101 replies to this topic

[Snowbluff]

Savage Wolf, on 19 August 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:

What is it with people trying to justify bad game mechanics with scifi logic. Ideally they went hand in hand, but battletech wasn't built for this, so we can't. So we have to choose either good game play or sci-fi logic. I choose game play.

It's not scifi logic. We have fusion engines now. Well... not very good ones... but still!

Judging by how the power from your reactor gives a percent increase in speed, and engine rating seems to scale at a linear rate, it stands to reason that a higher rating engine would have the same percentage devoted to weapon energy as a lower engine, but with a higher overall gross that percent gives a higher quantity. This is to say nothing, of course, that real life fusion reactors are MORE efficient at larger sizes.

Plus bigger mechs should probably be able to shoot more.

Edited by Snowbluff, 19 August 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[Mawai]

Khobai, on 18 August 2016 - 10:58 PM, said:

Yep. Assaults need to do more damage than Lights. The energy cap should be based on weight class.

Light = 30
Medium = 35
Heavy = 40
Assault = 45

It makes logical sense. I agree. However, as a mechanism to replace ghost heat and limit large damage alpha strikes from boating ... the energy value is critical.

You could do something like:
Light: 20 - recharge 30/s
Medium: 25 - recharge 25/s
Heavy: 30 - recharge 20/s
Assault:35 - recharge 15/s

Or give the assaults a higher cap ... but reduce the recharge rate.

Keep in mind that 40 is a magic number for either 4 PPC builds or 2 AC20 builds ... both of which currently have ghost heat penalties.

Also, with longer cooldowns on weapons ... it will be important to check the recharge values to see if they are relevant. If the recharge rate is substantially less than the cooldowns then you will always be able to fire the weapons with no penalties.

One more point to make ... the comment has been made that assaults should have a higher alpha since they carry more weapons. The 30 limit imposes 30 damage/shot. With a recharge rate of 20/s the full 30 will be available after 1.5s. However, most weapons cooldowns are longer than this ... as a result, an assault mech with 60 total points of damage from weapons will be able to fire TWO 30 point alpha strikes (using different weapons) with a spacing of 1.5s while the other weapons are still on cooldown.

So the other way to approach this would be to give assaults a faster recharge rate and NOT increase their cap so that they can use the rest of their weapons in multiple 30 point alpha strikes ... which is not available to smaller mechs since they don't have the weapon loadouts and have to wait for cooldowns to fire again ... this does open the door for 6 PPC Stalker builds that can fire alternating sets of 3 PPC every 1.5 seconds even under the current plan (assuming it can dissipate the heat ).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kaptain, on 19 August 2016 - 01:34 AM, said:

6xPPCs alpha for 86 points less heat int his build than GH1.0. That makes 6x+ LL/LPS/PPC totally viable and that is ridiculous

6 PPCs has never been "viable", it has always been a joke build, 6 LPL and 6 LL on the other hand aren't, but considering how hot they were before, they won't be making a return like you seem to think.

Savage Wolf, on 19 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

It's not a firepower limit. It's an alpha limit. An assault will simply have the weapons to do the alpha more often meaning more damage per second.

Or they just solely rely on dakka to be relevant. If a mech like the Executioner is unable to mount enough dakka (which it isn't) then it is relegated to the trash bin faster than it currently is in live. Sorry, but alphas are necessary for both assaults and lights to be useful against heavies and mediums.

Alistair Winter, on 19 August 2016 - 05:03 AM, said:

This.

But the assaultbros will tell you that lights are just supposed to cap bases, harass enemy mechs (i.e. do 50 damage in a match) and scout the enemy team (i.e. watch the fight).

While I agree with this, raising the energy cap across the board would slightly alleviate this since some of the better light builds got nerfed as well. That and the penalty could stand to be higher if the cap is raised.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 August 2016 - 06:41 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

pyrocomp, on 19 August 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:

This was posted in a thread entitled 'assaults need a bigger cap' with a distinctive notion that I' against that and all for lowering energy limit firther. And the post istelf does contain one sentence (I marked it for you) that... Do you really that serious?

That sentence didn't really make sense in relation to the rest of your post and since you kept defending it, it was likely not relevant, a bad joke or badly explained.

pyrocomp, on 19 August 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:

Ok, that was a joke. The only mechs that deserve lower heat cap (not counting blanket lowering for all the mechs to try) are ACH. And that lowering should be aroun 1-2 extra points to bring it closer to other lights. Then, buff all lights if needed. If you insist that strong objectives are needed for light to be a choise and a good mech then it is you, not I, who state that those are bad ones. Really, I'm goo with current objectives and ways to play lights but miss the population badly. To the point to ask instill 3/3/3/3 again. Or just 3/whatever/whatever/whatever.
And in the post that triggered the most responce from you read 'should' in the first sentence as 'be able', not 'must'. A pair of lights have problems against various splat builds incarnations.

I never claimed you said that lights are bad, I did so myself if anything, because unfortunately they are. But you insisted they remain bad. That was the issue and you did so repeatedly.

I've suggested what I want in the game we have, which requires damage. To base them on objectives requires an entirely different gameplay than what we have.

[pyrocomp]

Mawai, on 19 August 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

It makes logical sense. I agree. However, as a mechanism to replace ghost heat and limit large damage alpha strikes from boating ... the energy value is critical.

You could do something like:
Light: 20 - recharge 30/s
Medium: 25 - recharge 25/s
Heavy: 30 - recharge 20/s
Assault:35 - recharge 15/s

Or give the assaults a higher cap ... but reduce the recharge rate.

Keep in mind that 40 is a magic number for either 4 PPC builds or 2 AC20 builds ... both of which currently have ghost heat penalties.

Also, with longer cooldowns on weapons ... it will be important to check the recharge values to see if they are relevant. If the recharge rate is substantially less than the cooldowns then you will always be able to fire the weapons with no penalties.

One more point to make ... the comment has been made that assaults should have a higher alpha since they carry more weapons. The 30 limit imposes 30 damage/shot. With a recharge rate of 20/s the full 30 will be available after 1.5s. However, most weapons cooldowns are longer than this ... as a result, an assault mech with 60 total points of damage from weapons will be able to fire TWO 30 point alpha strikes (using different weapons) with a spacing of 1.5s while the other weapons are still on cooldown.

So the other way to approach this would be to give assaults a faster recharge rate and NOT increase their cap so that they can use the rest of their weapons in multiple 30 point alpha strikes ... which is not available to smaller mechs since they don't have the weapon loadouts and have to wait for cooldowns to fire again ... this does open the door for 6 PPC Stalker builds that can fire alternating sets of 3 PPC every 1.5 seconds even under the current plan (assuming it can dissipate the heat ).

I'd go further and say that assaults might have lower energy cap but higher recharge rate since they are capable of boating heavy systems and the worst offenders with all those long range pinpoint alphas were on the heavier spectrum. But overall idea is good. Would like to see it tried on PTS.

[Savage Wolf]

Snowbluff, on 19 August 2016 - 06:30 AM, said:

It's not scifi logic. We have fusion engines now. Well... not very good ones... but still!

Judging by how the power from your reactor gives a percent increase in speed, and engine rating seems to scale at a linear rate, it stands to reason that a higher rating engine would have the same percentage devoted to weapon energy as a lower engine, but with a higher overall gross that percent gives a higher quantity. This is to say nothing, of course, that real life fusion reactors are MORE efficient at larger sizes.

Still trying to change game mechanics because of science logic without regards to gameplay.

Snowbluff, on 19 August 2016 - 06:30 AM, said:

Plus bigger mechs should probably be able to shoot more.

They can, so there ya go.

[pyrocomp]

Savage Wolf, on 19 August 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

I never claimed you said that lights are bad, I did so myself if anything, because unfortunately they are. But you insisted they remain bad. That was the issue and you did so repeatedly.

I'd say they are not bad. Really. What class are you piloting the most? I stick to Assaults and Lights and see those from both ends. First are more fun if direct engagement, second are better for ... you know, those mostly remind me of Quake. Not in a sence of twitch shooter, but in overall speed at witch things happen and need to aim and position.
Anyway, I do not see lights as bad. And I get often from them. More often from assaults. And other classes are not considred even a danger. So no, lights are not bad. And better in-game roles for lights through rewards and other mechanics in my opinion would be much more preferable over firepower increase.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pyrocomp, on 19 August 2016 - 06:48 AM, said:

So no, lights are not bad.

After the rescale, they definitely are bad.

They were the weakest class before the rescale and get nerfhammered after it. They are the least likely to turn a match and more often a mech that capitalizes once the tempo has shifted heavily in one teams favor.

Don't get me wrong, they do have their moments and are still a potent threat, just not near the level that the other classes are.

Which is why weight based and engine based energy draw are bad ideas. Your best bet is global since it is easier for PGI and less likely for them to screw it up, outside of that, energy draw quirks would work as well (if PGI were better at actually balancing that is).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 August 2016 - 06:53 AM.

[pyrocomp]

Savage Wolf, on 19 August 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

Still trying to change game mechanics because of science logic without regards to gameplay.

They can, so there ya go.

No. He forgot in his calculations and logic to exclude BT tradition of melting heatsinks into the engine. Exclude heatsinks from the engine, keep heat generation proportional to Engine rating and this may go. Largest engine will require to drop FF, ES and DHS. And not to shutdown from running there will be just enough slost for a single laser. If that will be the system... More balanced, check, choises, ckeck, longer TTK, check, all that we like, ... no, where gone all the pew-pew? Anyway, realworld logic will require engine heat sinks to take same space as SHS at least, heat sinks upgrade to not change engine heat sinks and not heat neutral engine. I doubt this can be pushed through. Really.

[pyrocomp]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 August 2016 - 06:51 AM, said:

After the rescale, they definitely are bad.

They were the weakest class before the rescale and get nerfhammered after it. They are the least likely to turn a match and more often a mech that capitalizes once the tempo has shifted heavily in one teams favor.

Don't get me wrong, they do have their moments and are still a potent threat, just not near the level that the other classes are.

Which is why weight based and engine based energy draw are bad ideas. Your best bet is global since it is easier for PGI and less likely for them to screw it up, outside of that, energy draw quirks would work as well (if PGI were better at actually balancing that is).

Not going into tier argument, but good lights do turn tables on certain maps. Not that they are rewarded properly... Lights do depend on number of mech engaged as they can create local numerical advantage easier, but thats not going to change.

Anyway, there was a proposition for the classes that cab be translated to the engine rating thing, that goes like this: large engine has lower energy cap (for balancing reasons engine heat sinks ate that energy) but has higher recharge rate (logic).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pyrocomp, on 19 August 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

large engine has lower energy cap (for balancing reasons engine heat sinks ate that energy) but has higher recharge rate (logic).

So fast mechs would be neutered into using DPS oriented build despite not having the tonnage to actually make use of the good DPS weapons, no, just no.

[Atreides76]

While I'm not a part of this test I've got two questions, 1) what does the new system mean for my 2ML 4 SRM6 and AC20 AS7-S ?

2) I'm a tier 4 player who mainly plays for fun and dont really care if I go to the higher tiers or not, how will the new system impact tier 4 players ?

Edited by Atreides76, 19 August 2016 - 07:13 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Assaults definitely need something. Lights have mobility and don't actually need more energy, but if we wanted to make a global change then that's cool.

[Snowbluff]

Savage Wolf, on 19 August 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

Still trying to change game mechanics because of science logic without regards to gameplay.

Well, since I agree with the OP, gameplay was considered. I said so when I said

Quote

Plus bigger mechs should probably be able to shoot more.

[pyrocomp]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 August 2016 - 07:09 AM, said:

So fast mechs would be neutered into using DPS oriented build despite not having the tonnage to actually make use of the good DPS weapons, no, just no.

So slow mech should have same damage options as faster ones do? Then how those going to get better? Note, blanket buff for lights after that would be needed anyway.

[Lily from animove]

lol NO, I doubt you even tried to calculate ho many c-LPL one can stuff in a DWF and fire at once with these values.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 August 2016 - 07:24 AM.

[FupDup]

Gas Guzzler, on 19 August 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

Assaults definitely need something. Lights have mobility and don't actually need more energy, but if we wanted to make a global change then that's cool.

Lights are weaker in the PTS than the live server (and they're usually underpowered even in live) since almost every one of them except the Oxide suffers a heat penalty from their existing builds, and they don't have the tonnage to use PPC/Gauss/Dakka builds.

PPCs and Gauss everywhere also doesn't help lights much...

Edited by FupDup, 19 August 2016 - 07:30 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pyrocomp, on 19 August 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

So slow mech should have same damage options as faster ones do?

Ideally they have better options because they have more tonnage, the problem is that tonnage gained from this eventually becomes less useful than the speed (which to a point should be expected), especially in an environment where agility is tied to speed.

[pyrocomp]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 August 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

Ideally they have better options because they have more tonnage, the problem is that tonnage gained from this eventually becomes less useful than the speed (which to a point should be expected), especially in an environment where agility is tied to speed.

Hence the proposition to compensate for agilty/speed advantage with bigger engines. As the current agilty and speed bonus is way above benefit of squeesing another SL or ML.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pyrocomp, on 19 August 2016 - 07:34 AM, said:

Hence the proposition to compensate for agilty/speed advantage with bigger engines. As the current agilty and speed bonus is way above benefit of squeesing another SL or ML.

Except doing what you suggested just makes it an inverse situation, you just mount as much dakka as you can stack with something like a STD engine, push, then win. Lights are probably the biggest loser in this because they still need speed to survive but end up losing both energy and DPS because they don't have the armor to expose themselves repeatedly like that.

BESM for all its problems would be better than turret pushes.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 August 2016 - 07:39 AM.