385 replies to this topic

[Brawler1986]

Add a focus and convergence delay. Its the same as for steady aim with sniping. Also i think the delay will be based on movement of your mech. If your mech is moving, its harder to create a perfect shot. Just add a slight handicap pinpoint aiming.

[DivineEvil]

Question: What is the role of Heat Capacity in BATTLETECH in general?
Answer: It's the limitation of weapon usage in a limited time frame.
In TT, its the 10s round. In MWO it's the alpha-strike.

Question: Then, if alpha-strike is a big issue, what is a natural way to solve it?
Answer: Nerf the heat capacity.

Question: How exactly that should be done?
Answer: Nerfing heat capacity trough heatsinks is invalid, as it takes away the value off from that equipment. Players has to be able to customize their mechs reasonably, which includes heat systems. Nerfing heatsinks will make them more redundant for the mech overall performance and an inferior choice compared to additional weapons, ammunition or utility equipment. As result, the best alternative is to nerf the base heat capacity instead, and in the present scale of the issue, it even reasonable to remove it entirely and keep heat capacity dependant on the heatsinks alone.

Question: Why removing base heat capacity is reasonable?
Answer: Current base heat capacity is 30 points. Atop of that goes the 20 points from 10 minimum DHS, not counting for the inferior SHS and Light mechs with lower engine limits. This added-up 50 point cap is increased further by Double-Basics skill unlocks, up to the 60 points total.

60 points of heat cap, on the 250-rated engine with minimum 10 DHS and double-basics, is unacceptable. Without Heat Scale, that were enough to fire 6xPPC in 0C degree environment as alpha-strike without overheating. This is far beyond what the mechanic should be able to tolerate. That gives every single mech a severely oversized freedom for using massive laser arrays and reduces the practical necessity of additional heatsinks.

On the other hand, heatsinks and their dissipation rates particularly are not adjusted for the increased mech durability and weapon cooldowns, while structure-mounted double heatsinks are even nerfed. In general, that makes continuous combat unviable and highly favors high alpha, limited exposure, hit-and-run tactics, as unadjusted heatsinks are incapable of dissipating heat well enough even when supplementing missile and ballistic loadouts.

Removal of the base heat capacity will leave all heatsinks as the only factor responsible for the amount of heat capacity the player will have to account for.

Question: How exactly a current heat system is going to work without base heat capacity?
Answer: It's wont be able to. In order for heat management to be reasonable, several additional adjustments has to be implemented together with the removal of base heat capacity:

• Double Heatsinks has to return to their initial state. All DHS should work at 2.0 ratio, and IS DHS might be allowed to require 2 critical slots, rather than 3, considering the additional dependency on them for any heat-dependant loadouts.
  
• Single Heatsinks should be buffed to the 1.4 ratio, in order to provide newer players with easier heat-management and potentially creating SHS-friendly loadouts. Since only external DHS would be buffed to 2.0, SHS buff will make them better in comparison to SHS we have now.
  
• Heat Scale has to be removed entirely. Limited heat capacity should in theory fulfill all the objectives, that Ghost Heat currently does. If flat heat capacity will be enough of a boundary for any weapon systems, no convoluted and undescribed multipliers will be necessary.
  
• Heat capacity and heat dissipation values should be displayed openly, without the need of arbitrary "heat efficiency" value. Even casual players should be able to individually determine how much firepower they can unleash momentarily, and how much time they would require for replenishing their heat gauge.
  
• If resulting heatsink-only heat capacity and dissipation value will result in unhandy, slow and erratic combat in testing observations, base heat dissipation can be implemented instead to boost the combat a bit.

In effect that should achieve a highly dynamic combat model, where players will require to pay more attention to the dynamics of heat usage and corresponding warnings, rather than simply relying on fractions of heat gauge required to sustain an alpha strike. It will also encourage the loadout of several different types of weapons for using in different conditions, ranges and overheat levels, rather than relying on uniform splat. It will also bring heatsinks to the equal value for the 1t of loadout they occupy. It will reduce TTK by making combat more stretched over time. It will make coolshots less universal due to overall better dissipation rates and lower heat capacity they work upon. Some values can be used to given IS mechs an advantage over Clanners.

Edited by DivineEvil, 05 November 2015 - 06:26 AM.

[Greyhart]

I would really like them just to have a PTS changing the heat capacity and seeing how that changes things up.

[Duke Nedo]

Didn't see this until now but I cast my vote on Energy Drain. The way I see it this would be like an "adjusted and comprehensive version of ghost heat with a new name".

Why? Because that's the only fix that actually fixes the problem of big alphas. None of the other "solutions" addresses big alphas without either being possible to circumvent, or by forcing missing/spreading. Lowered heat cap and convergance are the worst imo, sorry for saying it loud I know these two are the love children of the mwo internets. They don't fix it, the either nerf movement (convergence, being a tower is OP etc), or makes Gauss OP (because heat is a blunt tool for balance).

[DivineEvil]

Duke Nedo, on 05 November 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

Didn't see this until now but I cast my vote on Energy Drain. The way I see it this would be like an "adjusted and comprehensive version of ghost heat with a new name".

Why? Because that's the only fix that actually fixes the problem of big alphas. None of the other "solutions" addresses big alphas without either being possible to circumvent, or by forcing missing/spreading. Lowered heat cap and convergance are the worst imo, sorry for saying it loud I know these two are the love children of the mwo internets. They don't fix it, the either nerf movement (convergence, being a tower is OP etc), or makes Gauss OP (because heat is a blunt tool for balance).

Energy Drain can fix something, but it incorporates an absolutely new heat management clone system, completely alien to everything BATTLETECH were based upon, and ultimately unnecessary.

Convergence has the same flavour to it - it's an unnecessary complex system, even worse than the laser target focus we're testing right now.

But claiming, that Heat Cap nerf won't do it, based on a Gauss alone, is plainly stupid. I mean, it's the heaviest weapon in the game, very few mechs can carry a pair of those effectively, and it has enough underlying mechanics to make it unfavorable to carry it, unless you want to use it wor it's intended role - sniping. Otherwise, you're basically carrying a block of explosive into the melee, that will misfigure you from the inside the moment it is touched. Simply getting it's cooldown duration up to 5,5 seconds have already made people whine over it.

Gauss is popular not that much because it is overpowered by itself, but because it complements the laser-vomit loadout perfectly, hence the another point where an average heat capacity seems off. If heat dissipation would be placed in a more dynamic state, any AC calibers would work just as good in Gauss place.

Edited by DivineEvil, 05 November 2015 - 11:18 PM.

[Duke Nedo]

DivineEvil, on 05 November 2015 - 11:15 PM, said:

But claiming, that Heat Cap nerf won't do it, based on a Gauss alone, is plainly stupid.

No it isn't... I agree that Gauss by itself is not OP as it is now (ok, clan gauss could be borderline at 12 tons), but that's not the point.

The point is that the current meta is always decided by the terror balance between weapon systems. Heat affects some A LOT, for example ER-PPCs and the largest lasers, but others much less. Gauss is the extreme case, hence the example, but the same applies to cSPLs, AC/5s, AC/20s etc. Just lowering the heat cap and increasing dissipation is not the magic silver bullet. It will perturb the terror balance and something else including Gauss and/or ACs will just come out on top, while some chassi variants with only E hardpoints will be completely crippled. Also note that even within the Energy class it self, 2 ERPPCs doing 20 damage generates the same heat as 10 cSPLs doing 60 damage! Heat alone is not the answer, ok?

If it had been that easy, I am pretty sure that not even PGI would have invented Ghost Heat (because GH took more effort). It was invented because it does the job they wanted at the time, i.e. nerfing 3+ PPCs and 2+ AC/20s at the same time, which heat will not do. Not saying it was a good way to do it, in fact I think it was a horrible implementation... but it somehow worked. Only thing I don't understand is why they left these big gaping holes in it, like allowing LPLs+MLs.

Imo a power drain system is the only thing that would work. Not only would it work, it would add a new balance parameter that is not locked down by Lore. PGI could use it to allow for example the Awesome to handle a higher power drain (at least 3x PPCs like they're supposed to) than a Stalker (who has good enough hardpoints and geometry cope with less).

Edited by Duke Nedo, 06 November 2015 - 01:29 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Quote

The point is that the current meta is always decided by the terror balance between weapon systems.

Current meta is always decided by the prevalent opinion in the community, regardless of the actual balance. Meta, or as it is known in it's full form the "meta-game", is the generalized agreement, or popular assumption, about what is the best existing way of playing the game, developed outside of the game itself, hence the prefix "meta-", meaning "outside of", "beyond" or "after".

Prior to implementation of most recent Clan mechs, we at TCAF has developed our own method of combat in CW based solely on direct assaults with close-range weapons, that allowed us to cedimate any other teams, IS or Clan, continuously and finish the first CW phase as the 1st ranked Unit by planets conquered. All this time every other Unit was firmly assured, that Gauss and ER-LLaser meta were the ultimate, unbeatable meta build. So, despite general public has arrived to that opinion and made it "The Meta", they were actually wrong.

Quote

Heat affects some A LOT, for example ER-PPCs and the largest lasers, but others much less. Gauss is the extreme case, hence the example, but the same applies to cSPLs, AC/5s, AC/20s etc. Just lowering the heat cap and increasing dissipation is not the magic silver bullet. It will perturb the terror balance and something else including Gauss and/or ACs will just come out on top, while some chassi variants with only E hardpoints will be completely crippled.

I'm not sure how exactly you've missed that point, but this is the whole foundation of different weapon systems in BATTLETECH. Energy weapons weight less, they require no ammunition, but depend on heat to limit their damage output over time. Ballistic weapons weight a lot, they almost independent from heat, but depend on ammunition to limit their maximum damage output in a match. Missiles are middle-ground between those, they require some ammunition, they are limited by some heat, their weight and size is average between Energy and Ballistics, they deal more damage, but spread it, and easy to reach minimum efficiency, while almost never perform to their maximum.

Nerf to the heat capacity will not perturb anything, it will just make the weapons to perform as they're expected to. The whole reason behind the current laser-vomit situation, is that Lasers are light-weight, small, easy-to use, flexible weapons, that are easiest to boat in enormous amounts, that can deal as much damage as Ballistic weapons, all of which is limited by one single factor of heat, and that limitation is not doing its job sufficiently.

Quote

Also note that even within the Energy class it self, 2 ERPPCs doing 20 damage generates the same heat as 10 cSPLs doing 60 damage! Heat alone is not the answer, ok?

It is the answer. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest when you compare those weapons, really. 2xERPPCs has just enough advantages over 10xC-SPLs to make a damage difference justified.

Quote

If it had been that easy, I am pretty sure that not even PGI would have invented Ghost Heat (because GH took more effort). It was invented because it does the job they wanted at the time, i.e. nerfing 3+ PPCs and 2+ AC/20s at the same time, which heat will not do.

PGI had more than enough appearances of ridiculous decision-making, and Ghost Heat is just one that stood out for so long, that everyone kinda accepted it as they're not gonna take it out anyway now feature. The fact that the system took more effort to implement doesn't make it any more viable, and the reasoning behind it to nerf specific situations is merely a result of PGI's ineptitude at that long-past time.

PGI had problems with AC/40s and PPCs doombolts, but they didn't had problems with other weapons, because there were no mechs able to abuse other weapons. Congratulations, now we have those! And laser-vomit issues we have now are directly related to that lack of perspective. If, instead of making several shots of AC/20 or PPCs worth more heat points, PGI would simply make heat points themselves worth more, then we wouldn't have the issues we have now.

So yeah, heat will do it. And not only it will, but it will do it in obvious, open ways understandable for anyone, while reducing TTK and disposing of ******** hidden mechanics. And in that case, situations like LPL+ML will begone, because all weapons will be treated equally correspondingly to their initial heat tax, no matter how you group them. If you think it will not do it, prove it with math.

Quote

Imo a power drain system is the only thing that would work. Not only would it work, it would add a new balance parameter that is not locked down by Lore. PGI could use it to allow for example the Awesome to handle a higher power drain (at least 3x PPCs like they're supposed to) than a Stalker (who has good enough hardpoints and geometry cope with less).

You see, that's the problem. Energy Drain system, in the form most people imagine it, would represent nothing more than an whole second heat system for fixing particular cases. This idea is just as inadequate and inconstructive, as the Ghost Heat Scale originally were. There's simply no justification for implementing a whole new level of complexity for fixing one or two undesirable situations.

Specific issues, like Awesomes, has to be approached individually, such as making them relatively Tanky compared to other 80-tonners, which is already suggested by lore alone. If all Awesome variants will be more durable, than Victors or Zeus, then oversized hitboxes wouldn't be much of an issue. Other than that, Awesomes has to cope with the issues, that also arise from the same ill-designed heat management - even overquirked 8Q still cannot work well with 18 DHS, because these nerfed DHS ain't worth bananas in terms of heat dissipation. Similar to all other energy boats, you're forced to unleash as many shots as your overgrowth heat capacity would allow, and then run away. The removal of base heat capacity and restoration of heatsink efficiency will both greatly migitate laser-vomit and PPC-barfing and will reintroduce open energy brawling.

Edited by DivineEvil, 06 November 2015 - 06:12 AM.

[Hotthedd]

DivineEvil, on 06 November 2015 - 05:49 AM, said:

It is the answer. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest when you compare those weapons, really. 2xERPPCs has just enough advantages over 10xC-SPLs to make a damage difference justified.

I agree with everything you wrote except this. The only advantage the ERPPC has is range. It isn't even PPFLD due to the splash damage.
In BattleTech, one of the balancing mechanisms was also that all of the weapons would not hit the same component. I believe MW:O needs that mechanic as well (at least with group fire. Individual shots should be rewarded with precision).

Edited by Hotthedd, 06 November 2015 - 06:24 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

DivineEvil, on 06 November 2015 - 05:49 AM, said:

Current meta is always decided by the prevalent opinion in the community, regardless of the actual balance. Meta, or as it is known in it's full form the "meta-game", is the generalized agreement, or popular assumption, about what is the best existing way of playing the game, developed outside of the game itself, hence the prefix "meta-", meaning "outside of", "beyond" or "after".

I know what meta is. Ok, let's not use the word everyone uses (wrongly if you go by the latin meaning) and confuse the hell out of 99% of the people on these forums.

Quote

Prior to implementation of most recent Clan mechs, we at TCAF has developed our own method of combat in CW based solely on direct assaults with close-range weapons, that allowed us to cedimate any other teams, IS or Clan, continuously and finish the first CW phase as the 1st ranked Unit by planets conquered. All this time every other Unit was firmly assured, that Gauss and ER-LLaser meta were the ultimate, unbeatable meta build. So, despite general public has arrived to that opinion and made it "The Meta", they were actually wrong.

The "best" builds necessarily aren't wrong because they can be beaten by a better team.

Quote

I'm not sure how exactly you've missed that point, but this is the whole foundation of different weapon systems in BATTLETECH. Energy weapons weight less, they require no ammunition, but depend on heat to limit their damage output over time. Ballistic weapons weight a lot, they almost independent from heat, but depend on ammunition to limit their maximum damage output in a match. Missiles are middle-ground between those, they require some ammunition, they are limited by some heat, their weight and size is average between Energy and Ballistics, they deal more damage, but spread it, and easy to reach minimum efficiency, while almost never perform to their maximum.

Nerf to the heat capacity will not perturb anything, it will just make the weapons to perform as they're expected to. The whole reason behind the current laser-vomit situation, is that Lasers are light-weight, small, easy-to use, flexible weapons, that are easiest to boat in enormous amounts, that can deal as much damage as Ballistic weapons, all of which is limited by one single factor of heat, and that limitation is not doing its job sufficiently.

I disagree. Say you cut the heat cap to 29 for arguments sake. You can still alpha 9 cSPLs for 54p damage, or 4x AC20 for 80p damage if you can fit them. But not 2 ERPPCs. You call that doing its job correctly? What it does is to introduce a hard cap on what you can alpha that hits various builds very inconsistently.

Quote

It is the answer. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest when you compare those weapons, really. 2xERPPCs has just enough advantages over 10xC-SPLs to make a damage difference justified.

PGI had more than enough appearances of ridiculous decision-making, and Ghost Heat is just one that stood out for so long, that everyone kinda accepted it as they're not gonna take it out anyway now feature. The fact that the system took more effort to implement doesn't make it any more viable, and the reasoning behind it to nerf specific situations is merely a result of PGI's ineptitude at that long-past time.

PGI had problems with AC/40s and PPCs doombolts, but they didn't had problems with other weapons, because there were no mechs able to abuse other weapons. Congratulations, now we have those! And laser-vomit issues we have now are directly related to that lack of perspective. If, instead of making several shots of AC/20 or PPCs worth more heat points, PGI would simply make heat points themselves worth more, then we wouldn't have the issues we have now.

So yeah, heat will do it. And not only it will, but it will do it in obvious, open ways understandable for anyone, while reducing TTK and disposing of ******** hidden mechanics. And in that case, situations like LPL+ML will begone, because all weapons will be treated equally correspondingly to their initial heat tax, no matter how you group them. If you think it will not do it, prove it with math.

You see, that's the problem. Energy Drain system, in the form most people imagine it, would represent nothing more than an whole second heat system for fixing particular cases. This idea is just as inadequate and inconstructive, as the Ghost Heat Scale originally were. There's simply no justification for implementing a whole new level of complexity for fixing one or two undesirable situations.

Specific issues, like Awesomes, has to be approached individually, such as making them relatively Tanky compared to other 80-tonners, which is already suggested by lore alone. If all Awesome variants will be more durable, than Victors or Zeus, then oversized hitboxes wouldn't be much of an issue. Other than that, Awesomes has to cope with the issues, that also arise from the same ill-designed heat management - even overquirked 8Q still cannot work well with 18 DHS, because these nerfed DHS ain't worth bananas in terms of heat dissipation. Similar to all other energy boats, you're forced to unleash as many shots as your overgrowth heat capacity would allow, and then run away. The removal of base heat capacity and restoration of heatsink efficiency will both greatly migitate laser-vomit and PPC-barfing and will reintroduce open energy brawling.

Running out of time to answer. Anyways, if energy drain was implemented properly it wouldnt be confusing at all. It's all in the implementation. With a proper "energy drain" system in place you could remove Gauss charge mechanics and Ghost heat. By lowering heat cap and increasing dissipation you could not remove ghost heat without reintroducing old problems.

[DivineEvil]

Hotthedd, on 06 November 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

I agree with everything you wrote except this. The only advantage the ERPPC has is range. It isn't even PPFLD due to the splash damage.
In BattleTech, one of the balancing mechanisms was also that all of the weapons would not hit the same component. I believe MW:O needs that mechanic as well (at least with group fire. Individual shots should be rewarded with precision).

It has range, it takes less hardpoints, it disrupts ECM, and if Clan ER-PPC is in question and PPFLD is ignored, then it makes 30 damage, not the 20 originally given. Range by itself is a parameter, that is hard to compare, because of how it translates into damage you do without return fire.

It is true, that BT has random hit chances, and also overheat penalties, but it were ties to the pilot skill there. In MWO it's all ties into player's skill, and there's different ways to compensate for the lack of these, such as double armor/structure against same damage rates and duration/velocity mechanics. But overextended heat capacity with nerfed heat dissipation and stock ammo values all combined makes Lasers the weapon group far superior to anything else present.

Quote

I know what meta is. Ok, let's not use the word everyone uses (wrongly if you go by the latin meaning) and confuse the hell out of 99% of the people on these forums.

All I'm trying to say is that terror balance is not a clear determiner of something being overpowered. It's but a situation where people are unwilling to try and counter the meta-game mentality. But when it becomes clear theoretically and proven practically, then there's a moment when imbalance is more likely to be in place.

Quote

The best builds necessarily aren't wrong because they can be beaten by a better team.

It is not the question of better team here. We have encountered all sorts of teams of full-12, both IS and Clan, and splattered them. We did that not because we were a better team, but because our opponents surrendered to the meta-game at the time they thought was perfect, and never expected anyone to roll against it with success, thus they were unable to even concieve a response.

Those builds weren't wrong, but they weren't the best to begin with.

Quote

I disagree. Say you cut the heat cap to 29 for arguments sake. You can still alpha 9 cSPLs for 54p damage, or 4x AC20 for 80p damage if you can fit them. But not 2 ERPPCs. You call that doing its job correctly? What it does is to introduce a hard cap on what you can alpha that hits various builds very inconsistently.

In your example you've neglected the limitations of other weapons groups.


- 9 cSPL require 9 energy hardpoints, which very few mechs can acquire. You're ignoring hardpoint limitation. We're also talking about a weapon with 165 range. In our current Ghost Heat system, not only you are able to alpha strike those 9 cSPLs, but you can wait a little bit longer and alpha them again. And you don't even need any additional heatsinks to do that. If my suggested changes are implemented, you'd be able to do that only if you have at least 15 DHS, and at this point you're dead in the water with full heat gauge.

- 4xAC/20? I'm not sure there's a single mech in 2050 time-frame, that can carry that. You're ignoring tonnage/size limitations. At this point heat doesn't make any difference, because that scenario is unrealistic.


- If you cannot alpha 2xER-PPC, then maybe your heat management system is a bit too weak for it? Maybe then you should use something you can actually afford, or maybe fire them in volleys, like most PPC boats did according to lore? What about the current Ghost Heat system, which would gladly allow you to alpha-strike three of those, as long as you have 3-4 extra DHS on top?

Quote

By lowering heat cap and increasing dissipation you could not remove ghost heat without reintroducing old problems.

Not sure what those old problems you're talking about. Considering 6xPPC alphas, lowering heat cap would solve them better, than the Ghost Heat. 2xAC/20? Not that much of an issue it were, and not that much solved it become.


Better give me a single, realistic example with present mechs and weapons, where implementation of my suggestion will reintroduce a problem, that Ghost Heat were containing.

Edited by DivineEvil, 06 November 2015 - 08:24 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

DivineEvil, on 06 November 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:

Better give me a single, realistic example with present mechs and weapons, where implementation of my suggestion will reintroduce a problem, that Ghost Heat were containing.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...92226fe5cff31e0

[Duke Nedo]

Mind you, I am not saying that Ghost heat is good, just saying that lowered heat cap is not alone the answer. The only thing it does is to remove the heat buffer. People will alpha as big alphas as they can, and if dissipation is increased they will do it more often. The main difference is that they will be directly at heat steady state and not have a heat buffer to burst dps in like we have now.

My second point is that using heat as the balance tool for this hits rather bluntly. It will make it mandatory to combine E and B alphas, unlike now when it's viable with pure E alpha. This could cripple some mech variants and chassi.

Don't take me wrong, I'd love to address the big alphas a bit. I don't think it's a huge problem, but a small one still worth addressing.

I'd rather use Energy drain to address it, it has the potential if done correctly to build a uniform mechanism that is consistent for all weapon-combinations. Sure, it's a replacement for ghost heat and a "new layer", but if it's done consistently it could be a solution. If you really want to use heat as your tool for restricting alphas I would play with some penalty linked to the rate of heat buildup per second instead of reducing the heat cap with a hard limit. That way we could still allow burst dps during a heat buffer with E weapons (I find that cool for brawling), but limit huge alphas.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 06 November 2015 - 08:48 AM.

[Hotthedd]

DivineEvil, on 06 November 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:

It has range, it takes less hardpoints, it disrupts ECM, and if Clan ER-PPC is in question and PPFLD is ignored, then it makes 30 damage, not the 20 originally given. Range by itself is a parameter, that is hard to compare, because of how it translates into damage you do without return fire.

It is true, that BT has random hit chances, and also overheat penalties, but it were ties to the pilot skill there. In MWO it's all ties into player's skill, and there's different ways to compensate for the lack of these, such as double armor/structure against same damage rates and duration/velocity mechanics. But overextended heat capacity with nerfed heat dissipation and stock ammo values all combined makes Lasers the weapon group far superior to anything else present.

And the cSMPL has a much faster recycle rate. Range is not a huge factor for small fast 'mechs on the small maps we have in MW:O.

A proper heat scale IS part of the solution, but by itself it will not fix the broken mechanic of all shots hitting one location. It merely transfers the weapon of choice to something cooler.

Actually BT does not have random hit chances, nor does it have random hit locations. It uses a PROBABILITY engine (2D6). That is very different than "random".
Everything you cite are reasons that lasers are the best weapon in the game ton for ton, but without removing pinpoint precise group fire, the underlying problem will still exist, only with different weapons.

[LORD ORION]

The weapons are out of balance.

We went from mechs with PPFLD PPCs and Ballistic friendly hard points to gauss/lazvomit to, whatever the new non-laser meta is becoming. (clan UAC dakka trumping eveything because lasers are worthless in nearly every situation?)

Ballistics suck on live because they cant reliably hit at their longer ranges, and the leadtime is so bad that it can't fit with laser / AC builds)
Gauss is good because it has high velocity so you can actually hit people where you aim with it past 400m.
Drg1N AC5 is good because it has insane DPS and shake, not because it shoots 600m

Durrr.... I know how to balance
Make lasers worthless
Remove all quirks
Increase gauss reload
Increase TTK

YAY

You have entered the golden era of CUACs dakka boats and fast, short range blitzer mechs. *well, you will when SRMs are fixed... AGAIN*

The problems have been brought up and solved by 1) People who have a brain, 2) People who are good at the game and understand it's mechancis better than the designers and 3) the people who actually have real experience doing game balance.

ACs need to work more like gauss. Fast velocity, lower dps, but hit where you aim.
UACs need slower velocity but less jam chance so they work like the DRG 1N as a brawly DPS weapon
Lasers need to work only at their intended ranges. Current Optimum range = Maximum range, but very precise weapons.
Streaks need to be very fast with slow reload.
SRMs need to be spammy, slow velocity and fast reload. Just large amounts of spread out damage to mechs that get that close.

Edited by LORD ORION, 06 November 2015 - 10:21 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Quote

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...92226fe5cff31e0

Unrealistic. Nobody will use that in either scenarios. In Ghost Heat, relative efficiency can be acquired by firing these in groups of two, but will cook the mech either way. In my suggested scheme, it will be capable of firing one alpha, at which point ultra-aspect of the weapon becomes meaningless. It takes too much armor off, have too little ammunition and restricted by range. It's a troll build by nature.

Quote

Mind you, I am not saying that Ghost heat is good, just saying that lowered heat cap is not alone the answer. The only thing it does is to remove the heat buffer. People will alpha as big alphas as they can, and if dissipation is increased they will do it more often. The main difference is that they will be directly at heat steady state and not have a heat buffer to burst dps in like we have now.

Which means, that alpha-strike will remain as the useful method, but any DPS-oriented, brawling loadouts will topple them. The whole point is to remove consequential alphas and make them less powerful. The idea is not to eradicate alpha-strikes entirely.

Quote

My second point is that using heat as the balance tool for this hits rather bluntly. It will make it mandatory to combine E and B alphas, unlike now when it's viable with pure E alpha. This could cripple some mech variants and chassi.

It will cripple alphas in general. Energy-centered mechs and variants will be bound to endurance combat, trying to outlive their opponents with ammunition independent weapons, which is what they're supposed to be in the first place. Having many E hardpoints will not be seen as an opportunity to mounts lots of the same E weapons, but to sport multiple different groups for different situations and engagement ranges. Heatsinks should be then considered a viable alternative to excessively numerous or heavy weapons.

Quote

If you really want to use heat as your tool for restricting alphas I would play with some penalty linked to the rate of heat buildup per second instead of reducing the heat cap with a hard limit. That way we could still allow burst dps during a heat buffer with E weapons (I find that cool for brawling), but limit huge alphas.

My idea is not to reduce heat cap with hard limit. My idea is to eliminate base heat capacity (30 units), that every mech has by default, and leave only the capacity and dissipation given by heatsinks alone. You have 10 DHS? 20 heat cap, 2 h/s dissipation. 25 DHS? 50 heat cap, 5 h/s dissipation. Then you will think twice before taking that additional MPL, because maybe 2 additional DHS will actually be better for your efficiency with fewer weapons. Wanna take those two AC/20 on a Jagermech? Sure, but be ready to run really hot, no Ghost Heat responsible. 4xUAC/5 King Crab? Go ahead, that thing will fare no better. All weapons will depend on that heat system exactly in a ratio that they don't depend on other limiting factors, and each player will be free to customize his heat management system just as much as weapons and equipment.

[eleazr]

Hotthedd, on 06 November 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

A proper heat scale IS part of the solution, but by itself it will not fix the broken mechanic of all shots hitting one location. It merely transfers the weapon of choice to something cooler.

You still seem to be arguing for a cone of fire. You may well have missed it, but I demonstrated in my post a couple days ago that the primary effect of a cone of fire will be to eliminate the long game.

In addition to the points I made then, another problem with a dynamic cone of fire is that it will be a strong buff to all those mechs with outstanding high weapons mounts (stalkers, blackjacks, ebons, etc.) because they can turret while remaining almost completely behind cover.

I personally prefer a more mobile and dynamic game without limiting everything to a massive brawl all the time. Having different options are good, but cone of fire is a sledge hammer approach.

Duke Nedo, on 06 November 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...92226fe5cff31e0

Seriously?? That build has enough ammo for a grand total of 12 volleys...

[Hotthedd]

eleazr, on 06 November 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

You still seem to be arguing for a cone of fire. You may well have missed it, but I demonstrated in my post a couple days ago that the primary effect of a cone of fire will be to eliminate the long game.

In addition to the points I made then, another problem with a dynamic cone of fire is that it will be a strong buff to all those mechs with outstanding high weapons mounts (stalkers, blackjacks, ebons, etc.) because they can turret while remaining almost completely behind cover.

I personally prefer a more mobile and dynamic game without limiting everything to a massive brawl all the time. Having different options are good, but cone of fire is a sledge hammer approach.

It doesn't HAVE to be a cone of fire, but I do not mind it as a solution FOR GROUP FIRE ONLY.

I a believe that chain-fired weapons should have the benefit of precision, making it a viable choice between the two.

The long game would not be eliminated, just the long range multiple weapons hitting the same component game. (And good riddance, as it is against the spirit of BattleTech, AND physics). Snipers would still have a role.

In my experience, those players who like to be turrets are only as effective as their team. They either do well because the rest of the team is actively engaging enemies, or they end up being the last guy hunted down. The more mobile team generally wins.

I also want a dynamic game, without limiting matches to peek-a-boo from long range, may the best trader win, stagnant game MW:O all too often becomes.

[Duke Nedo]

DivineEvil, on 06 November 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Unrealistic. Nobody will use that in either scenarios. In Ghost Heat, relative efficiency can be acquired by firing these in groups of two, but will cook the mech either way. In my suggested scheme, it will be capable of firing one alpha, at which point ultra-aspect of the weapon becomes meaningless. It takes too much armor off, have too little ammunition and restricted by range. It's a troll build by nature.

Of course its a troll build, but with only heat restricting big alphas people would build crap like that and the tears on the forums would be glorious. It's an extreme example to illustrate a point, not the new OP build. You understand that. Remember that a 40 point pinpoint FLD caused enough tears that eventually led to the introduction of ghost heat.

Quote

Which means, that alpha-strike will remain as the useful method, but any DPS-oriented, brawling loadouts will topple them. The whole point is to remove consequential alphas and make them less powerful. The idea is not to eradicate alpha-strikes entirely.

It will cripple alphas in general. Energy-centered mechs and variants will be bound to endurance combat, trying to outlive their opponents with ammunition independent weapons, which is what they're supposed to be in the first place. Having many E hardpoints will not be seen as an opportunity to mounts lots of the same E weapons, but to sport multiple different groups for different situations and engagement ranges. Heatsinks should be then considered a viable alternative to excessively numerous or heavy weapons.
My idea is not to reduce heat cap with hard limit. My idea is to eliminate base heat capacity (30 units), that every mech has by default, and leave only the capacity and dissipation given by heatsinks alone. You have 10 DHS? 20 heat cap, 2 h/s dissipation. 25 DHS? 50 heat cap, 5 h/s dissipation. Then you will think twice before taking that additional MPL, because maybe 2 additional DHS will actually be better for your efficiency with fewer weapons. Wanna take those two AC/20 on a Jagermech? Sure, but be ready to run really hot, no Ghost Heat responsible. 4xUAC/5 King Crab? Go ahead, that thing will fare no better. All weapons will depend on that heat system exactly in a ratio that they don't depend on other limiting factors, and each player will be free to customize his heat management system just as much as weapons and equipment.

I wasn't aware of exactly what you suggested tbh, I though it was the standard reduce heat cap/increase heat dissipation. With your suggestion I just have to go WHOAH, what did you just do to clan vs IS balance? You know clans can fit approaching 30 heatsinks, while IS fits about 2/3 of that.

What I am trying to get through here is that ballistics are affected differently by a heat cap than energy. Weight does not balance that out, seriously. Take some builds from metamechs.com. Not that I like all builds there, but it's something that people know and something that I didn't make up myself.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...15b2a641fb07f7a

This guy has an alpha of 77 damage @ 40 heat and 21 DHS.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e4e0903c4f0c280

This guy has an alpha of 49 @ 29 heat and 16 DHS.

Everything with Gauss and Energy will still be able to produce big alphas, while battlemechs with E only hardpoints will be at a disadvantage. Omnis will more or less always be able to conform to B+E alphas.

Just have a look at the smurfy table of Damage per Heat. There's a span from 0.67 to 15, so of course using heat only as a tool will have odd effects.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 07 November 2015 - 01:43 AM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Gotta say, again, I'm in the "heat is broke" camp; because... it is.

Ultimately, I'm not too worried about the pinpoint alpha if heat is fixed, but I can see how it's not originally part of BT.

I still don't see what's wrong with multi-point reticle/targeting. Could easily put 2 chain fired gause into 1 spot if you're good (just need that charge time in between during your "reticle sweep-shot").

Also, no one has really provided a reason why it would be bad; thus, pretty sure it's a good reconciling of pinpoint and alpha-prevention that could easily work side-by-side with heat fixes.

[Duke Nedo]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 07 November 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

Also, no one has really provided a reason why it would be bad; thus, pretty sure it's a good reconciling of pinpoint and alpha-prevention that could easily work side-by-side with heat fixes.

I think it has to do with a desire to attract E-sports audience or something like that. Russ has said at some point that he wants shots to hit where the player aims I think.

Personally I agree with that, I don't like reticule bloom where the aim is steady but misses are forced on you by adding RNG spread. A matter of taste perhaps, too arcady for me. I wouldn't mind making it harder to hit though by adding a bit of reticule sway when moving or JJing or being hit, as long as shots still land where they are fired at. It's the random thing I don't like. I also believe that the effect of adding bloom to the game would be a slower paced game where defensive play is rewarded.

In general I also prefer soft restrictions over hard restrictions. I consider a much lowered heat cap -> shutdown a hard restriction because either you can alpha or you can't....

It's not an easy fix. Ideally you'd like builds on variants with only energy hardpoints to be viable, while at the same time not being overpowered when combined with 1-2 Gauss on a larger chassi. I believe a combination of mechanics are needed and I think energy drain could be part of it, perhaps together with a mild recoil for ballistics (to make them combine less efficiently with lasers being fired simultaneously), plus Wanderers suggestion about locking convergence on your locked target range (instead of the PTS range nerfs for unlocked shooting) and why not also adjustments to heat limits and dissipation. I just don't believe that changing heat alone will do the job.