819 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

It doesn't cost gameplay, it changes it. I get that you are a fan of the alpha meta. I would like to see more than one playstyle be viable.

What you don't seem to get, despite Quicksilver and I relentlessly trying to hammer into you over the past couple hours, is that more than one playstyle IS viable right now. All power draw is going to do is REDUCE the amount of viable playstyles.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 10 August 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[Hotthedd]

1453 R, on 10 August 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

This is the issue, Hotthedd.

The whole forced-chainfire thing, where you can fire one UND PRECISELY VUN weapon accurately at any given time and trying to fire even so much as two small lasers simultaneously results in your 'Mech spontaneously exploding into a pile of flaming confetti with the word "Idiot" written on each and every little piece that all the old TT folks are so keen on...destroys virtually every existing playstyle.

That is not even remotely close to what I was suggesting. Firing 2 small lasers simultaneously would cause a very small crosshair bloom with the weapons hitting within the cross hairs.
I have no idea what hyperbole you are referencing.

1453 R, on 10 August 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

Ranged sniping is gone. Outright, cannot-do-it-anymore gone, because a ranged sniper trying to stop an SRM guy from closing on him with one single Gauss rifle is unable to deal more than the most minor of token damage before that SRM guy is all up in his face with something like forty times his DPS and eating him like a ham sandwich.

Does that sniper HAVE 2 gauss rifles? If not, your hypothetical situation is pointless, and if so, the amount of damage that sniper can do has not changed. The only difference is each individual round would have to be aimed instead of getting the two-for-one deal.

1453 R, on 10 August 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

Energy-centric 'Mechs are gone. Completely done. One AC/5 out-deepz's any number of lasers, of any type, at any range, in forced chainfire mode. One guy firing one AC/5 mounted on a Panther will deal more, and more effective, DPS than a Dire Whale configured with a dozen lasers, of which it can only ever fire one at a time without suffering the Wrath of the Old Ones. The Whale gets less DPS, less damage, less focused damage, more heat...everything bad you can think of, the Whale gets that end of the stick. Get two AC/5s, so you get a faster cycle rate on your forced chainfire? Well, that Blackjack will become an unstoppable nightmare beast to all energy-centric assaults who dare to show their faces before it!

First of all, I never said forced chain fire. What I am advocating is for chain fire to have its advantages and group fire to have its advantages, and full alphas to have its advantages, each with its own drawbacks.

1453 R, on 10 August 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

C'mon, man. How can you possibly look at the game in its current state and say "if only everything was forced into chainfire mode at all times for all players forever, all of our balance problems would just vanish overnight and we'd Make MWO Great Again"?

I never did say that. However perfectly precise alpha striking has led to: Doubling armor, increasing ammo because of the doubled armor, ghost heat, and many other band-aid fixes. PGI has tried to balance alphas with heat penalties, but without an actual heat scale, it doesn't really work. Accuracy is the issue, accuracy penalties are the solution.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

What you don't seem to get, despite Quicksilver and I relentlessly trying to hammer into you over the past couple hours, is that more than one playstyle IS viable right now. All power draw is going to do is REDUCE the amount of viable playstyles.

Chain fire is worse than group fire in every circumstance that a build is below 80-90% heat. Period.
So, no, there really is only one play style, it just has a couple of flavors.

[Y E O N N E]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 05:01 PM, said:

Chain fire is worse than group fire in every circumstance that a build is below 80-90% heat. Period.
So, no, there really is only one play style, it just has a couple of flavors.

Alpha-striking is used much less than you seem to think. I actually almost never do a full alpha. It's usually a partial salvo to provoke a defensive response from the target and then a follow-up that bypasses that defensive response. For PPCs, I can't always rely on convergence due to the nature of deflection shooting, so I often fire them off one at a time. For dakka, I stagger them so it increases cockpit shake and the amount of debris being thrown into the target's view-screen.

And I see nothing wrong with chain-fire only being used near heat saturation...as per PGI, that is its entire purpose: to help with heat management.

Your interpretation of what a play-style is...is also flawed.

[MauttyKoray]

AnTi90d, on 13 June 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

So, I saw that this was just Tweeted:



..all the while I haven't heard a single positive thing about the incoming power draw mechanic from any player.. only negative.

So, does this community really want an Energy Draw system? Do you guys think it would be good for this game to have a system that prevents players from firing all of their weapons due to some invisible mechanic that has never existed in all of Battletech / Mechwarrior?

I mean, Novas are historically known as a mech that carries more weapons that it can keep firing, but that's why alpha-strikes exist.. and Novas shutdown after they alpha-strike.

Now, we're going to have another invisible system that surely won't be explained one iota in-game that will alienate and frustrate new players and likely cause existing players to just say, "screw this, they changed the game too much and now it isn't something that I want to keep playing. All the mechs in my garage have been ruined."

Personally, I'd rather they got off of their sidetracked asses and rolled FP back to phase 2. They've already rolled out feature after feature that the playerbase didn't want, didn't ask for and didn't like.. and that has done possibly irreparable damage to the FP participation numbers.

This new feature sounds like a horrible pain in the *** and a generally terrible idea.. in a long line of pains in the asses and terrible ideas.

Yes, I've wanted some sort of 'limiter' system for weapons fire since heat scale has never been implemented correctly anyway. Firing off multiple large lasers on a mechs? Books/fluff treat it like the pilot gets flooded with heat in their cockpit. Wanna fire dual PPCs? Holy hell that things a toaster, hope your pilot survived. You shot dual PPCs AND DUAL LARGE LASERS?! You're ******, enjoy being oven roasted.

Granted, these are momentary seconds of it, you fire them, a wave of heat washes through the cockpit, and then subsides in the next second or two. Red lining your mech causes mech performance degredation, potential ammo cookoffs at the higher tiers, and if you really redline it beyond the safety limit, your pilot will pass out and probably die.

So yes, I've been looking forward to some sort of system, obviously its not going to be perfect at first and need tweaks but that's what the PTS will be for and if still needed adjustments can always be made later.

[Hotthedd]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 August 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

Alpha-striking is used much less than you seem to think. I actually almost never do a full alpha. It's usually a partial salvo to provoke a defensive response from the target and then a follow-up that bypasses that defensive response. For PPCs, I can't always rely on convergence due to the nature of deflection shooting, so I often fire them off one at a time. For dakka, I stagger them so it increases cockpit shake and the amount of debris being thrown into the target's view-screen.

And I see nothing wrong with chain-fire only being used near heat saturation...as per PGI, that is its entire purpose: to help with heat management.

Your interpretation of what a play-style is...is also flawed.

Hence why I wrote "group fire" above.

I'm glad that you have your opinion that multiple similar weapons fired simultaneously should automatically converge under the reticle. I, however do not share that opinion.

I did not realize you were the arbiter of the definition of the term "play-style". If that is the case, I reject your authority on that matter and re-assert that alpha strike and group fire under almost every circumstance IS a play-style.

Feel free to disagree.

[Gas Guzzler]

Your dreams of a chain fire only MechWarrior game will never, ever, ever come true. Just FYI.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Your dreams of a chain fire only MechWarrior game will never, ever, ever come true. Just FYI.

Who has dreams of that?

[Y E O N N E]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 05:22 PM, said:

Hence why I wrote "group fire" above.

I'm glad that you have your opinion that multiple similar weapons fired simultaneously should automatically converge under the reticle. I, however do not share that opinion.

I did not realize you were the arbiter of the definition of the term "play-style". If that is the case, I reject your authority on that matter and re-assert that alpha strike and group fire under almost every circumstance IS a play-style.

Feel free to disagree.

I don't have to be an authority, look at the context of your own conversation. What Gas and Quicksilver are referring to as play-styles are the options to play the game with an emphasis on burst damage or an emphasis on damage over time. What you are talking about is something to the side of that. Having a more compelling reason to chain-fire doesn't preclude having to make the choice between burst or DoT (though it does dramatically de-emphasize the meaning of that choice).

[Hotthedd]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 August 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

I don't have to be an authority, look at the context of your own conversation. What Gas and Quicksilver are referring to as play-styles are the options to play the game with an emphasis on burst damage or an emphasis on damage over time. What you are talking about is something to the side of that. Having a more compelling reason to chain-fire doesn't preclude having to make the choice between burst or DoT (though it does dramatically de-emphasize the meaning of that choice).

That is what I am saying, it doesn't preclude that choice. It does, however, make those and other play styles into viable options.
I get it. And the perfect precision group-fire meta crowd will (and is) always going to fight any and all changes to that, whether it is power draw, ghost heat, or even lessening of precision. But that doesn't mean that I am wrong, it only means that people who prefer that play style will use ad hominems, reductio ad absurdium, straw man arguments, or anything it takes to make sure it isn't taken away from them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

That is what I am saying, it doesn't preclude that choice. It does, however, make those and other play styles into viable options.

What you don't seem to get is those are already options, and as he says, forcing chain fire for accurate use only makes that choice less distinct and actually hurts viable strategies/tactics than it helps.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2016 - 06:11 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

But that doesn't mean that I am wrong, it only means that people who prefer that play style will use ad hominems, reductio ad absurdium, straw man arguments, or anything it takes to make sure it isn't taken away from them.

I'm pretty sure you're the one using straw man arguments considering you don't know what the current meta entails.

I haven't really seen many ad hominems other than ones you're preconceived notion about what the meta entails which really isn't an ad hominem at that point.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2016 - 06:21 PM.

[Fart Huffer]

Based on this entier 32 page thread I still have not seen a SINGLE good reason for why the big alphas are even a problem. The only thing people have had to say is "WHHAAA" and thats not a very good argument. This kind of crap is why I would NEVER spend any real money on this crap. If the problem is laser vomit the solution is to introduce reflective armor and its that simple. Then the piss wads who complain about it can shut up about it....and them subsequently cry because they are now more vulnerable to other kinds of weps thus prove what a bunch of stupid pusys they are.

My Mad Dog has a 101 points of damage and it only has 3 lasers. I can PROMISE you that it would melt the face of all the pansy *** cry babies faster than any laser alpha in the game. This is such a moronic debate.

Edited by Fart Huffer, 10 August 2016 - 07:44 PM.

[BattleBunny]

Fart Huffer, on 10 August 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

Based on this entier 32 page thread I still have not seen a SINGLE good reason for why the big alphas are even a problem. The only thing people have had to say is "WHHAAA" and thats not a very good argument.

I feel the same way, skipping through most of this thread.

Why are alpha strikes a problem?

Meta shifted away from laser vomit lately and has never been as diverse as it is today. PPC's are back, dakka is very strong on certain mechs and laser vomit is still viable but definatly not alone at the top anymore. SRMS are also in widespread use. Other then a bit OP assault mech in the form of a kodiak, the game has never been this well balanced over the three years that I have been playing it, as it is today.

I was hoping PGI would now focus on expanding on the game, not changing it.

*sigh*

Edited by BattleBunny, 11 August 2016 - 03:21 AM.

[Vellron2005]

Personally, I find it hilarious that this "problem of weapon boating" exists. Especially when most mechs in the game, with the exclusion of the earliest known models, are designed to carry multiple instances of the same weapon, or to put it like that, "to boat weapons".

There are many examples: Catapult, Nova, Executioner, Thunderbolt, Direwolf, King Crab, and many other mechs. Boating is their main "thing".

And its a logical extension of the human need to "arm their mech to the teeth".

Also, the most common reason for weapon boating is actually quite simple - weapon groups. I don't know about you guys, but I find it extremely unpractical to use more than 3 weapon groups. Group 1 - lasers, Group 2 - "a big, high-damage weapon" like PPC, AC20 or Gauss, and Group 3 - Missiles.

Any more than that, and its too much to be practical, and forces a player to spend absurd amounts of money on high-end gaming mouse.

I mean MWO already uses much of the keyboard to play.. With all the functions, its simply not practical to have more than 3 weapon groups. The difference in ranges also makes in unpractical to group different weapons together. If you go by logic, and you group by range, than you will fire missiles without lock, lasers will overheat you, and AC's will hit air.

Its not practical.

But... If you have lots of the same weapon.. then you can group them all up nicely, and know exactly which weapon you're firing and why.

Boating is not a problem.

Boating is mechs doing what they were designed to do.

If you can't stand the heat, shut down and get out of the kitchen. ;-)

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

What you don't seem to get is those are already options, and as he says, forcing chain fire for accurate use only makes that choice less distinct and actually hurts viable strategies/tactics than it helps.

To be more correct, chain fire gives a more accurate shot, group fire would be less accurate depending on the number of weapons fired simultaneously. The ONLY "viable strategy/tactic" that is affected is the "combine several weapons into one super weapon" strategy.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 06:20 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure you're the one using straw man arguments considering you don't know what the current meta entails.

Show me one straw man argument that I have used.
I can show you dozens that the alpha first crowd likes to employ. The best example is attacking the "random shots", which is not an argument I have made.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

I haven't really seen many ad hominems other than ones you're preconceived notion about what the meta entails which really isn't an ad hominem at that point.

An ad hominem is an argument that attacks the person, not the argument.
(For example: suggesting that the person does not understand the meta, and therefore their argument is invalid, is an attack on the person's perceived intelligence, and not the argument at hand)
MW:O is about as deep as an Arizona puddle. It isn't hard to figure out the best builds when one option is clearly superior to the other in almost every conceivable scenario.
...And the people who prefer that their play style be the only viable way to play want to keep it that way.

[Johnny Z]

Fart Huffer, on 10 August 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

Based on this entier 32 page thread I still have not seen a SINGLE good reason for why the big alphas are even a problem. The only thing people have had to say is "WHHAAA" and thats not a very good argument. This kind of crap is why I would NEVER spend any real money on this crap. If the problem is laser vomit the solution is to introduce reflective armor and its that simple. Then the piss wads who complain about it can shut up about it....and them subsequently cry because they are now more vulnerable to other kinds of weps thus prove what a bunch of stupid pusys they are.

My Mad Dog has a 101 points of damage and it only has 3 lasers. I can PROMISE you that it would melt the face of all the pansy *** cry babies faster than any laser alpha in the game. This is such a moronic debate.

Fart Huffer has spoken, so shall it be done. Release the "Power Draw".

He makes a great argument for alpha limits. There was no real argument against it anyway.

[Johnny Z]

Violet Vitriol Price, on 10 August 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

so with this system 3 LPL will be hotter than 3 PPCs? 3 LPL does 33 damage for 21 heat currently and 3 PPCs do 30 for 30, so then with the LPLs you will get extra heat because of the extra 3 damage?

At least with 'power draw' Highlanders might be good again

This is why heat wont work.

What I gather is that 3 LPL will only be able to fire 2 then the third .5 seconds later. Something like that. That's if they go with 30. 25 looks like the better choice to me but the pros will know better.

There is some math involved but what ever number they come up with shouldn't be to hard since there are relatively few amounts of damage numbers to consider.

How small vrs assault mechs work into this is a not obvious, but it may just be a matter of finding a balanced number as well.

If heat is left in, and it looks like it will be, it wont change at all maybe. It will work to limit long duration continuous fire.

Some say Power Draw is a band aid. Truth is that it is an elegant answer to the problem. Heats Scale will be back end and Power Draw the front end. Its beautiful.

Thinking ahead a bit they should add a weapons test graphic in the mechbay maybe some time. Showing the two bars fluctuate.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 August 2016 - 04:56 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Or they could just eliminate the whole max range crap... the ER PPC's maximum range IS what is now the optimal range. After that the charged particle stream loses cohesion or something.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

To be more correct, chain fire gives a more accurate shot, group fire would be less accurate depending on the number of weapons fired simultaneously.

I said "accurate use" for a reason.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

Show me one straw man argument that I have used.

In misrepresenting what the meta is even about which is related to this:

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

(For example: suggesting that the person does not understand the meta, is an attack on the person's perceived intelligence, and not the argument at hand)

Ima stop you right there because you don't seem to get what exactly I'm even stating when I suggest this, the reason I say that is because you say that alpha the meta currently is about alphas, which is bogus, that's the statement I'm addressing, nothing else. You are arguing that there is a problem when there isn't actually a problem.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

I can show you dozens that the alpha first crowd likes to employ. The best example is attacking the "random shots", which is not an argument I have made.

I don't care what the rest of the "alpha" crowd has said, that doesn't excuse you from anything especially since I have not said anything about this.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

The ONLY "viable strategy/tactic" that is affected is the "combine several weapons into one super weapon" strategy.

Now this is the funny one, does it matter whether it's multiple small weapons or one large weapon? The effect is going to be the same, people are going to try and build mechs around this idea, that's what specialization is all about.

Let's say we doubled damage and heat on all weapons to make them as effective as their TT counterparts, the effect is exactly the same, it is still going to be about building a super weapon, the only difference is that it can be done with fewer weapons (which makes it harder to balance mind you), so why is the number of weapons it takes to have that effect so problematic? Why is an AC40 build so problematic when it has the same punch as a single AC20 in TT?