The game is already pretty complex as it is. Since it is quite literally just a FPS PVP shooter, refining the quality of the gameplay is more important than adding complex mechanics for the sake of it. There are already a lot of complex mechanics, such as building a 'Mech (the biggest and best one).

And I totally agree, while it doesn't solve the issue entirely, it's a step in the right direction. Leaving single heat sinks as useless makes no sense to me.

SkyHammr, on 14 October 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

Heimdelight, I played in the solo queue with you a few times and you are one badass dude.
I hope more of your comp buddies come and chime in here.
Game needs that.

I'm going to try and get them to hop in if they like my ideas/criticism after reading them. You can also be sure that there will be a video or article on the PTS available on www.churchofskill.com soon

[hairpiece]

heimdelight, on 14 October 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

Introducing more convoluted and arbitrary mechanics such as the ones proposed for the second PTS only adds to the games issues with complexity caused by pre-existing disorganization.

I personally feel like PGI is, again, using band-**** instead of going back to square one and fixing power creep in it's true form. Hampering the natural firepower that 12v12 brings (more mechs = statistically more firepower) to force, "infotech" into the game is causing more confusing and needless mechanics. It causes more problems than it solves.

I feel the solution to firepower is all in heatsinks, armor buffs, and a tending to edge cases (Clan 'Mechs with excess tonnage). Why?

The target crosshair should always flash red when you get a hit. Changing a mechanic that has never been complained about for the entirety of the game and can't possibly address any existing issues. This is not a change that should be made this far into the game. Players like to know when they are getting contact with their weapons, don't change that.

Damage being dependent on lock-on is my example of destroying the true nature of the game (natural firepower) to force infotech on the playerbase. This is a really, really arbitrary mechanic that causes far more issues and makes things way more confusing. It simply isn't worth bringing all these mechanics in for a solution when you have the right idea in an entirely different form. It's like you heard our complaints that infotech didnt matter, so you made it matter by requiring locks to do damage. That sounds ridiculous.

The heatsink changes are fantastic. Single heat sinks need usage. It's a step in the right direction and I support it.

However, again, I am recommending for firepower and armor balance before doing anything else. Removing all the quirks was a great idea, it removes a layer that makes it harder to balance other things.

Don't destroy the nature of the game (firepower) to get infotech working. Please.

Instead, IS 'Mechs should be the icons of armor and sustained firepower. Having more armor means your greater sustained firepower means more. This solves a lot of Clan XL/IS Engine disparity issues, since IS 'Mechs will naturally be way more tanky due to high-powered Clan Weapons.

Clan 'Mechs are quite literally designed to be power-boats. The way the Warhawk and Dire Wolf are organized (lots of weapons in arms, big torsos) makes them glass cannons.

Clan 'Mechs should be the Glass Cannons, and edge cases with excess tonnage have negative heat dissapation quirks (Since the issue with high free-tonnage builds is the ability to stack heatsinks with lots of firepower).

I really hope PGI reads this, and the playerbase, too. The introduced mechanics cannot be introduced as band-****.

i agree with this statement

[Jack Shayu Walker]

I agree, piling a lock for full damage mechanic on top of the already neutered range of small lasers has brought them to their knees. To put the final nail in the coffin, brawlers who switch between targets rapidly are also punished by a lack of a hit-marker. What the hell is the point of that other than to throw off experienced players; it doesn't balance anything.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 14 October 2015 - 05:12 PM.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Hi there, Heim! Good to see you!

I disagree, by the way.

But still, glad you're staying active around here with us scrubs.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I can live with most of the changes we've seen in the PTS so far.

And the devs probably need to go further with HS values and the gifted 30 Capacity we have and have Heat Containment be disabled or converted to boost Dissipation (so the new total boost would go to 35% from 15% if that were to happen).

At the very least, allow DHS to be the same when mounted on a mech, so no more split between Engine and externals.

So at this point, I would consider IS DHS at 0.2 Dissipation 1.6 Capacity and C-DHS at 0.2 Dissipation 1.2 Capacity.

Then have the gifted 30 reduced down to 14

---

So on an Elited mech, Dissipation is increased, and Capacity is Reduced.

20 IS DHS would provide 4.6 Dissipation 46 Capacity (if we see the 35% boost that's 5.4 Dissipation).

20 C-DHS would provide 4.6 Dissipation 38 Capacity (if we see the 35% boost that's 5.4 Dissipation).

[heimdelight]

I see people telling me they disagree and saying they can live with the changes, but they never explain why. They are just accepting change, and don't want the best form of it. Instead, they want the nature of the game to be altered significantly for the sake of introducing a system that makes the game more convoluted.

[Hydrocarbon]

I was among the horde that was against infotech, but I'm really reconsidering the lock-on mechanic. If you've played Eve-online, their lock mechanics allow pinpricks of a ship not get one-shot'd by a ship 3x it's size. It will make lights more important to support long-range assaults. Big mechs were usually used for closer combat, not triple gauss shenanigans.

Overall the complexity behind quirks is actually a LOT for a new player to understand, especially if they're from the old BT days where an Orion wasn't just a 75-t pile of crap, for instance.

Remember they are testing what works & what doesn't, rather than letting us taste their Final Release Candidate. I feel infotech actually can help the game at this point, but it does need some help.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Hydrocarbon, on 14 October 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:

I was among the horde that was against infotech, but I'm really reconsidering the lock-on mechanic. If you've played Eve-online, their lock mechanics allow pinpricks of a ship not get one-shot'd by a ship 3x it's size. It will make lights more important to support long-range assaults. Big mechs were usually used for closer combat, not triple gauss shenanigans.

Overall the complexity behind quirks is actually a LOT for a new player to understand, especially if they're from the old BT days where an Orion wasn't just a 75-t pile of crap, for instance.

Remember they are testing what works & what doesn't, rather than letting us taste their Final Release Candidate. I feel infotech actually can help the game at this point, but it does need some help.

The "lock-for-full-damage" mechanic is unreasonably brutal on small lasers. They need immunity from it, or the range at which lock is required needs to be a flat range which the small lasers are outside of, say 500 meters and then the lasers damage drop off begins or increases down to it's max range.

[oldradagast]

heimdelight, on 14 October 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

I see people telling me they disagree and saying they can live with the changes, but they never explain why. They are just accepting change, and don't want the best form of it. Instead, they want the nature of the game to be altered significantly for the sake of introducing a system that makes the game more convoluted.

This is what is frustrating me. Far too many people saying, "Well, it's different, so it's good!" or "Well, I can live with it, so let's do it!" or "If you haven't played on the PTS, you shouldn't be allowed to apply any common sense or reason to the changes you've read about because only through experience can you see how wonderful / tolerable they are!"

Either all the white knights have come out of the woodwork again, or people are confusing "different" with better and are willing to accept any steaming pile of random lunacy if it gives the impression at this point that "real balance" is coming and shakes up the meta for a few days. A similar effect could be achieved by just assigning a random damage multiplier to every weapon that changes daily - that doesn't mean the game benefits from such random change or balance is any closer to being achieved.

Most of what I've seen in the PTS notes makes little sense (ghost damage on lasers? Really? Vanishing crosshair flash? Why?) and clearly reeks of a mix of desperation on PGI's part and throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. A few changes might be good, most are neutral to poor, and I don't think a single one of them actually FIXES anything in the game vs. CHANGING it at random.

Let us not confuse change with improvement, or action with progress.

Edited by oldradagast, 14 October 2015 - 05:39 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

I put up a poll, and 50% of the community apparently thinks it's cool as can be that they have to achieve a lock before getting hit-markers.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

heimdelight, on 14 October 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

I see people telling me they disagree and saying they can live with the changes, but they never explain why. They are just accepting change, and don't want the best form of it. Instead, they want the nature of the game to be altered significantly for the sake of introducing a system that makes the game more convoluted.

Equipment / Item Health probably should be calculated according to used crit slots and tonnage, so that we have bigger weapons be tougher than smaller weapons, in relation to how the current crit-ing system is setup, than just adding a +5.

The changes to lasers' range at least brings better parity between the two techs, and the Targeting Damage mechanic at least adds another layer to laser vomit when compared to ballistics that have velocity, bullet drop and so on.

The reticle changes are a step in the right direction, I need more time to get a better grasp of how it feels and influences play.

Sensor range differences are necessary to better fulfill elements of role warfare, so another step in the right direction.

Having different Target acquisition rates can be another balancing point to help mechs with fewer hardpoints, compared to mechs that can boat weapons, once the devs get to changing that from its current value.

Target Information Sharing is another step in the right direction and should add to team play, as the values are iterated and tested out.

[Hydrocarbon]

If they didn't code themselves into a corner, they could reduce/eliminate it for smalls with 2 minutes of a code monkey's time.

My first match was in river city in a weird brawl with us in the water & them in upper city. I had no issues hitting "R" each time a new target peeked out, no harder than it was to aim & click my mouse button.

[Twinkleblade]

I agree/dont have an opinion on most points of your post.
However I do disagree in this:

heimdelight, on 14 October 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

Damage being dependent on lock-on is my example of destroying the true nature of the game (natural firepower) to force infotech on the playerbase. This is a really, really arbitrary mechanic that causes far more issues and makes things way more confusing. It simply isn't worth bringing all these mechanics in for a solution when you have the right idea in an entirely different form. It's like you heard our complaints that infotech didnt matter, so you made it matter by requiring locks to do damage. That sounds ridiculous.

In my opinion natural firepower is not its true nature. I think its more about positioning.
Having your group in a superior position where you can use your firepower is more important then raw firepower.
The changes to laser dont change that in any way, they actually reward proper positioning.

Lights/mediums can get the locks while engaging and heavies/assaults profit from that. A good fireline relies more on position then on firepower.

Furthermore your damage being based on lock on is already in the game, Long Range Missiles.
The only change from the lock on for laser means you have 2 falloff points. 1 at short range and 1 for the long range, depending on lock. Considering how good lasers are thats a fine tradeoff.
As a player all you need to know is, lock on = more damage at longer range.
I dont see how this is complicated.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

heimdelight, on 14 October 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

I see people telling me they disagree and saying they can live with the changes, but they never explain why. They are just accepting change, and don't want the best form of it. Instead, they want the nature of the game to be altered significantly for the sake of introducing a system that makes the game more convoluted.

Sorry man. At work, on an iPhone during a break. More to follow later.

FWIW, I DO respect your opinions.

[heimdelight]

Praetor Knight, on 14 October 2015 - 05:46 PM, said:

The changes to lasers' range at least brings better parity between the two techs, and the Targeting Damage mechanic at least adds another layer to laser vomit when compared to ballistics that have velocity, bullet drop and so on.

The reticle changes are a step in the right direction, I need more time to get a better grasp of how it feels and influences play.

Sensor range differences are necessary to better fulfill elements of role warfare, so another step in the right direction.

This is my issue with your reasoning: my proposal achieves the same thing (brings parity between IS and Clan) without introducing arbitrary mechanics that the game does not need. And the longer TTK is, the more important information acquisition becomes. TTK is low due to 12v12. Even at 30 point alphas, it's an immense amount of potential focused firepower on to one enemy 'Mech.

Clans are glass cannons, edge cases ('Mechs with excess free tonnage) are individually nerfed, and Inner Sphere 'Mechs are all about being tanky and having sustained firepower. It fixes Clan and IS engine disparity.

Achieves the same exact thing. but with less mechanics that are arbitrary and convoluted like ghost heat. It's the same concept of a good programmer cleaning up existing code to function more efficiently without adding a bunch of extra stuff.

Twinkleblade, on 14 October 2015 - 05:52 PM, said:

I agree/dont have an opinion on most points of your post.
However I do disagree in this:


In my opinion natural firepower is not its true nature. I think its more about positioning.
Having your group in a superior position where you can use your firepower is more important then raw firepower.
The changes to laser dont change that in any way, they actually reward proper positioning.

Clan 'Mechs are naturally firepower based. That is statistically true, and true in lore as well. By altering how they deal damage you are altering the nature of the game.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

I agree, piling a lock for full damage mechanic on top of the already neutered range of small lasers has brought them to their knees. To put the final nail in the coffin, brawlers who switch between targets rapidly are also punished by a lack of a hit-marker. What the hell is the point of that other than to throw off experienced players; it doesn't balance anything.

I ran a few C-SPL builds, I tend to fight close in anyway so it didn't affect me, but this is the sort of feedback that the devs need to collect.

In another thread, I figured, depending on how it's coded, there can be differences based on classes, so Larges stay at 60%, Mediums could go to 75%, and Smalls maybe 90% or no change, for example.