303 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

I recall reading a heck of a lot of requests for much harsher penalties, actually. An awful lot of them.

*shrugs*

What's funny? I'd be happier if there was no Energy Draw *OR* Ghost Heat. *shrugs* But I still like ED much more than GH.

Meh. I don't actually care what they do, or why...heck I am just happy they are running the PTS in the first place.

That being said ya gotta admit that in the context of the PTS, for them to make a statement like "the feedback we are getting is that we should do X", but then in the next sentence describe how they are going to do the exact opposite of X, just strikes me as inordinately funny in this context: a PTS supposedly driven by player input. Just so perfectly PGI.

[Kael Posavatz]

This is...words fail. I hope I find people play-testing it this time so I can do more than just wander around the testing grounds.

C-Gauss renamed "Cannon, Glass", and... the point of the gauss rifles was that they run cooler! people were using them as intended, just not as PGI intended, so of course let's hammer them again.

The PPCs? IS gets quirks so the darn things run cooler. This will warm them up some, but the clans? Deal with it.

Clan lasers are getting back some of their max range which is less useful that it sounds since this is range beyond optimum. It stretches out the damage fall-off some, but realistically they were more effective because people saw 'incoming laser fire' and reacted poorly rather than 'mech damaged by laser fire' at that range.

Various energy consumption by weapon changes? Just making it more harder for new players to know what the heck is going on.

Now, something useful, like making your whole heat bar change colors as you go from cool-to-hot instead of a tiny box down at the bottom of the HUD? totally lacking.

[Davers]

banana peel, on 23 August 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

Heat is also energy. The main problem of gauss in our world is bad energy conversion ratio - less than 10% goes into kinetic energy of the bullet. Where all the energy goes? Into solenoid (heating it up). That is how i understand the work. So i always thought that if gauss shot generates 1 heat, it means it doesnt require that much energy in comparison with huge autocannons and lazers.
Of course i dont know Battletech lore very well, and it might be that MWO gauss has 90% of effective energy conversion. Or i simply understand the process wrong. If so, please, enlighten me.

It's a lore/flavor text thing. It doesn't make sense. Firing lasers that can destroy multiple tons of armor in seconds, easy. Make a rock go really fast, incredible drain on a fusion engine that could probably power a small city.

[Wintersdark]

First drops:

KDK-1 w/ Guass, 2LPL, 4ERML: Easy to manage w/o penalties, quite effective.
KDK-SB w/ Gauss, ASRM24: Freaking awesome.
AS7-DDC w/ 2LBX10, SRM12, 2ML: Also awesome.

Edited by Wintersdark, 23 August 2016 - 04:59 PM.

[Zolaz]

This game feels more like PGI's Big Stompy Robit Game than a Mechwarrior title with every patch.

[DrxAbstract]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

Because Arctic Cheetah? And because you can only fire 3 cMPLs without getting a heat penalty while you can fire 5 cSPLs for less tonnage and more damage.. LMAO. I hate this system.

3 CMplas for less damage and more tonnage for longer rang and less crit slots--There's nothing actually wrong with this, so why complain? Weapon linearity is supposed to favor short range weapons for damage, heat efficiency and tonnage... not the opposite. If you want long range weapons then you trade damage, tonnage and heat efficiency for it - that's how it's supposed to effing work. Otherwise short range weapons wouldnt ever be worth it... Derp.

[Wintersdark]

banana peel, on 23 August 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

Heat is also energy. The main problem of gauss in our world is bad energy conversion ratio - less than 10% goes into kinetic energy of the bullet. Where all the energy goes? Into solenoid (heating it up). That is how i understand the work. So i always thought that if gauss shot generates 1 heat, it means it doesnt require that much energy in comparison with huge autocannons and lazers.
Of course i dont know Battletech lore very well, and it might be that MWO gauss has 90% of effective energy conversion. Or i simply understand the process wrong. If so, please, enlighten me.

Heat is a result of POOR energy conversion.

Lots of electricity converted efficiently to kinetic energy = little heat. The more heat generated, the less kinetic energy create for a given amount of energy. Conservation of energy, no? Electric energy = heat+kinetic energy.

So, while a single gauss rifle draws a lot of power, it's doing so efficiently and little heat is generated.

Your mech's reactor/wiring cannot handle the power draw firing two at once, though - and the result is like drawing too much wattage through too narrow a wire: Heat is generated due to the wiring's internal resistance.

[Cy Mitchell]

Bud Crue, on 23 August 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Meh. I don't actually care what they do, or why...heck I am just happy they are running the PTS in the first place.

That being said ya gotta admit that in the context of the PTS, for them to make a statement like "the feedback we are getting is that we should do X", but then in the next sentence describe how they are going to do the exact opposite of X, just strikes me as inordinately funny in this context: a PTS supposedly driven by player input. Just so perfectly PGI.

At least they did explain "Why" they were doing what they were doing. And it is just the second set of values presented for more testing. Nothing is set in stone.

[Wintersdark]

Zolaz, on 23 August 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

This game feels more like PGI's Big Stompy Robit Game than a Mechwarrior title with every patch.

But more Battletech than ever.

After all, in Battletech, you're firing all those weapons on 10 second cycles, and you're never firing them simultaneously - they all hit or even miss entirely different spots.

This feels way more like Battletech to me.

Bud Crue, on 23 August 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

So they say above that "we've received a lot of feedback specifically calling for lower Energy Consumption values for close-range, brawl-focused weaponry".

Yet in response to that feedback, all the weapons weere increased in energy consumption and heat.

Whu?

All the weapons where increased in energy consumption and heat? Of brawling weapons, ONLY the AC20 was increased in consumption and heat.

The LBX's are now .75 consumption, the CUAC20 is DECREASED in heat, and long range PPFLD is increased in heat and/or consumption.

Edited by Wintersdark, 23 August 2016 - 04:45 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

But more Battletech than ever.

After all, in Battletech, you're firing all those weapons on 10 second cycles, and you're never firing them simultaneously - they all hit or even miss entirely different spots.

This feels way more like Battletech to me.

You know, people who want to BattleTech can play BattleTech next year. People who want MechWarrior are getting the shaft.

[Wintersdark]

Davers, on 23 August 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

It's a lore/flavor text thing. It doesn't make sense. Firing lasers that can destroy multiple tons of armor in seconds, easy. Make a rock go really fast, incredible drain on a fusion engine that could probably power a small city.

Battletech physics = space magic; best not to think to long or hard about it.

[Gas Guzzler]

DrxAbstract, on 23 August 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

3 CMplas for less damage and more tonnage for longer rang and less crit slots--There's nothing actually wrong with this, so why complain? Weapon linearity is supposed to favor short range weapons for damage, heat efficiency and tonnage... not the opposite. If you want long range weapons then you trade damage, tonnage and heat efficiency for it - that's how it's supposed to effing work. Otherwise short range weapons wouldnt ever be worth it... Derp.

Why don't you explain why cSPLs are outstanding brawling weapons on the live servers while cMPLs are only found in pug land? You didn't address that.

Derp.

[TyphonCh]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

The problem is how is it fun to be choking on energy draw limits constantly?

It's no different than being pigeon holed by Ghost Heat and seeing the EXACT same load out on every energy boat, etc. Anything is better than ghost heat a this point I'm glad their trying.

[Signal27]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

Battletech physics = space magic; best not to think to long or hard about it.

Even Jordan Weisman said it's "science fantasy" and not to think too hard about how mechs work.

[ARM32]

Again - this version of "energy draw" still better than idea of "Target the enemy or get 50% of all lasers range". Also it still playable. But, it's not fun now coz: lots of tactic needs to rebuild, some play styles ruined, some type of mechs (high alpha brawlers) ~ dead. So now game more like slapping potato with a fish - still spending time, but not so fun and pleasure...
Again, if u got 30 energy on locust - it's over his potential - too much energy for it. But 30 energy for Kodiak - bottlenecked, totaly. If value will get numbers from engine - it can be better, again 190 XL = 19 energy, 375std = 37.5 energy. With 40 or 38 energy on atlas \ Kodiak - it's almost ok, 37.5 on MadCat - ok, 24 on arctic cheetah - ok, 17.5 on mist lynx - totaly enough and 19 on locust - still ok and playable. OR(!) x2 energy from engine ~ xl400 = 80 energy, std 250 = 50 energy, BUT(!) energy recharge ~25% of engine - XL400 = 80 energy and +10energy per second, STD 200 = 40 energy and +5energy per second, XL375 = 75 energy and + 9 (low) or 9.5 (high) energy per second.

[Navid A1]

I simply can not believe this nonsense!

WHY?

FROM WHERE DID YOU GET THIS FEEDBACK AND IDEA.

Its hopeless!
another idea that had potential but ruined step by step.

Mixed and balanced builds screwed even more.
Why one would even want to bring any sort of mixed AC/Laser build anymore?
One weapon type ftw.

no testing needed.

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

Why don't you explain why cSPLs are outstanding brawling weapons on the live servers while cMPLs are only found in pug land? You didn't address that.

Derp.

Not sure what your point is here.

[UCR Starwolf]

Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to shut down a project halfway through, admitting that all of the time and effort was wasted. Economists call it a Sunk Cost. Regular people call it throwing good money after bad.

[Wintersdark]

Navid A1, on 23 August 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

I simply can not believe this nonsense!

WHY?

FROM WHERE DID YOU GET THIS FEEDBACK AND IDEA.

Its hopeless!
another idea that had potential but ruined step by step.

Mixed and balanced builds screwed even more.
Why one would even want to bring any sort of mixed AC/Laser build anymore?
One weapon type ftw.

no testing needed.

Dunno, but I've had massive success with every mixed build I've brought to the PTS so far.

My Gauss/4ERML/2LPL KDK1 was fantastic, easily managed heat.
SRM/LBX based AS7 and KDK-SB? Brutal machines.

I still don't understand why you have a hard time with mixed builds. Your lack of success makes me wonder if you're just Doing It Wrong?

ARM32, on 23 August 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

Again - this version of "energy draw" still better than idea of "Target the enemy or get 50% of all lasers range". Also it still playable. But, it's not fun now coz: lots of tactic needs to rebuild, some play styles ruined, some type of mechs (high alpha brawlers) ~ dead

Really? Which, specifically? Cuz I'm finding those brawling builds to be very effective, though you need to think more while fighting.

Quote

. So now game more like slapping potato with a fish - still spending time, but not so fun and pleasure...
Again, if u got 30 energy on locust - it's over his potential - too much energy for it. But 30 energy for Kodiak - bottlenecked, totaly. If value will get numbers from engine - it can be better, again 190 XL = 19 energy, 375std = 37.5 energy. With 40 or 38 energy on atlas \ Kodiak - it's almost ok, 37.5 on MadCat - ok, 24 on arctic cheetah - ok, 17.5 on mist lynx - totaly enough and 19 on locust - still ok and playable. OR(!) x2 energy from engine ~ xl400 = 80 energy, std 250 = 50 energy, BUT(!) energy recharge ~25% of engine - XL400 = 80 energy and +10energy per second, STD 200 = 40 energy and +5energy per second, XL375 = 75 energy and + 9 (low) or 9.5 (high) energy per second.

KDK is bottlenecked? Lolno. As I said above, my Gauss+2LPL+4ERML KDK did very, very well. As did the AS7 and SB brawlers.

You have weapon groups; use them.

Edited by Wintersdark, 23 August 2016 - 05:10 PM.

[Kaptain]

Completely taken back that they took a simple system and mucked it all up. Many of us (countless threads) asked for a reduction of energy draw on SRMs, an increase in ED for PPCs and a penalty of 1 to 1. The only thing they took from our feedback is the 1 to 1 penalty. The rest they arbitrarily decided on their own.

Proof positive that they do not listen and that these tests are absolutely pointless.

Extremely disappointed.