303 replies to this topic

[Darkthor]

At this moment in time I can only say that , PGI, you have a horrible terrible and plain bad dev team and they personally should be sent to some greener pastures in other companies where imbecile decisions like asking ENERGY for BALLISTIC WEAPONS is a REASONABLE concept.

Let me explain it to you with a VERY SIMPLE image, that I can further expand upon if the concept is too complicated for you.
Here we have an AK-47.
Please SHOW ME WHERE DO YOU SEE a fricking BATTERY.

I know the mechanical concept may be too complicated for your dev team, but the only thing this gun produces is HEAT.

If you are going to go batsh*t crazy and implement a NEW game mechanic such as Energy Draw to balance your game because you are unable to balance it using cooldown and heat, 2 measily variables that you can FIND in ANY game out there, (replace heat with mana,and you get the point), AT LEAST use basic COMMON SENSE when balancing and not implement it to NON-ENERGY weapons.

You have been struggling for a long long time to balance this game, but let me explain it like this to you: inserting a new variable to balance this game is a REALLY BAD IDEA. You are opening a whole new can of worms because you are changing a game-breaking game mechanic, one that will make things even more complicated for everyone.

You want to limit shots in game and the energy system is the only way you can do it? Make cooldowns/heat bigger if you cannot juggle a simple concept such as maneuvrability on each tonnage class.

In your recent quest for pay-2-win , you have inserted into the game mechs that are TOO MOBILE and TOO FAST for their tonnage, and that tipped the scale completely.

STOP COPYING SARNA numbers and throw them blindly into the game. Those are paper values.
Instead, fix what you already have.
Stay with the quirks system which made old-timers from the time of closed beta functional, if you must.

Edited by Darkthor, 24 August 2016 - 03:39 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Darkthor, on 24 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

At this moment in time I can only say that , PGI, you have a horrible terrible and plain bad dev team and they personally should be sent to some greener pastures in other companies where imbecile decisions like asking ENERGY for BALLISTIC WEAPONS is a REASONABLE concept.

Let me explain it to you with a VERY SIMPLE image, that I can further expand upon if the concept is too complicated for you.
Here we have an AK-47.
Please SHOW ME WHERE DO YOU SEE a fricking BATTERY.

I know the mechanical concept may be too complicated for your dev team, but the only thing this gun produces is HEAT.

If you are going to go batsh*t crazy and implement a NEW game mechanic such as Energy Draw to balance your game because you are unable to balance it using cooldown and heat, 2 measily variables that you can FIND in ANY game out there, (replace heat with mana,and you get the point), AT LEAST use basic COMMON SENSE when balancing and not implement it to NON-ENERGY weapons.

You have been struggling for a long long time to balance this game, but let me explain it like this to you: inserting a new variable to balance this game is a REALLY BAD IDEA. You are opening a whole new can of worms because you are changing a game-breaking game mechanic, one that will make things even more complicated for everyone.

You want to limit shots in game and the energy system is the only way you can do it? Make cooldowns/heat bigger if you cannot juggle a simple concept such as maneuvrability on each tonnage class.

In your recent quest for pay-2-win , you have inserted into the game mechs that are TOO MOBILE and TOO FAST for their tonnage, and that tipped the scale completely.

STOP COPYING SARNA numbers and throw them blindly into the game. Those are paper values.
Instead, fix what you already have.
Stay with the quirks system which made old-timers from the time of closed beta functional, if you must.

I agree that calling it "Energy Draw" is kindof cringy, but I for one appreciate PGI faithfully reproducing the mechs from lore. I also appriaicate them not skipping over chassis because "they're too good." When it comes to balancing decisions I honestly think power draw could have worked, but every weapon needed its own unique values that would be shown in the front end.

Under this system, I would expect that ballistics have a very low energy draw since they are ballisitics, but apparently somehwhere in the last few months dakka became meta over laser vomit. I don't know when it happened because I sure havn't noticed it.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 24 August 2016 - 03:50 PM.

[Trilobiteer]

Darkthor, on 24 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

Here we have an AK-47.
Please SHOW ME WHERE DO YOU SEE a fricking BATTERY.

I know the mechanical concept may be too complicated for your dev team, but the only thing this gun produces is HEAT.

^This. You should be able to balance this game with the twin variables of heat and cooldowns. It's the same thing as mana and cooldowns in games like Dota 2 or World of Warcraft and they manage just fine. The energy draw system is overly complicated, not intuitive for any level of player and doesn't make logical sense. Did we switch out our nuclear reactors for AA batteries when I wasn't looking? Imagine introducing a new person to this game and having to say, oh yeah, this ballistic weapon drains more energy from your mech's power supply in order to fire a chemical process than it takes to fire your goddamn ENERGY WEAPONS. See how ridiculous that is? Just stick to heat, cooldowns and quirks.

Edited by Trilobiteer, 24 August 2016 - 04:11 PM.

[WarmasterRaptor]

Everybody talking about recoil.

What is suffering and absorbing weapons recoil on your mech?

Gyros.

Gyros are powered by?

I can deal and get behind energy draw for ACs.

[MovinTarget]

Darkthor, on 24 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

At this moment in time I can only say that , PGI, you have a horrible terrible and plain bad dev team and they personally should be sent to some greener pastures in other companies where imbecile decisions like asking ENERGY for BALLISTIC WEAPONS is a REASONABLE concept.

Let me explain it to you with a VERY SIMPLE image, that I can further expand upon if the concept is too complicated for you.
Here we have an AK-47.
Please SHOW ME WHERE DO YOU SEE a fricking BATTERY.

I know the mechanical concept may be too complicated for your dev team, but the only thing this gun produces is HEAT.

If you are going to go batsh*t crazy and implement a NEW game mechanic such as Energy Draw to balance your game because you are unable to balance it using cooldown and heat, 2 measily variables that you can FIND in ANY game out there, (replace heat with mana,and you get the point), AT LEAST use basic COMMON SENSE when balancing and not implement it to NON-ENERGY weapons.

You have been struggling for a long long time to balance this game, but let me explain it like this to you: inserting a new variable to balance this game is a REALLY BAD IDEA. You are opening a whole new can of worms because you are changing a game-breaking game mechanic, one that will make things even more complicated for everyone.

You want to limit shots in game and the energy system is the only way you can do it? Make cooldowns/heat bigger if you cannot juggle a simple concept such as maneuvrability on each tonnage class.

In your recent quest for pay-2-win , you have inserted into the game mechs that are TOO MOBILE and TOO FAST for their tonnage, and that tipped the scale completely.

STOP COPYING SARNA numbers and throw them blindly into the game. Those are paper values.
Instead, fix what you already have.
Stay with the quirks system which made old-timers from the time of closed beta functional, if you must.

Oh, we are trying to play a realistic game? Okay, ballistics require little/no energy but unless they are arm mounted, they don't converge or converge at a fixed point because last time i checked, torso/head mounted weapons are not turrets that can angle independent of their mounting position.

Sorry, but we are playing big stompy robots in a virtual world, suspension of disbelief may have to exist and while i don't agree with all of pgi's logic, their are too many flaws in the source material (std100 engine is really the same size as a std 400? Locust has exactly as many slots as an atlas?) to simply point at PGI and cry blasphemy.

I know you think you have a better solution than they do, and maybe you are right.

Personally, i like shaky reticule and agility nerfs from high heat... we aready have the shake coded so that approach is basically 40-50% done (more if you simply act "legged" at a certain heat point).

But is that scientifically logical as a penalty? Probably not, but it seems like a lore-friendly and effective means to penalize heat offenders.

[calmdawn]

We are playing a fantasy world. "Big stompy robots" require mana and other crap to use "ballistic" school of magic, and they use other sort of crap to use other sort of magic. I'm fine with this magic mechanics, cause I play both games - wow and mwo.

[DAYLEET]

InnerSphereNews, on 23 August 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

A 20% increase to Missile Spread will look (approximately) like this:

The inner circle is the existing Missile Spread. The outer circle is the new Missile Spread.

Thats not a big increase though whe nthat srm get in that outside ring is sucks.

We can extrapolate that mech with 5% increase quirks on srm effectively do nothing as of right now on live.

Edited by DAYLEET, 24 August 2016 - 07:57 PM.

[PyckenZot]

Mystere, on 24 August 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

Ahem! Actually, constant alpha strikes as the primary firing pattern are not.

Read my statement again,...

[Aramuside]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

Boating doesn't. Again, check the builds I've tested here, there's very little boating and I've been pulling VERY strong results from all of them, often against boated builds. There's a lot of BS in these threads, largely from people who haven't actually tried things and are just dreaming stuff up from what they've read.

(U)AC2, (U)AC5 (IS and Clan) are both solid weapon that, in 1 or 2, pair just fine with lasers or SRM's without any issue at all.

(U)AC10's are also fine, but once you get 2 UAC10's clan side it's harder to pair them with another weapon (or even more UAC10's!!) but that's due to pushing 40 damage in less than a second. Draws hard. However, mechs at this point that can mount multiple 10's and other weapons (we're now talking large assaults) can run LBX10's effortlessly. So this DOES mean that a 2UAC10+2LPL build doesn't work well... But a 2LBX10+2LPL build works great. Yes, you get lower damage output. That's kind of the point.

AC10's work just fine with lasers and whatnot too.

There's no advantage to boating over mixing. My builds linked above prove that very consistently.



My LRM35/5CERSL Mad Dog was massively buffed by Energy Draw. It's noticably better than live. LRM's in general, while EXTREMELY unreliable in 4v4 PTS situations, are significantly better under Energy Draw.




It is indeed, though, in all seriousness. AS7's are not hurting at all, and for the DDC electing to go to 2xLBX10 instead of AC20 is actually a very valid choice now - cooler running, higher DPS, you've always got a weapon to fire.

You DON'T want to alpha AC20+SRM's, but you can twist past and fire one, then twist back past and fire the other, never stopping twisting and it's very cool and quite potent. Remember, your opponents are burning hard alphas either.

Interesting to hear some first hand - I'm curious as to why you don't see "LRM35/5CERSL" as boating as that's almost the definition of it for me?

[Aramuside]

XtremeAlex, on 24 August 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

You begun to play now. [Member Since 11 Jun 2016]
What do you know of mwo?

The alpha must be managed in relation to the weight.
So is diversity among the mech.

Today a Raven2x can make an alpha of 3 Large Laser.
Why an Atlas should not do an good alpha?
I HOPE YOU ARE JOKING.

Do you know why?
Why is heavy 100 tons and be able to do it.

What is your favorite weapon?
Guess: LRM! right?

I think you're trying to insult him and sound clever but it just doesn't make much sense.

[goatreich]

Many of these problems would go away with the previous mechwarrior games hardpoint size allocation and more limited hardpoints If suddenly you take out a LL and you could only fit 2 ML or by taking out an AC2 you can't fit in an AC20, boating problems could be solved. omnimechs would be a challenge but with heat, good size restrictions and cooldown a balance could be achieved.
The major problem of this game is clan tech. It's just unbalanced getting same firepower in less size and weight.

[Aargh Tenna]

Darkthor, on 24 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

At this moment in time I can only say that , PGI, you have a horrible terrible and plain bad dev team and they personally should be sent to some greener pastures in other companies where imbecile decisions like asking ENERGY for BALLISTIC WEAPONS is a REASONABLE concept.

Let me explain it to you with a VERY SIMPLE image, that I can further expand upon if the concept is too complicated for you.
Here we have an AK-47.
Please SHOW ME WHERE DO YOU SEE a fricking BATTERY.

I know the mechanical concept may be too complicated for your dev team, but the only thing this gun produces is HEAT.

If you are going to go batsh*t crazy and implement a NEW game mechanic such as Energy Draw to balance your game because you are unable to balance it using cooldown and heat, 2 measily variables that you can FIND in ANY game out there, (replace heat with mana,and you get the point), AT LEAST use basic COMMON SENSE when balancing and not implement it to NON-ENERGY weapons.

You have been struggling for a long long time to balance this game, but let me explain it like this to you: inserting a new variable to balance this game is a REALLY BAD IDEA. You are opening a whole new can of worms because you are changing a game-breaking game mechanic, one that will make things even more complicated for everyone.

You want to limit shots in game and the energy system is the only way you can do it? Make cooldowns/heat bigger if you cannot juggle a simple concept such as maneuvrability on each tonnage class.

In your recent quest for pay-2-win , you have inserted into the game mechs that are TOO MOBILE and TOO FAST for their tonnage, and that tipped the scale completely.

STOP COPYING SARNA numbers and throw them blindly into the game. Those are paper values.
Instead, fix what you already have.
Stay with the quirks system which made old-timers from the time of closed beta functional, if you must.

horrorz. The amount of shouting and condescending, man!

Now, consider this: with AK47, the battery is YOU. YOU reload magazine, YOU press the trigger,

Much bigger gun WILL require energy to reload, unless there will be many humans around it to reload. But I guess it is TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND for you.

Also, consider this: you load ammunition in legs, how does it travel all the way to your torso in a building-level-tall mech? I can tell you how: magic, because this is a game. And this is OK, because guess what, we have now idea at all how combat will look in 3025 and beyond, so we imagine things, doh!

[Kmieciu]

Pihoqahiak, on 24 August 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

At higher levels of play, ERLLs, like LRMs, are not very effective weapons overall. They spread their damage against skilled opponents due to their long duration and easily give away your position when trading/sniping.

1.5 second duration C-ERLL with a ghost heat cap of 2 is crap as long as there is a C-LPL witj 1200 max range.
How about 1.35 second duration C-ERLL with 3 that barely trigger the penalty (33 damage 33 heat), while C-LPL has 840 max range, therefore @ 740 meters it only deals 5,4 damage while C-ERLL deals 11?

Tried it yesterday on the PTS: Ebon Jag with 3xERLL + 5xSPL. Worked great.

Edited by Kmieciu, 25 August 2016 - 12:38 AM.

[Anunknownlurker]

@Darkthor
doesn't a minigun (or whatever it's called) need power to spin the barrel and run the loading mechanism? I don't think that is mechanical but I could be wrong. If it does then it's not a great leap to believe that MWO ballistics need power to load, fire and deal with recoil etc.

But, as people have said many times, this is a game involving 100ton walking machines that have fricking lazors in their heads...logic can go hang.

[Kmieciu]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

I just don't believe you that Energy Draw will magically make cMPLs more viable.

They were planning to cut the C-MPL duration to 0.7 (from 0.85). That would make it more accurate than C-SPL.

[Mr Inconsistent]

Willothius, on 24 August 2016 - 03:44 AM, said:

To everyone shouting "it's too complex, convoluted, and noobunfriendly" FFS there is NO possible way it's MORE complex or convoluted than ghost heat is now!! You ALREADY have to calculate, ****, or even use scripted trigger commands if you want to optimize your playing

At no point since starting this game have I ever had to use a spreadsheet to figure out not to fire a certain number of the same type of weapon at the same time.

Edited by Mr Inconsistent, 25 August 2016 - 01:18 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Mr Inconsistent, on 25 August 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

At no point since starting this game have I ever had to use a spreadsheet to figure out not to fire a certain number of the same type of weapon at the same time.

Most people don't use spreadsheets.
They just copy enemy builds that proved effective.

The problem with ghost heat is that it cannot deal with weapon combos:
3xIS LPL+6xML: if MLs and LPLs were linked what weapon limit would you set? 3xML or 6x LPL ?

[BluefireMW]

Jimmy DiGriz, on 25 August 2016 - 12:41 AM, said:

@Darkthor
doesn't a minigun (or whatever it's called) need power to spin the barrel and run the loading mechanism? I don't think that is mechanical but I could be wrong. If it does then it's not a great leap to believe that MWO ballistics need power to load, fire and deal with recoil etc.

But, as people have said many times, this is a game involving 100ton walking machines that have fricking lazors in their heads...logic can go hang.

Not only this. A Reload system through a mech also drains energy, for sure. On a reloadsystem under 1 s even more...

[BluefireMW]

First there was a buffering all that Lasers, with quirks and cool down reduction. Made by PGI.
Then the Players changed to the produced Meta. And now as it to bad, because of match winning it should be changed.
But if you just set the Reload times higher, the Players would whine even more.
The only way is, to complicate it more, that Players whine less and it gets back to high recycle times and less fire.
With less reload times and long burn times, it's almost continous beam.
Then the Autocannons went even better. That came through as Mechs came which could use it. (Warhammer, Jagermech and finally the 100t Kodiak)
Now it just shows, the way, of shooting faster and faster doesn't work.
Normally it could be countered with a Heat Table that is not just 0 and 1. Between on and off Mech could be some things like (slowing down the speed, Ammo explosions, reduced sight (shaking or something comparable) and so much more...
I guess it's less complicate then a energy draw system of this kind.

Edited by BluefireMW, 25 August 2016 - 01:49 AM.

[Spartan 04]

Interesting mechanic. I don't know enough about how the maths behind this game works, so I'll just rely on the opinion of others. I do think that the PPC seems to have a really long cooldown for its use, but I'll go into the PTS and give it a fair chance. I'm a big fan of dumb, simple ballistic mechs, so I am curious to see if they are still fun to play (although I will take a "nerf" on my favorite playstyle if it means it's a fairer gameplay experience for all).

My only real gripe, trivial as it is, is calling it an "Energy Draw". I'd personally prefer it just be related to heat generation like the traditional system, for immersion purposes. It makes my eye twitch a bit: the energy required to charge and discharge megawatt+ beam weapons (and railguns) is orders of magnitude higher than the mechanically simple mechanisms to cycle projectiles, maintain gyros, and ignite missile launchers. Heat, however, would be generated in all instances and makes for a better explanation. I can accept a few big lies in a science fiction setting, like having compact fusion reactors but near-zero guidance capabilities on missile technology, (and the idea that it was "lost" to time is a good one), but having bullets need batteries is a bit absurd in my opinion.