819 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rampage, on 14 June 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Opinions vary and you and some others may not agree but I am one that supports the notion that an Alpha strike should be a rarity and should have negative repercussions on anyone that is doing it too often. Right now, that is pretty much everybody.

I look forward to a better system of controlling it.

The problem, is you first have to define an alpha strike, and what is reasonable? A Hollander firing its only weapon, a Gauss Rifle, is technically an alpha strike for example. Does an alpha strike of 2 Small Lasers really need to be hampered? Its these questions that cause issues with that concept. Why should an AC20 be able to do 20 damage to one panel, but 2 AC5s not, just because of the number of weapons being fired?

[AnTi90d]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 June 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

+100. But PGI can't do it. We all know the real reason, but their excuse is that server won't be able to calculate convergence + HSR/ping differences etc.

Minimally viable product^TM.

I'd honestly love a convergence system in lieu of any new form of ghost heat.

I've played many games that had different weapons with different spread patterns.. and even a few that had increasing spread as weapons heat up. (Also, I played two games that had mechs, alpha strikes and weapons that were less accurate when fired in an alpha.) I have no idea why PGI can't just put something like that into the game.

I don't think people are truly angry at alphastrikes; they're just angry at pinpoint alphastrikes onto one single section of a mech. If only we had a system where firing one weapon was 100% pinpoint and firing more weapons along with it leads to increasing divergence from the target point..

..but, PGI has already put effort into developing it. They created a new system and by Comstar they'll shove it into the game, regardless of our opinions. (IE: Long Tom that drove so many out of the CW/FP system that was re-broken after a recent patch so it's now back to one-shotting everyone withing a 600m diameter circle.)

[Pjwned]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 June 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

+100. But PGI can't do it. We all know the real reason, but their excuse is that server won't be able to calculate convergence + HSR/ping differences etc.

Minimally viable product^TM.

The thing is that even their crappy, outdated excuse doesn't hold up either because tying convergence to target locks (which is the best way to handle it) would in no way affect HSR (or if it somehow did affect HSR, then it would be a minimal impact at worst), unlike how delayed convergence would/did.

Edited by Pjwned, 14 June 2016 - 10:25 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 14 June 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

would in no way affect HSR

It would affect HSR, because it is extra variables to keep track of between states. If it has to rewind to figure out whether I hit, it most definitely needs to know what my convergence state was at that time, and whether I had a target lock, and who it was locked on.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 June 2016 - 10:25 AM.

[Appogee]

TheLuc, on 14 June 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

At this rate, next Mech pack will be a 55 tons Dalek from Dr Who.

LOL.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 14 June 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:

No, I don't really want an energy draw feature because convergence is the problem that needs to be addressed.

At least it will probably be better than what we have now.

I think PGI has given up on this.

It does has a big effect on netcode, and Clan UACs -- especially when boated -- make the problem worse.

[Khereg]

Whatever they do to the mechanics, as Sader said, there will still be disparities in skill that will shine through. If single salvos are limited to, say 30 pts each, it will take more of them to bring down a mech. Skilled players will land those salvos consistently. Less skilled players will not. Assuming PGI doesn't suddenly decide to go down the "cone-of-fire" road, of course...

The end result will still be that skilled players will bring down their opponents more quickly than less skilled players. Sader is saying he expects to remain skilled and will continue to have success in the game as a result.

I can't say that I disagree.

I couldn't personally care less about the power draw system, ghost heat system, tabletop rules, lore, or any specific mechanic in particular. As long as the game remains fun to play I'll continue to play it.

I do care that PGI is spending a lot of time and energy on this which is obviously taking away from other things they could be working on. I hope the outcome is worth the investment.

Edited by Khereg, 14 June 2016 - 02:10 PM.

[Cerulean Knight]

Hmm, I noticed this little tidbit from @Kanajashi, the guy that does the patch overview videos:



I'm willing to bet he has a better idea on what the system is than we do right now so... cheer/ponder/panic/rage away!

Well, assuming he does have a better idea than us. I admit, I am not sure. But his videos do go on the main NGNGTV youtube channel, so it seems a safe assumption.

[Roadkill]

Energy Draw seems to have a lot of risks to me. For example, it seems logical to tie it to engine size in some way (since the engine generates the power, duh), but that means it could effectively cripple Assaults while having little to no effect on, say, a Jenner. Both use a 300 engine, right?

So... I'm doubtful about the whole concept.

[Just Another Bad Robot Game]

Rampage, on 14 June 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Yes, I know. Still most meta Mechs are set up to fire all their weapons as often as possible; usually a couple times at the beginning of an engagement before they have to start rotating weapon groups. I have adapted and do it myself because it is the only way to be competitive and live through an encounter

Some builds can fire all their weapons as many as three or four times before heat becomes a major issue. Unless they are only running a couple weapons IMO that should not happen. Opinions vary and you and some others may not agree but I am one that supports the notion that an Alpha strike should be a rarity and should have negative repercussions on anyone that is doing it too often. Right now, that is pretty much everybody.

I look forward to a better system of controlling it.

Lights that use small pulse can do that. Should we really limit lights from leveraging their dps in ambushes?

What about SRM brawlers, should they only be allowed to volley twice?

CrippleWarrior Online would be a good name for the game you propose.

[Darth Hotz]

I am worried. Introducing a new system basically means that all the balancing they did since the clan release will be useless and ecerything has to start over again. I foresee a balancing desaster.

I also dont understand the concept in achieving a longer time to kill by releasing mechs that can pump out incredible damage in no time like the Oxide, Jenner IIC or the KDK 3.

[EgoSlayer]

Roadkill, on 14 June 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Energy Draw seems to have a lot of risks to me. For example, it seems logical to tie it to engine size in some way (since the engine generates the power, duh), but that means it could effectively cripple Assaults while having little to no effect on, say, a Jenner. Both use a 300 engine, right?

So... I'm doubtful about the whole concept.

Which is why "energy draw" or "power draw" are bad names since it has nothing to do with consumption. It's a damage limiter and limits the maximum damage (power) that can be done in one firing action. It's ghost heat 2.0 that applies to all weapons fired at the same time, not specific groups of weapons at set numbers. It's a set damage value regardless of what weapons get that damage.

[Gas Guzzler]

Cerulean Knight, on 14 June 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

Hmm, I noticed this little tidbit from @Kanajashi, the guy that does the patch overview videos:



I'm willing to bet he has a better idea on what the system is than we do right now so... cheer/ponder/panic/rage away!

Well, assuming he does have a better idea than us. I admit, I am not sure. But his videos do go on the main NGNGTV youtube channel, so it seems a safe assumption.

Sounds pretty lame and like its going to affect certain loadouts differently than others.

[wanderer]

The big problem has always been being able to put an entire 'Mechs worth of guns into a single pixel on the target.

Give 'Mechs a set deviation from center for each hardpoint, even if they're in the same part of the 'Mech. Three lasers in the left torso? The top one fires a bit high and left, the center one a bit left, the bottom one a bit low and left. The same laser on the left arm fires further to left of center.

Spreading damage, even in a predictable manner reduces the "death star" effect of perfect-at-any-range focused alphas.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 14 June 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

The thing is that even their crappy, outdated excuse doesn't hold up either because tying convergence to target locks (which is the best way to handle it) would in no way affect HSR (or if it somehow did affect HSR, then it would be a minimal impact at worst), unlike how delayed convergence would/did.

Well, if they're only paying for potato-level servers, then yes HSR and other netcode will be affected.

[Appogee]

I'd love to see delayed convergence. However, that would require the server to track multiple reticles per Mech, and quadruple the network traffic. So it will never happen.

[Mark Brandhauber]

Yes if implemented well this will be a welcome addition. If not it will be like almost every other metabrake.

[Cementi]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 June 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

No it didn't, there was never a power draw system in lore ever.

Actually I was recently given the Blood of Kerensky series to read by a friend. (still working on the third book) During Phelan Kell's trial to become a warrior it does indeed mention that the gauss rifles in his opponent take up so much power that the computer has to compensate with the cycling of the other weapons.

So yes in "lore" power draw is indeed referenced. Table top it was not however unless they implement a true heat scale (my preference) something needs to be done and at least a power draw system is talked about in the books. Far better than ghost heat in my opinion as if done correctly it will be able to affect all weapons equally.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cementi, on 14 June 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

Table top it was not however unless they implement a true heat scale (my preference) something needs to be done and at least a power draw system is talked about in the books.

The irony is that a true heat scale would not impact Gauss Rifles at all meaning that it would still not match up with that book.

[Jetfire]

A full on heat penalty system was needed, will this be it? I don't know. But Ghost heat was at best a bandaid. We needed a bandaid but it is long past time to actually design something sensible.