303 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

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.

I'll note that PTS2 saw ERLL duration reductions. Not a huge drop, but a noteworthy one nevertheless.

Aramuside, on 24 August 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

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?

There are boat builds in there, as well as mixed ones.

But I'd call any build featuring 2 or more main weapon systems as not being a boated build - I get that everyone has their own definitions of these things, but for me "boating" is filling your mech with one particular weapon. My maddog has 1LRM10, 5LRM5, 5ERSL. Yes, there's two sets of 5 small weapons, but there is no alternative really if you want to use those hardpoints. It's a 60t heavy with in this configuration 11 hardpoints.

An in this case, they're both main weapon systems - the goal of the build is to engage at 200m, allowing ~23 dps output at very low heat.

[Wintersdark]

Felio, on 25 August 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

About time you did something about dual gauss.

What I like is it totally unaffects a pure dual gauss build. Run a Dual Gauss Jag? No problem. Sure, you take 12 heat when you fire... who cares? If you're not firing other stuff, your 10 engine DHS are actually doing something, yay!

But what it DOES control is dual gauss + other stuff builds.

My 122 alpha DWF exploited that hard, and energy draw firmly curtails that. As much as I loved that old Siegebreaker, I do think cutting back on "haha lol I can push a hole right through your Assault's CT in half a second" is good for the game.

[Wintersdark]

MovinTarget, on 25 August 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

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...

I really miss the old convergence system. I get that it was incompatible with HSR, and HSR is more important, yada yada, but I *really* miss the old delayed convergence system.

Having your weapons gradually converge was awesome.

DustyHardtail, on 25 August 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

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

How do you figure? Have you given this comment any thought at all? Any?

Do you understand that every stock build you listed above was impacted more by Ghost Heat?

[Kaldrenborn]

Wintersdark, on 25 August 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

I really miss the old convergence system. I get that it was incompatible with HSR, and HSR is more important, yada yada, but I *really* miss the old delayed convergence system.

Having your weapons gradually converge was awesome.


How do you figure? Have you given this comment any thought at all? Any?

Do you understand that every stock build you listed above was impacted more by Ghost Heat?

I guess my only decent example was the nova. Before, I could shoot 6 and 6 med lasers at a time. Won't be able to do that, gonna have to break it up even more.

[Wintersdark]

DustyHardtail, on 25 August 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

I guess my only decent example was the nova. Before, I could shoot 6 and 6 med lasers at a time. Won't be able to do that, gonna have to break it up even more.

Can still fire 6 and 6 ERSL's.

If you're running 12 ERML's, then yeah, you'll need three groups, as that's a hot build to start with you can't be eating more heat penalties.

But even so, stock mechs are not designed to be alpha striking machines. Having to spread your fire to avoid heat penalties doesn't break stock mech builds. The stock builds still work; their being good or bad builds in MWO isn't really relevant given how essentially every IS stock mech build is utter trash. SHS builds on most of them, for example!

[Aramuside]

AdamBaines, on 25 August 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

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.....

The irony of all the negativity in your post about others negativity is not lost on most people... just pretend you were trolling...

[Dren]

Heat draw seems to be heading in the rite general direction, I say general. Am concerned about "arbitrary" numbers for some weapons, Gauss rifle is known for not generating or generating very little heat. Hope we don't lose sight of "Battletech" weapons designs and intent, when trying to make things "balanced."

[K19]

In the Battletech universe there is no "balance" in combat this # thing # a way to never make the real MW because it is a MECH not a car with large pipe the concept of this game is far from the origin each time moves further ... because innovate and very complicated and requires that producers do not always do the players want but it is more logical to have a future based on MW simulator 60% 40% simple arcade but so whimper the game is bad these last changes in combat.

[Geldrin]

Quote

AC/20
• Energy Consumption increased to 24

PPC
• Energy Consumption increased to 12

So... a particle cannon, which is a friggin ENERGY cannon, draws half the power than an AC-20. Which is a ballistic weapon.

Don't you think this isn't make any smoking sense at all???

[Quaamik]

Seriously???


AC/10

Damage 10 - Heat 3 - Cool down 2.5 Range 450 / max range 900 – speed 950

New energy draw changes:

• Energy Consumption increased to 12 Energy Total (from 10)





PPC

Damage 10 - Heat 9.5 - Cool down 4 Range 540 / max range 1080 – speed 1200

Minimum range 90 m

New energy draw changes:

• Energy Consumption increased to 12 Energy total (from 10)

• Cool down Duration increased to 5.25s (from 4.6s)

• Heat Generation increased to 10 (from 9.5)



ER PPC

Damage 10 - Heat 14 - Cool down 4 Range 810 / max range 1620 – speed 1300

New Energy Draw Changes:

* Energy Consumption increased to 12 (from 10)

• Cool down Duration increased to 5.25s (from 4.6s)

• Heat Generation increased to 15 (from 14)





ER PPC

Damage 10+2.5+2.5 - Heat 14 - Cool down 4 Range 810 / max range 1620 – speed 1300

New Energy Draw Changes:

• Energy Consumption increased to 15 (from 13.5)

• Cool down Duration increased to 5.25s (from 4.6s)

• Heat Generation increased to 15 (from 14)





The AC10 and the PPC both deliver 10 pinpoint damage. Ideal and max ranges are close, with a slight advantage to PPC. The PPC however has a 90 meter dead zone which compensates for the 90 meter longer ideal range. Velocity is a advantage to the PPC, making it easier to hit with at longer ranges. Energy consumption is the same for both under the new system (works for balance).

The AC10 is 12 ton and 7 slots, vs the PPCs 7 tons and 3 slots. Add 2 tons of ammo for the AC, and you have 14 tons / 9 slots. Heat is much higher on the PPC, making Heat Sinks as necessary as ammo. So add 2 Double Heat Sinks to the PPC and you get 9 tons / 9 slots. So a 5 ton advantage to the PPC, but a 7 point advantage in heat o the AC10. Seems like a fairly balanced tradeoff.



But an AC10 gets a 2.5 second cool down and a PPC has a 5.25 second cool down?



Absolutely breaks the balance there.


ER PPCs, and C-ERPPCs, have added range to compensate. You can somewhat justify the longer cool down pointing at their much greater range. But the PPC matches up so closely in all its stats to the AC 10, yet the cool down makes it next to useless.

[BLOOD WOLF]

I think its more important, how the changes affect the actual gameplay, rather than using statistics alone.

[Barbados]

Give each Mech 30 Heat, and get rid of heat capacity make heat sinks dissipate .1% of the Heat, then make double heat sinks dissipate .2% of the Heat every second. When you have at least 10 heatsinks equipped, single heatsink would dissipate one Heat every second and double heatsinks will dissipate two heat every second. After that if you go over 60 heat your Mech will go nuclear. Reaching 30 heat your Mech will shut down unless overriden. Get rid of quirks completely. Return heat values to Table top values. Return ranges to the same.


Then I would put all the other movement penalties and firing penalties. Like screen fogging or weapon shake at higher heats. At 20 Heat I'll put like a 25% movement penalty. At 15 heat, I would put like a 15% movement penalty, then at 25 heat I will put a 50% movement penalty and then correspond shooting or firing weapons with visor fogging and shaking like in Jump Jets and it gets more severe the higher your heat. At the begining of beta we had only 30 heat I thought that worked the best.

Sometimes subtraction of overly complicated systems is better for longevity. The table top is balanced if you use it.

Edited by Barbados, 28 August 2016 - 05:09 PM.

[Akillius]

First off I downloaded and tried the ED PTS on day 1.

And I quickly concluded that only a very-very small percentage of players downloaded PTS.
As other players in this and other topics have already wrote they work, get home and wasted a half hour or more waiting for a match that never happens on PTS. They get frustrated after half an hour and never try PTS again, so imo having PTS "live" when events happens is a good way to not test ED unless it's just a faux-testing for show...

More importantly after that ED PTS update I've given it some reflection I have to say wow!!!
Hey I know that some kids aren't able to use circa-1970's real metal lawn darts and must use the foam nerf ones instead...
But I never thought I'd see the day when players would need to face hug to use a Gauss rifle not to mention how far all the rest of the nerfing went!!! IMHO it's way too kiddie-gloves, its just too patronizing.


The posts I've read appears to have only a handful of people who laud and defend it, the same people over and over again.
However with the exception of day 1 of PTS and day 1 of PTS update there has been zero people playing PTS quick matches solo. The 0% of any size mech playing after day 1 is a really good indicator of the interest and re-playability, or should I say the complete lack thereof.


Now others have mentioned the many ways to remove ghost heat and keep fast paced matches and full playability.
With higher heat: decrease max speed, turn speed, -negative to hit, etc
Add run/walk speed toggle-key where running produces heat (~60% vs 100% speed), crit hit on engine=half internal HS stop working, ammo exploding and weapon damage on hit produces heat, etc. http://d20battletech.wikidot.com/heat
More then ~10 points heat above automatic shutdown then O doesn't work, under 10 points only ~25% chance of startup.
If overheated and shutdown then heatsinks work at 50% their rated speed of dissipation, etc.
Try some of the many existing ideas and put that on PTS when there's no event's for at least a week to let the players shop and compare.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Max Rickson, on 28 August 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

First off I downloaded and tried the ED PTS on day 1.

And I quickly concluded that only a very-very small percentage of players downloaded PTS.
As other players in this and other topics have already wrote they work, get home and wasted a half hour or more waiting for a match that never happens on PTS. They get frustrated after half an hour and never try PTS again, so imo having PTS "live" when events happens is a good way to not test ED unless it's just a faux-testing for show...

More importantly after that ED PTS update I've given it some reflection I have to say wow!!!
Hey I know that some kids aren't able to use circa-1970's real metal lawn darts and must use the foam nerf ones instead...
But I never thought I'd see the day when players would need to face hug to use a Gauss rifle not to mention how far all the rest of the nerfing went!!! IMHO it's way too kiddie-gloves, its just too patronizing.


The posts I've read appears to have only a handful of people who laud and defend it, the same people over and over again.
However with the exception of day 1 of PTS and day 1 of PTS update there has been zero people playing PTS quick matches solo. The 0% of any size mech playing after day 1 is a really good indicator of the interest and re-playability, or should I say the complete lack thereof.


Now others have mentioned the many ways to remove ghost heat and keep fast paced matches and full playability.
With higher heat: decrease max speed, turn speed, -negative to hit, etc
Add run/walk speed toggle-key where running produces heat (~60% vs 100% speed), crit hit on engine=half internal HS stop working, ammo exploding and weapon damage on hit produces heat, etc. http://d20battletech.wikidot.com/heat
More then ~10 points heat above automatic shutdown then O doesn't work, under 10 points only ~25% chance of startup.
If overheated and shutdown then heatsinks work at 50% their rated speed of dissipation, etc.
Try some of the many existing ideas and put that on PTS when there's no event's for at least a week to let the players shop and compare.

Its up to the players to get in their and test the items being proposed to the game. I do not know why improving your game needs to be rewarded in itself other than implementing a system that could potentially make the game better.

[Aethermech]

MMMMM, the salt is real and crunchie. you guys make my day.

[Moira]

Just D-load the PTS and see the diffrerences.... even a idiot can make 1+1=2

So there is certain number of ppls that cant even see their noses coming to this... and all I see on these forums is drama and whining.... get on to the PTS and LEARN.

god damned idiots

[Pihoqahiak]

BLOOD WOLF, on 28 August 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

Its up to the players to get in their and test the items being proposed to the game. I do not know why improving your game needs to be rewarded in itself other than implementing a system that could potentially make the game better.

It is not our job to be their playtesters. We do not get paid by PGI, quite the opposite, many players pay PGI, and it's PGI's responsibility to produce a product worth players paying money for. I'm not sure where the mentality of so many white knights on this forum comes from where they feel such a need to try and work for PGI for free. There are a LOT of games out there competing for player's time and money. PGI is not going to win that competition by trying to get their player base to be their beta testers for free, while often running in-game events for rewards at the same time. Added to this problem is a poor track record of listening, and implementing change in response to player feedback over the course of many years. I'm not saying this to deter people from getting on the test server to check things out if they want to. I've gone on there to check things out. I'm saying this in response to some people on the forum that feel we, as players, are responsible for developing this game, instead of placing that responsibility where it belongs.....the developers at PGI that are being paid to do so.

Edited by Pihoqahiak, 29 August 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Ok... after trying out the new system, i realize that is awsome!!!! That will indeed prevent alpha strike mechs! Makes things alot more aware of heat and what weapon groups to use.
I see also that clan players will get the worst half of this new system... it indeed penalizes clan tech the way it is. Even with the un-nerfs on clan tech, it still hurts clan mechs in a way that it doesnt IS mechs.
They will need to un-nerf clan tech a bit more for this system to work... in the other hand, clan players are indeed acostumed and more aware of heat than IS players, wich will make clan players to better adapt to this new system. Then againl this is just my sugestion...

[Wintersdark]

Pihoqahiak, on 29 August 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

It is not our job to be their playtesters. We do not get paid by PGI, quite the opposite, many players pay PGI, and it's PGI's responsibility to produce a product worth players paying money for. I'm not sure where the mentality of so many white knights on this forum comes from where they feel such a need to try and work for PGI for free. There are a LOT of games out there competing for player's time and money. PGI is not going to win that competition by trying to get their player base to be their beta testers for free, while often running in-game events for rewards at the same time. Added to this problem is a poor track record of listening, and implementing change in response to player feedback over the course of many years. I'm not saying this to deter people from getting on the test server to check things out if they want to. I've gone on there to check things out. I'm saying this in response to some people on the forum that feel we, as players, are responsible for developing this game, instead of placing that responsibility where it belongs.....the developers at PGI that are being paid to do so.

There's more players than there's ever going to be QA testers; and frankly we understand gameplay better.

It's NOT our job, but it's something people are willing to do, because otherwise we'll have no control/say in what actually ends up happening. Now, our opinions differ, but we can at least point out problems and offer our thoughts, so PGI can move forward with actual player feedback instead of just a couple of QA testers. The paid QA guys find the tedious bugs and show-stoppers (in an ideal world), and we playtest to see if the system really works from a gameplay perspective.

It's WAY better to have actual players test your system than just random dudes.


With that said, as we're NOT paid testers, it certainly behooves PGI to present some form of incentive to do it - for some, myself included, incentive is in wanting the game to be better. But for me to do that, I need players to play with and against. So if offering some incentive to them is going to get them onto the PTS, then that's what Russ should be doing.

[Akillius]

Wintersdark, on 29 August 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

There's more players than there's ever going to be QA testers; and frankly we understand gameplay better.

It's NOT our job, but it's something people are willing to do, because otherwise we'll have no control/say in what actually ends up happening. Now, our opinions differ, but we can at least point out problems and offer our thoughts, so PGI can move forward with actual player feedback instead of just a couple of QA testers. The paid QA guys find the tedious bugs and show-stoppers (in an ideal world), and we playtest to see if the system really works from a gameplay perspective.

It's WAY better to have actual players test your system than just random dudes.


With that said, as we're NOT paid testers, it certainly behooves PGI to present some form of incentive to do it - for some, myself included, incentive is in wanting the game to be better. But for me to do that, I need players to play with and against. So if offering some incentive to them is going to get them onto the PTS, then that's what Russ should be doing.

It's not very often I agree with Wintersdark but I agree 110% with his comments above about testing.
And that's something coming from me!