303 replies to this topic

[Ghogiel]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

Are you packing so much other weaponry in addition to dual gauss that 13% heat for your 30 pt PPFLD near-hitscan shot is crippling?

obviously

[C E Dwyer]

Seen new values
Increasing SRM circle.

Fair enough make artemis kind of mandatory on SRM6 builds unless your close enough to have children.

While your at it any chance of normalising the spread on LRM's so that LRM 20's are worth the extra weight, size, heat and slow cool down ?

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

12 Heat for firing dual gauss.

Welcome to the People's Energy Draw.

Well taking out the charge mechanic they were going to have to do something, as even with a slow cool down, it was quite a good brawl weapon again

[Nightbird]

Checked the date, not April 1st.... hmmm

[Wintersdark]

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

Yes, so only feedback that says "I like this system but here is how you could make it more restricted" is heard.

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

Or, maybe, they're listening to:

"Here's how we can make this system, within the stated parameters, work better."

As opposed this:

"This sucks."

Or this:

"I don't like this, we should use this totally unrelated system I'm putting together in this thesis."

which is utterly useless.

Just say'n.


I respect that you don't like it. I personally love it, and I'm not alone in that.

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?

Lots of fun. It means I can make meaningful choices constantly; do I want to lose some efficiency by overdrawing slightly, or do I want to push more DPS?

It's a functionally identical concept to "Do I want heavy PPFLD autocannons or DPS autocannons?" except that I can choose from moment to moment how I'm fighting.

Ghogiel, on 23 August 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

obviously

.... and you don't see why it's the way it is?

This right here is where you're seeing dual gauss+dual ERPPC eat it.

They had to do this.

Edited by Wintersdark, 23 August 2016 - 03:41 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

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...

Why should anyone take anything said in that youtube seriously, when it's presented in such a childish manner.

[Wintersdark]

Put differently:

If you're NOT running a Kodiak or Direwolf, heat from dual gauss is irrelevant.

If you ARE running a Kodiak in particular, having to deal with +12 heat from the dual gauss, well... I'm not going to cry for that nerf. After all, wasn't this specifically what the lions share of complaints about these mechs stemmed from? KDK-3 had Quad UAC10, but that got kicked in the teeth here too.

Other mechs running Dual Gauss can't pack enough other weaponry in for the +12 heat to really be an issue.


Edit: And, as my sig shows, I desperately love my Kodiaks. But this? This helps my other Kodiaks actually have some relative value rather than being totally eclipsed by my KDK-3 which was, without doubt, overpowered.

Hmmm. A dual-LBX20 Direwolf can fire both with no overdraw. Nice.

Edited by Wintersdark, 23 August 2016 - 03:46 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

Or, maybe, they're listening to:

"Here's how we can make this system, within the stated parameters, work better."

As opposed this:

"This sucks."

Or this:

"I don't like this, we should use this totally unrelated system I'm putting together in this thesis."

which is utterly useless.

Just say'n.


I respect that you don't like it. I personally love it, and I'm not alone in that.



Lots of fun. It means I can make meaningful choices constantly; do I want to lose some efficiency by overdrawing slightly, or do I want to push more DPS?

It's a functionally identical concept to "Do I want heavy PPFLD autocannons or DPS autocannons?" except that I can choose from moment to moment how I'm fighting.


.... and you don't see why it's the way it is?

This right here is where you're seeing dual gauss+dual ERPPC eat it.

They had to do this.

Well I have bought in to the current gameplay, and by bought in I mean I have spent a ton of money on a game I enjoyed playing, so coming along and significantly altering the core gameplay and limiting the amount of weapons to only a few at a time, yeah, you are damn right I don't like it.

This isn't a "oh they nerfed a mech I bought" post, this is beyond balance and is an aggressive clamping force on how mechs are supposed to behave in the context of MechWarrior.

The first PTS wasnt such a drastic limitation, and needed some weapon draw tuning to let you fire MORE lasers, but this looks like crap. I will try it tonight any way, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Wintersdark]

Oh, hey, it shows your alpha strike energy draw on the mechlab screen!

[Bud Crue]

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?

[Ghogiel]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

They had to do this.

If you think this is balancing gauss and ppcs against lasers other than ERLL with this change you are sorely mistaken.

[Kuaron]

Mh...
The changes are OK, I guess, differentiating the weapons a but instead of straight damage, but the system is wrong. You get maybe more TTK, but also more weapon boating. The builds won't become more TT-like.

Also, someone wrote in the forum that weapons contain their own energy source, they are not fed by the main fusion reactor. This is the only reasonable explanation to their weight on the one hand and the entire heat problem on the other so far.
But it also means that inventing some energy shortage for too many weapons would be nonsense.

So please, PGI, address energy weapon boating and alphas by the general heat system, and introduce an independent bar (instead of the ED one) for ballistics, interpreted as recoil or sth.
You won't solve problems with the existing ED independently of how you balance the one or the other weapon!

Edited by Kuaron, 23 August 2016 - 04:06 PM.

[Davers]

BluefireMW, on 23 August 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

Oh the funny inner Sphere, are always looking for more then just ridiculous Quirks for there Side Torso, and other parts of there Mechs to make it more 'even'. It can never be enough advantages. How about just IS can't be hit in any way? only Clans can be hit and you win always?

Hey, if they add that maybe the IS can have a top scoring mech, instead of the Clans dominating every weight class every event?

[Wintersdark]

Ghogiel, on 23 August 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

If you think this is balancing gauss and ppcs against lasers other than ERLL with this change you are sorely mistaken.

I didn't say that. At least, I don't recall saying that?

I said they had to do this to clamp down on multi/gauss/PPC builds. Perhaps I was unclear.

What, specifically, is your complaint?

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?

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.

[Ghogiel]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

I didn't say that. At least, I don't recall saying that?

I said they had to do this to clamp down on multi/gauss/PPC builds. Perhaps I was unclear.

What, specifically, is your complaint?

That it's not balanced ergo not needed.

[Arkroma]

So PGI didn't take those haters seriously, great job.

Btw I still think PGI should hand out (small) compensations to testers so we can have proper 12v12 tests.

[Deathshade]

Cathy, on 23 August 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Why should anyone take anything said in that youtube seriously, when it's presented in such a childish manner.

I think the idea of increasing the cool down of powerful weapons and changing heat dissipation to heat cool down would remove the boating problem. Why boat the ppcs and gauss if the other player gets to shoot you three times while you reload. Use the lessons of the past MW games instead of just creating something that doesn't work or make sense. Part of the video has beta or alpha (pre ghostheat) footage showing a knock down of a commando which was great.

[banana peel]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

The 1-heat weapon creates 1 heat. It consumes a lot of ENERGY - which (news flash!) the Gauss Rifle should, as it's a very high powered (electrically speaking) weapon. If you have one Gauss, and fire it alone, then other stuff, you don't generate any heat. If you have dual gauss, then yeah, you generate some heat due to the overdraw, but it's still onto 10 heat for 30 PPFLD near-hitscan damage at very long range.

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.

[Wintersdark]

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

That it's not balanced ergo not needed.

In what manner is it not balanced?

Can you not see why not actually providing feedback ensures they don't listen to you?

"This isn't balanced!" is useless. It doesn't highlight problems; and while people may agree with you, that agreement is also useless because what they feel is not balanced may not be what you feel is not balanced.

[Cy Mitchell]

Update to the PTS? Good! Now to go test the changes BEFORE I establish an opinion of whether they are a step in the right direction or not.

[Nightbird]

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.

The answer is that battletech has 1910's cannon technology, 1940's missile technology, 2100's laser technology, and 3000's gauss technology. (Per PGI)

Edited by ironnightbird, 23 August 2016 - 04:34 PM.