286 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

What about a "hardpoint equivalency" mechanic? Let's say the most hardpoints an IS mech has is 9. So if a mech has fewer than 9 hardpoints, it would get other buffs or tools to work with. This can be like quirks but is solely dependent on the number of hardpoints a mech has....

This is how you end up with mega-quirks just to make a mech remotely competitive. The Huginn has 6 hardpoints, more than other Ravens, yet is worse. The Oxide with only 4 hardpoints though is actually better despite this, so always remember, not all hardpoints are equal.

[Graugger]

Why have a big *** Black Knight with 9 Energy Points when you can have a much faster Firestarter with 8?

Speedy Gonzales has got a gun now Sylvester.

[FupDup]

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

PGI's new mechanic is changing the dynamics of your line item C.

Not really. I haven't heard any word from PGI about addressing the fact that sub-250 engines have lower heat dissipation and lower heat capacity than 250+ engines.

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

Anyone who plays a Kit Fox like an Arctic Cheetah is gonna have a bad time. Back when I was playing my Kit Fox, I was doing very well in it. Not playing it now because; A: I'm not a Clanner, B: it's mastered and I have other mechs to master now.

So you don't think the Hankyu is overall better than the Uller?

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

You mention meta, I see an exploit of a (poorly designed) system that PGI is always actively trying to nerf. None of my mechs or builds have ever been negatively affected by their changes to where I come on the forums and freak out.

Power production or whatever else based on engine size would be another "poorly designed system" to be "exploited" in the future.

[Blue Boutique]

Graugger, on 02 March 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

Why have a big *** Black Knight with 9 Energy Points when you can have a much faster Firestarter with 8?

Speedy Gonzales has got a gun now Sylvester.

Bracketing. The Black Knight can engage with a ERPPC from a distance and fight with 8 ML at close distance with more heatsinks or go for a 2 HL/ 7 ML concept.

[CDLord HHGD]

FupDup, on 02 March 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

Not really. I haven't heard any word from PGI about addressing the fact that sub-250 engines have lower heat dissipation and lower heat capacity than 250+ engines.

I had to go back and re-read... I think poordubs is a discrepancy we can both agree is bad. They did say they are making changes to their heat scale and efficiency is dependent on the bar from which it is measured. It could be good, bad, small, big. Not enough details about PGI's plan to know for sure. From my standpoint, assuming they don't make it worse is that we can't get much worse than it is now.

FupDup, on 02 March 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

So you don't think the Hankyu is overall better than the Uller?

I think they are equal according to their gifts. I don't play my Uller like I played my Hankyu. To do so is suicide. I have killed every mech in this game with every other mech in this game solo or near solo. I have yet to find one chassis that I can play like another.

FupDup, on 02 March 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

Power production or whatever else based on engine size would be another "poorly designed system" to be "exploited" in the future.

Well, extrapolate on that if you will please. Engine size is a measure of power, even today. The bigger the nuclear reactor, the more water it can steam, the more power those steam turbines produce. Even though it's fast, my 180hp CRX is no match for a 480 Ford.

So maybe some equation of engine size vs mech tonnage? The engine also powers the arms and legs and other non-weapon equipment...

1e-1.5m=p?

[FupDup]

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

They did say they are making changes to their heat scale and efficiency is dependent on the bar from which it is measured.

That doesn't have anything to do with Poordubs though.

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

From my standpoint, assuming they don't make it worse is that we can't get much worse than it is now.

The Man Who Shall Not Be Named would interpret this as a challenge...

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

I think they are equal according to their gifts. I don't play my Uller like I played my Hankyu. To do so is suicide. I have killed every mech in this game with every other mech in this game solo or near solo. I have yet to find one chassis that I can play like another.

Whether you can get a kill or not isn't a measure of mech effectiveness, or else every mech in the game would be basically equal. I know that clearly isn't true in the current state of the game, and hope you do too...

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

Well, extrapolate on that if you will please. Engine size is a measure of power, even today. The bigger the nuclear reactor, the more water it can steam, the more power those steam turbines produce. Even though it's fast, my 180hp CRX is no match for a 480 Ford.

So maybe some equation of engine size vs mech tonnage? The engine also powers the arms and legs and other non-weapon equipment...

1e-1.5m=p?

None of this changes the fact that engine-based PowerDraw™ would have some serious negative balancing impacts, one of which includes giving a buff to the mechs that are already the "worst offenders" of the bunch (big XL + lots of lasers) and another of which includes nerfing the mechs that are already the underdogs.

[Vashramire]

The whole point of the new system is to pull back from high alphas. Mainly that would likely involve heavies and assaults (some mediums may qualify to hit the mark). It's unlikely that lights will feel much different. If they set the drain to equate to about a 50 dmg max alpha, no lights will give a ****. Hell even if it was 40 and even then the highest alpha is probably an SRM Jenner IIc.

If they based it on engine size they would make stock Urbies explode. I hope they would be smart enough to make a system that would allow stock mechs to function with the Stock Loadout button coming up. The power system should likely be either normalized across all mechs or per tonnage.

It's really hard to tell since we have no numbers or mechanical functionality info other than "weapons draw power, go over cap = heat" and may likely change again before we even have a chance to test it.

Edited by Vashramire, 02 March 2016 - 12:00 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Vashramire, on 02 March 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

The whole point of the new system is to pull back from high alphas. Mainly that would likely involve heavies and assaults (some mediums may qualify to hit the mark). It's unlikely that lights will feel much different. If they set the drain to equate to about a 50 dmg max alpha, no lights will give a ****. Hell even if it was 40 and even then the highest alpha is probably an SRM Jenner IIc.

If they based it on engine size they would make stock Urbies explode. I hope they would be smart enough to make a system that would allow stock mechs to function with the Stock Loadout button coming up. The power system should likely be either normalized across all mechs or per tonnage.

It's really hard to tell since we have no numbers or mechanical functionality info other than "weapons draw power, go over cap = heat" and may likely change again before we even have a chance to test it.

If they don't deal with the CSPL ACH, then much of the problem will remain.

[Vashramire]

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

If they don't deal with the CSPL ACH, then much of the problem will remain.

I think the problem with the ACH is a bit more than just its alpha potential.

[CDLord HHGD]

Vashramire, on 02 March 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

I think the problem with the ACH is a bit more than just its alpha potential.

Not the only problem, no. But it is one of the more visible ones.

[Duke Nedo]

FupDup, on 02 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

...nges the fact that engine-based PowerDraw™ would have some serious negative balancing impacts, one of which includes giving a buff to the mechs that are already the "worst offenders" of the bunch (big XL + lots of lasers) and another of which includes nerfing the mechs that are already the underdogs.

A potentially positive thing with "power output" is that it could used actively as a balance tool instead of hooking it up on tonnage or engine or something else. For example, I'd like Awesomes to have a bit higher "power output" so that they can support 3x PPC, while most other mechs would not.

[Johnny Z]

#saynotomathinMechwarriorOnline

#saveghostheat

[wanderer]

I still don't see the pinpoint combo-blasts going away. All this does is give you ghost heat by another name, meaning the same alphas to the same locations, possibly less often- but the same result as you'd have gotten with ghost heat.

A real heat system (that is, gradually increasing penalties for overheating) that actually means overheat less than 100% has effects. Some kind of non-perfect convergence to kill the Death Star alpha strikes. This is what changes things.

An "energy" system is another layer of useless "complexity" over MWO's game.

[Johnny Z]

Graugger, on 02 March 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

Why have a big *** Black Knight with 9 Energy Points when you can have a much faster Firestarter with 8?

Speedy Gonzales has got a gun now Sylvester.

This is what, what ever gets added needs to address. Penalties for over heating isn't a bad idea per say, but that's not what this is about.

COF is a dead end to. It changes nothing but making aim locks harder to spot. They will still have a huge advantage even with COF.

I don't know what the answer is but the problem is high alphas, always has been. Period.

MechWarrior Online is a sci-fi recreating "31st century armored combat"(knights in full armor dueling it out), always has been, so there is supposed to be some decent ttk in game. Period.

Edited by Johnny Z, 02 March 2016 - 01:58 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

Just read this whole 7-page thread, skimmed a couple of the early linked articles, watched the relevant videos.

Can't get past these basic counter-arguments:

1. Reduce the heat cap. Increase the heat or cooldown or burntime for problem weapons.
2. Introduce a scale of heat penalties, such as flickering HUD, reduction of speed, etc.

That's about it. I'm relatively new to MWO, so I'm not sure why these aren't possible. We already have a bunch of limiting factors: tonnage, ammo, crit space, hardpoints, heat, cooldown, burn time, range. We also have quirks. I just...why add more stuff? Use what we have to rebalance things.

Every other month have an intern change up the heat/burntime/cd values on weapons and mechs, and have your developers focus on rolling out new maps, game modes, campaigns.

If we have to do it:

Big Tin Man, on 02 March 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

Momentum = mass x velocity. Momentum must be conserved, so for a shot fired, it pushes back with an equal force on the mech.

...

3.0 m/s. Or 10 kph. Or 6.7 mph. Take your pick.

Now add a recoil mechanism that reduces that effect by, say 95% (FWIW, the recoil energy of a M16 is 0.4% of the bullet's energy, meaning the recoil mechanism absorbed 99.6% of the recoil energy). Then apply some mech gyro magic that accounts for the last 5% and let's never talk about this again.

Not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying that the recoil is negligent, ergo the "Ballistics require reactor capacity in order to compensate for recoil" is a bad argument, or the opposite?

B/c ammo-based weapons (save Gauss) incurring a reactor penalty makes no sense to me, and even if it is recoil/reloading, then it should come afterwards. It's pretty jarring--not just lore-breaking--it breaks the suspense of disbelief required to be piloting a giant stompy robot. I can believe some things, but not everything.

Sort of like what Duke Nedo says in the next quote. I could maybe get behind that...

Duke Nedo, on 02 March 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

Something that could be interesting would be if they built the Gauss charge mechanics into the system, so that you can keep it charged as long as you like, but it drains continuously while being kept charged...

Another unfinished thought could be if PPCs would drain while charging instead of when firing. Unfinished thought, but could be a way of helping PPC+laser builds over pure laser builds, and these mechs would still hit drain limit but after firing one volley. May be room for something like that considering the current state of PPCs.

I could kind of get behind this...

Big Tin Man, on 02 March 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

You forgot this. Current mech movement speed could consume energy. An ACH moving full speed could (in theory) be expending 50% of it's available energy in movement, while the Gimped fox would only use 2/3rd's of it (on a linear scale) or less if the speed/energy table.

...but it's also something that could be done with a sliding penalty heat scale.

[Wintersdark]

Juodas Varnas, on 01 March 2016 - 09:48 PM, said:

What's funny is that I've always imagined Homeless Bill looks just like this.

[Wintersdark]

cdlord, on 02 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

I think they are equal according to their gifts. I don't play my Uller like I played my Hankyu. To do so is suicide. I have killed every mech in this game with every other mech in this game solo or near solo. I have yet to find one chassis that I can play like another.

Normally, I'm with you on most things. But this?
The Cute Fox is not equal to the Arctic Cheetah. It is, objectively, worse. Maybe you "do fine" in a Cute Fox, but please remember - hell, repeat after me:

"I do fine in [insert mech here]" is an utterly irrelevant statement when discussing balance.

The Arctic Cheetah has:

1) More hardpoints.
2) Better hardpoints.
3) Better geometry.
4) Better hitboxes.
5) Better cooling.

The only role a Kitfox can outperform an ACH at is being an AMS bubble provider, and that's a very silly role. Sure, the Kitfox can sport 3.5-6.5 tons more payload, but the it can't use it effectively due to all it's other failings.

Maybe it'll be better after the rescale, but in particular that 180 rated engine severely hurts it.

I'm always for "different mechs for different situations" but there is absolutely no situation where I'd rather have a Cute Fox on my team than an Arctic Cheetah.

[Wintersdark]

---

More on topic: It'd much rather see it simpler; as strike damage exceeds 30-35, cooldowns and/or heat increase.

As much fun as nifty energy things and such sound, the more complex the system it is, the higher the likelyhood that it'll be easily exploitable and the more likely it is that PGI will mess it up.

[RedDragon]

[oldradagast]

Vashramire, on 02 March 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

The whole point of the new system is to pull back from high alphas. Mainly that would likely involve heavies and assaults (some mediums may qualify to hit the mark). It's unlikely that lights will feel much different. If they set the drain to equate to about a 50 dmg max alpha, no lights will give a ****. Hell even if it was 40 and even then the highest alpha is probably an SRM Jenner IIc.

And whatever magical, meaningless damage number they pick as the threshold for "too much alpha" will suddenly become the upper limit of whatever combination of pinpoint, long-range weapons defines the new meta. Nothing changes; pixel perfect, instant convergence long range damage will remain the meta. At least this will probably reign in those overpowered AC20 + SRM builds that are soooo dominate, what with their huge alpha numbers (and terrible range and built-in damage scatter, but PGI doesn't seem to understand that.)

It's not the alpha value, but how precisely it can be applied and what range that matters.