303 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

PyckenZot, on 24 August 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

Read my statement again,...

Oops! My bad.

[Mystere]

MovinTarget, on 24 August 2016 - 06:24 PM, said:

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.

I have a word for you: gimbals.

Having said that, such a mounting system should probably have only a 10-15 degree range of motion from center.

[Deathz Jester]

So is this (ghost heat 2.0) gonna be another unwanted change, that we deal with for years, until its realized that it was inherently a bad idea?





Also, this video that was posted just hits the nail on the head, it also makes me miss the days mechs could be knocked down (shown around 17:00 minute mark)

Phantom Legend, on 23 August 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

This should all be what is said...!
Maybe we should learn from other players more experienced than the Devs...IDK...
Maybe we can see change...

Edited by Iron Harlequin, 25 August 2016 - 07:22 AM.

[AdamBaines]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

Fun factor is really going down the tubes honestly, I was worried it was going to go this direction.

Honestly its these continued BS posts....BY EVERYONE not just you Gas.....that are taking the fun out of the game. I'm glad you and others are so passionate about the game. But all the negativity gets old after awhile.

And that all I've got to say about that.....

[Fobhopper]

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

Weapon Energy Value Changes

AutoCannon's

Feedback received based on the original PTS values indicated that full-damage, single-projectile weapons were slightly imbalanced when compared against duration-based weaponry. As a result we have applied a 20% increase in Energy Consumption for the AC weaponry listed below, including a same 20% increase in Energy Consumption for all other full-damage, single projectile weapons (details for those listed elsewhere in this post). We have also set all LB-X AC weaponry to follow the correct Energy per Damage ratio outlined in the original PTS post.

All LB-X AC Weaponry
• All LB-X AC weaponry has been set to the correct .75 Energy per 1 point of Damage ratio.
AC/2
• Energy Consumption increased to 2.4 Energy total (from 2)
AC/5
• Energy Consumption increased to 6 Energy total (from 5)
AC/10
• Energy Consumption increased to 12 Energy Total (from 10)
U-AC/5
• Energy Consumption increased to 6 Energy total (from 5)
C-AC/2
• Energy Consumption increased to 2.4 Energy total (from 2)
C-AC/5
• Energy Consumption increased to 6 Energy total (from 5)
C-U-AC/2
• Energy Consumption increased to 2.4 Energy total (from 2)
C-U-AC/5
• Energy Consumption increased to 6 Energy total (from 5)

AC 20's and LB-X 20's

We've received a lot of feedback specifically calling for lower Energy Consumption values for close-range, brawl-focused weaponry. However, we ultimately felt that factoring in both weapon ranges and weapon projectile types would have caused too large an adjustment, and would lead to some undesirable results with certain weapons; particularly when many close range weapons are still proving to be quite potent with the current PTS values.
That said, we are looking at improved DPS as being the defining trait for close range, brawl-focused weaponry. We've made some adjustments to AC/20's with that approach in mind.
AC/20
• Energy Consumption increased to 24 Energy total (from 20).
• Cooldown duration lowered to 4s (from 4.6s).

C-AC/20
• Cooldown Duration lowered to 4s (from 4.6s)

C-LBX/20
• Cooldown Duration lowered to 4s (from 4.6s)

C-U-AC/20
• Cooldown Duration lowered to 4s (from 4.6s)

• Heat Generation lowered to 6 (from 7)

While I am happy to hear about all the other changes to the weapon systems, this is the one that I am disagreement about. The AC weapons should go back to their original energy values of 1:1 because AC weapons inherently have a drawback that Lasers dont have: Ammo and in particular, ammo explosions. The reason why lasers dominated the meta for so long is because how easy it is to be accurate, they have unlimited ammo. AC weapons are not only heavier than lasers (an AC2 weighs more than a large laser), most mechs have far less ballistic hardpoints than they do energy hardpoints, you need to load ammo for said weapons AND your ammo can be blown up and take out whole sections of your mech (or even worse) that requires a CASE to mitigate that risk. With ALL of these drawbacks that AC weapons have compared to lasers, why should AC weapons be penalized because they have more damage potential at better ranges then lasers? AC weapons require much more tonnage to equip, requires ammo that is far more likely to be blown up, requires the player to manage their fire or else they will run out of ammo, and you want to penalize them even more with more heat because they do their damage instantly instead of over time, but requires far more skill to aim than lasers do?

There needs to be a clear-cut advantage AC weapons should have over Lasers if you want to fix the laser meta. AC weapons provide instant damage (if you hit your target) but with the drawback of having to manage your ammo and your ammo being more dangerous to you than your opponent, especially since you cant dump your excess ammo. If you make them even more expensive energy/heat wise, then your just going to force players into using laser boats again because AC weapons will just have far too many drawbacks to make them worthwhile in the meta.

Edited by Fobhopper, 25 August 2016 - 07:47 AM.

[Moira]

Hello.

Current Ghost Heat vs Energy Draw ? this is clear cut case ED system wins by far margin. Suggested values for ED system seems from mathematical view alot easier to manage and tune than current system. So what is the big fuss then? Ballistics are getting shafted in its CURRENT state, and do mean at current state... And would love to see ED max value to bound to engine size.

Thou this might be coming outta my arse, but I do have slight suggestion to improve ED system... but its just my view/idea:

- Rename Energy Drain to ... Power Output. (or something similar)
- While weapon is reloading it drains "ED-bar" until it has done its reload. Example if LargeLaser drains 5 "ED" and you max is lets say 30 you would have 25 "ED" left until LL has done its reload/charge.
- If you are out of "ED" one can still fire weapons, but the weapons fire while outta ED would create more Heat. Due you are asking more than your Engine can give.
- This is optional: Weapons wouldnt create heat all their heat while firing, but when reloading/charging.

Feel free to poke holes to my idea, as said just my suggested idea.

[Wecx]

Iron Harlequin, on 25 August 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

So is this (ghost heat 2.0) gonna be another unwanted change, that we deal with for years, until its realized that it was inherently a bad idea?





Also, this video that was posted just hits the nail on the head, it also makes me miss the days mechs could be knocked down (shown around 17:00 minute mark)

I agree, wouldn't just removing the extra capacity of double heatsinks solve everything?

[BLOOD WOLF]

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.

what this guy must not understand about any weapon made in our world, is that you are never going to get rid of "energy" requirements. Unless you are using a purely mechanistic mode such as early guns you will never get to weapons such as the AK-47.

Energy is what propels the bullet forward Most modern guns that infantry use fire really small cased bullets so very little energy is required to propel them. Low power weapons do not need much to put them over great distances.

A better example would be artillery. You need a huge force in order to hurl those massive shells long distances. So that is why we used powdered explosions for awhile, up to modern forms of artillery.

Point is you need energy, and you can not get around that. your post tries to over-complicate things, but it's something everyone can understand easily.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 25 August 2016 - 09:46 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

There is no energy draw. There is no power draw.

It has confused people so much. I do not know why PGI insists on naming the system after something that has to do with electrical energy because the system HAS NO BASIS in power or energy.

It is a purely magical "force bar" that has absolutely no correlation with any physical mechanism.

If we renamed the system as "Firepower Limit" then everybody would understand it and not ask questions about how it could relate to reactor size or anything.

The whole "power draw" mechanic is actually based on the BattleMechs' adherence to an Honor Code system that causes self-penalties when you exceed a certain amount of firepower output. Imagine a priest whipping himself after deeming that he has sinned - That's Power Draw.

There are no mechanisms (reactor power, etc) that dictate this penalty because the draw-values from weapons are purely based on the damage they inflict. Be it kinetic energy transfer, explosive warheads, photon bombardment... the way damage is inflicted has no correlation with the way those weapons tax your Mech, so we all have to accept the following statement:

Power/Energy Draw is based on pure magic. There is no mechanism to explain. It.

Once we can all accept that, then we can be qualified to provide good, meaningful feedback. Does it make sense from a Sim Standpoint? No. Does it afford a gameplay mechanic the extends TTK and increases the amount if skill needed to quickly drop an opponent. Quite possibly. Is it better than GH 1.0? Yes, I think it is.

So, please view this mechanic as what it is, pure video game Handwavium with no attempt to anchor ot to a physical mechanism. Your heart will feel lighter, trust me.

-------------

Now, for feedback. I think it does hamper many of the builds I used to use, but it does so equally to my enemies. So, I will not personally see any reduction of my field performance RELATIVE TO my opponents.

It certainly removes GH's incentives to use Mixed Loadouts (I.e. GH penalty avoidance), and thereby reinforces the supremacy of Boating Identical Weapons.

The spread-increase for SRMs will lengthen TTK a little.

The increased cooldown, penalty, and heat for PPCs will punt people right back to LPLs again, unfortunately, as PGI has Briefly made PPCs good again but dashed that prospect.

Increased Power consumption for Autocannons makes sense from a videogame perspective, of course, and not a logical/sim perspective. But that's what you get when taking an existing IP and running wth it instead of making sound rules in the first place.

Overall, I like it and hope that the SourVets can adapt instead of fighting to preserve what they have grown accustomed to.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 25 August 2016 - 09:51 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Prosperity Park, on 25 August 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

There is no energy draw. There is no power draw.

It has confused people so much. I do not know why PGI insists on naming the system after something that has to do with electrical energy because the system HAS NO BASIS in power or energy.

It is a purely magical "force bar" that has absolutely no correlation with any physical mechanism.

You have no clue how it actually works, and I swear I explained this to you in another thread.

Calling it electrical energy is just playing with words, and there is a energy draw.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 25 August 2016 - 10:08 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

BLOOD WOLF, on 25 August 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:

You have no clue how it actually works, and I swear I explained this to you in another thread.

Calling it electrical energy is just playing with words, and there is a energy draw.

I have been in the PTS.

I know there is a bar that goes up and down, and if you shoot when it it down, you get a heat penalty.

I have followed it more closely than you.

I am complaining because the wording (Power, Energy) is highly missing, unless you think that shooting a capacitor -driven laser consumes as much "energy" as firing a cartridge -based autocannon.

You don't believe that, do you? Do you believe cartridge -based cannons consume as much Power as Energy Weapons? Only a Schmuck would.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 25 August 2016 - 10:09 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Just to reitterate, since some people don't read well: there is no Power Draw, there is no Energy Draw.

There is only "Magical Penalty Force Draw"

[BLOOD WOLF]

Prosperity Park, on 25 August 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

I have been in the PTS.

I know there is a bar that goes up and down, and if you shoot when it it down, you get a heat penalty.

I have followed it more closely than you.

I am complaining because the wording (Power, Energy) is highly missing, unless you think that shooting a capacitor -driven laser consumes as much "energy" as firing a cartridge -based autocannon.

You don't believe that, do you?

So I explained In another thread why you would need a large force to move a ballistic the size of an elephant. So most modern Guns are a form of low-powered weapons(with exeptions), and most modern forms of artillery still require large amounts of energy to propel them forwards, and use a variety of methods to get the job done. Point is they all require energy.

I do not know the exact mechanism but on sarna this is described "High-Explosive Armor-Piercing"

now a cannon ball in its time required a certain amount of forced(energy) to move it great distances. Now times that by 50 or so, and that's what it will take to move a AC/20

The Gauss is a different story

Prosperity Park, on 25 August 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

Just to reitterate, since some people don't read well: there is no Power Draw, there is no Energy Draw.

There is only "Magical Penalty Force Draw"

Its actually a very simple.

Energy is what moves something. When you want to move a more massive object to overcome friction and gravity, you use more energy.

[Reneg Ade]

Iron Harlequin, on 25 August 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

So is this (ghost heat 2.0) gonna be another unwanted change, that we deal with for years, until its realized that it was inherently a bad idea?
What the guy in the video said, period




Also, this video that was posted just hits the nail on the head, it also makes me miss the days mechs could be knocked down (shown around 17:00 minute mark)

[TheLuc]

The Video posted by Iron Harlequin is in fact having the right solution about heat sinks dissipation capacity and the Mechs should all have same heat limit but what ever solution the community has, chances are low that some one at PGI will notice.

[Felio]

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

Gauss Rifles

Testing on the existing PTS has shown that players are utilizing Gauss Rifles as a way to supplement their volley damage and offset their Heat Penalties. This use-case disrupts the overall goals we are aiming to achieve with the implementation of Energy Draw. Changes to Gauss Rifles have therefore been made to help reinforce the tactical loop outlined in the original PTS announcement post.
Our goal is to have the base values of Gauss Rifle weaponry reward players who strive to learn and master the Energy Draw system through in-game actions, rather than raw Loadouts. During the investigation of potential changes to Gauss Rifles we saw an opportunity to further differentiate the larger, heaver Inner Sphere Gauss Rifles from their Clan counterparts, without affecting their offensive characteristics.
Gauss Rifle
• Energy Consumption increased to 20 (from 15)

• Component Health increased to 10 (from 5)


C-Gauss Rifle
• Energy Consumption increased to 20 (from 15)

• Explosion Chance increased to 100% (from 90%)

About time you did something about dual gauss.

[MovinTarget]

Mystere, on 25 August 2016 - 06:44 AM, said:

I have a word for you: gimbals.

Having said that, such a mounting system should probably have only a 10-15 degree range of motion from center.

I doubt they could magically account insta-convergence when moving your reticle across the field and an object pops in, dozens if not hundreds of meters closer than what you were looking at a split-second prior and no adjustment time is necessary to tune your torso mounted weapons.

You could say fine control on energy weapons is done with mirror (magic), but pivoting cannon barrels is a bit more of a stretch.

Goes back to what i have said before, there is little chance of getting a fps game that gamers will love while it is tied to the TT base concepts and the TT fans will not get the immersive effect they want as long as this game strives to be an fps.

...unless there is compromise, because no one is going to get everything they want...

[PitchBlackYeti]

Energy draw seems to be alot, and I mean ALOT better than ghost heat (which wasn't hard to achieve at all) but...couldn't all this be achieved with tweaking the heat values alone with same results?

@UP
fixing convergence would also help, how about this: you lock the target, weapons start to converge in a way similiar to missile lock-on. You lose target lock, weapons go back to default.

Edited by PitchBlackYeti, 25 August 2016 - 12:28 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

PitchBlackYeti, on 25 August 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Energy draw seems to be alot, and I mean ALOT better than ghost heat (which wasn't hard to achieve at all) but...couldn't all this be achieved with tweaking the heat values alone with same results?

@UP
fixing convergence would also help, how about this: you lock the target, weapons start to converge in a way similiar to missile lock-on. You lose target lock, weapons go back to default.

Part of GH 1.0 is that if different weapons are linked, it took the higher heat multiplier, and the only time you would know ahead of time that there was GH is in the Mechlab, but even there it did not tell you anything else, as to how much, etc. To show said info in the cockpit would require multiple UI pieces.

Someone else noted that it is not setup to totally prevent alpha strikes, it is setup to prevent/slow down reoccurring alpha strikes, forcing players to break up their strikes into smaller groupings and to break up the weapon synergy such as GR/ERPPC, LL/ML, GR/ERML, LPL/MPL, etc. Other factors but to also provide some visibility, both in mech lab and in the cockpit.

[Kaldrenborn]

There are a lot of stock mechs this will break. Nova, War Hawk, Hunchback 4P, etc...