54 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Znail, on 28 August 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

This part is a bit strange. You are asking for peoples oppionion so ofcourse it will be based on their personal bias. You also shouldn't think the amount of complaints are a sign of what the general oppinion are as those who want to complain are always more likely to post then the ones that are happy. Polls tend to be the same, but a bit less, so are a bit more representative.

The quoted section is a request to the community to be truthful, and not to answer questions a certain way merely because they feel that answer would reflect better on their preferred system - even though those answers are strictly untrue. I know that this is a problem in any sort of polling. I'm just hoping that out players could rise above it, given the importance of such a system.

[Gentleman Reaper]

ScarecrowES, on 28 August 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

I'm sorry... where has that happened anywhere in this thread? Please keep your lies out of the conversation. I don't even HAVE the power to delete other people's comments, any more than you do.

I guess the guy deleted his comment then...

[C E Dwyer]

I have just changed how I voted, my initial view was it needed to be implemented, to make low hard point mechs viable to reduce TKK, then PTS phase two came along.

Rather than just drop the stock value to say 29 or 28 from the original 30 PGI decided in their wisdom, to increase cool downs, and increase heat values on weapons like the Gauss, and AC20.

This from my point of view has made the ED system nonviable and is going to make the game far worse, with less build diversity than it currently is.

All short range weapons will become virtually extinct with the except of the Streak 2 the new system will make this weapon far more viable than it ever has been in ordinary play, in meta play it still won't get used, the rest they are not worth using because if the heat penalties and the weight, and the limited alpha.


LRM's some people still try and use lrm15 this weapon like the lrm20 will now be unused, by anyone that has a basic understanding of the game, the LRM10 will get used less because LRM's now become a weapon you must chain fire all the time.

You will see far less use of ballistic's because of the new added penalties.

You will see an increase in gauss use in the initial stages, because of the removal of the charge mechanic, in the average player. However this will over time fall out of favour, because now they get penalised when used in pairs, and people with any understanding of the mechanic will fall back on what will become the only really viable weapon in the game.

The Large laser, in its different versions, with small ones to supplement it at close range.

This weapon will become the only weapon used, as it now becomes far better to have long ranged weapons that alpha constantly at the thresh hold damage value, big brawling short ranged mechs were usable because once they were in range, you could hammer people with big damage numbers, now there will be no point in them, because range will now be the key, and a weapon combination that can alpha 30 at all range, is now vastly superior to any other weapon.

Sword and board with a 30 alpha with the rest of the crit spaces filled up with Heat sinks is now going to be the only way to play this game well if ED2 comes into play.

This will of course end the critically ill Faction warfare part of the game, no point in playing it anymore, clan lasers taking less weight less critical spots and most important DHS only taking 2 crit slots, will make it a turkey shoot.

P.G.I can wave bye bye to any revenue they expect to come from sales of extra drop decks.

The principle of Energy draw is a good one, the mechanic's of it though fall well short of the mark.

If this goes live, it will have a negative impact on numbers playing and in revenue taken, I believe nothing positive will come of ED

[BadgerBeard]

ScarecrowES, on 27 August 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

1) What role, if any, should the heat system have in limiting alphas (here defined as firing most or all of a mech's mounted weapons in one shot)?

As ED is supposed to do, alphas should be perfectly acceptable as long as the weaponry involved is not ridiculously high damage/ draw. Very high damage alphas from "heavy" weapons should be an act of desperation, a last resort of a pilot who knows they are going to die, and is willing to destroy their own mech in the process of trying to take an enemy with them. This kind of alpha(deathstar builds etc.) should be an instant shut-down and/ or suicide, the threshold could certainly be lowered for this from it's current levels.

Quote

2) Are there levels and types of alphas that are deemed more acceptable than others? If so, what are examples of acceptable/unacceptable alphas?

For me the only really unacceptable levels of alpha are "deathstar" type builds, granted they are amusing, but any alpha that allows for 1-shotting a mech of same/ similar tonnage from "fresh" (barring headshots) is way too high.

Quote

3) Is it an acceptable/unacceptable expectation that heavier mechs should have higher firepower output than lighter mechs? Why?

Perfectly acceptable. For me that's kind of the point of having heavier mechs. For a medium mech that steps blindly around a corner right into the face of an Atlas (for example) it should definitely be an "oh ****" moment, and should damn well hurt. Overly limiting the damage output of mechs that already pay a price in speed and maneuverability is excessively punishing. This would push the balance of play too far into "speed wins" territory.

Quote

4) Should the heat system have mechanics in place to limit the firepower capability of mechs beyond what their build and heat capacity allow - either by limiting simultaneous damage, Damage-over-time, types and amounts of weapons fired together, etc? Why?

If the heat system were designed correctly, and if other mechanisms such as diminishing returns (energy weapons)/ recoil shake (Ballistic & Missiles) were in place then strict hard limits would not be required.
Personally I don't like arbitrary "hard" limits, and would much prefer a scaling "drawback" system. Heat would be a part of that certainly, but there are other options for penalties as well.
Less on a limit of what you can do, and more a limit on how effective it is to do it.

[ScarecrowES]

I just want to thank my fellow players for their constructive feedback thus far. I know that we all feel a certain level of passion for the game - or else we wouldn't be here. And I know that passion like that can often spawn both positive and negative occurances whenever we feel there is a chance to make the game better or we feel our enjoyment of it is being threatened.

Often, it's difficult to cut through all that passion and get right down to the factual, unbiased core of an issue. I'd like to express my gratitude that this community when given the opportunity, can rise above.

[Stone Wall]

So a majority feels ED is better than GH. Thanks for a 2nd poll.

[Hunter Watzas]

1) What role, if any, should the heat system have in limiting alphas (here defined as firing most or all of a mech's mounted weapons in one shot)?

You should be able to alpha with most mechs but it should limit your capability for a long of enough duration that you end up losing DPS. Some mechs might be able to alpha and take 50% heat while others take 100% heat and shutdown. Depends on loadout, weapon types, and heat sinks. Alphaing should be done in the case of.... "I am about to die, might as well do what i can for the team" Not something that you do constantly.

2) Are there levels and types of alphas that are deemed more acceptable than others? If so, what are examples of acceptable/unacceptable alphas?

I think firing only in alpha strikes in unacceptable. Most firing should be 2 or 3 weapons at a time depending on mech. However, long range alphas with short burn time/instant damage are the worst.

3) Is it an acceptable/unacceptable expectation that heavier mechs should have higher firepower output than lighter mechs? Why?

They should have more firepower because they bring bigger weapons and have more capabilities but they shouldn't really have a higher alpha capability. Instead use the more weapons to fire more often increasing DPS. Plus assaults should have the most firepower and armor of all mechs for what they lack in speed. While lights should have the lowest firepower and armor that they make up in speed.

4) Should the heat system have mechanics in place to limit the firepower capability of mechs beyond what their build and heat capacity allow - either by limiting simultaneous damage, Damage-over-time, types and amounts of weapons fired together, etc? Why?

I don't want to physically limit players from alpha striking, it should be something you are able to do but not with out extreme penalties to that type of play style. However, the heat system should incentivize mixing builds of missiles, acs, and lasers for mechs that are capable of. While mechs that cannot have to be more careful about heat management.

5) What, if any, types of builds and conditions should a heat system provide limits for beyond the base capabilities of the heat and builds systems

Mechs firing multiple of the same type of weapon gets a higher and higher penalty each time they fire more than 1. Firing 2 medium lasers together is slightly more taxing than 1 ML and 1 LL. Example: 1 ML = 4 heat; 2 ML = 9 heat; 1 LL = 7 heat; 2 LL = 16 heat; 3 ML = 15 heat... etc. So anytime you fire more than 1 of a weapon at the same time you start getting penalized. This encourages people to mix weapon groups that might not all have the same and discourages boating. Energy boats would be fine because the small points of heat can easily be adjusted for by running more heat sinks since most of their weapons are "lighter" than AC and SRM since no ammo.

[ScarecrowES]

Stone Wall, on 29 August 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

So a majority feels ED is better than GH. Thanks for a 2nd poll.

That's not quite what the poll says. The point of the more detailed poll is to get a better picture than just "do you want this or that."

The results you see are not very encouraging for ED. In fact, by any objective standard these results would be considered an abject failure for the system.

[TankBadger42]

1) What role, if any, should the heat system have in limiting alphas (here defined as firing most or all of a mech's mounted weapons in one shot)?

None, bar extream cheese (death star builds) All other Alpha heavy builds should just have to pay a massive price for it, so if you do alpha you can't even hope to win a fair fight against a DPS/well-rounded mech.

2) Are there levels and types of alphas that are deemed more acceptable than others? If so, what are examples of acceptable/unacceptable alphas?

Alpha at range has less drawbacks as you can hide while you cool off. So should cost more then close range alphas, where an overheat will be fatal.

Hit scan aphas should also cost more, even if they have duration. As with ones without downsides such as explosions.

3) Is it an acceptable/unacceptable expectation that heavier mechs should have higher firepower output than lighter mechs? Why?

No, damage is not everything. However tonnage does that already.

4) Should the heat system have mechanics in place to limit the firepower capability of mechs beyond what their build and heat capacity allow - either by limiting simultaneous damage, Damage-over-time, types and amounts of weapons fired together, etc? Why?

Alpha allows for a mech to protect itself until its ready to fire again, so should cost more than DPS/mixed cooldowns in heat, so you can get a few perfect shots of, but you have to make sure they are good ones. Same as DPS/mixed needs to look out for an Alpha and twist/dodge to counter it.

5) What, if any, types of builds and conditions should a heat system provide limits for beyond the base capabilities of the heat and builds systems?

Any build that can 1v1 any other mech, again and again, and win without expending resources needs to be limited by this system.
I'm fine with a good player outplaying another, but it should have lost significant resources along the way, have the right build to counter the other, gained enough heat and/or damage to have to back off instead of right on to the next kill.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

AnTi90d, on 27 August 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

Hey, I just noticed #3 has two, "strongly agree." I don't think anyone would select, "strongly disagree," for that option, but I believe that it was an intended selection.

I strongly disagree with #3.

[davoodoo]

So am i.

You should be able to customise in any way you want and if boating is more effective by design then you should boat rather than have mixed builds and if its not you should still be able to derp with suboptimal build.

Edited by davoodoo, 29 August 2016 - 11:46 AM.

[Appuagab]

I guess that last question should have multiple votes option because I'd like for PGI to both improve the base heat system (along with other values of weapons such as cooldowns etc) and come up with some less artificial mechanics that would help to improve the balance and encourage people to use more various builds both boaty and eclectic. Anyway, further improvements will take some time (very long time taking into account how slowly PGI realizes their mistakes) so I think that ED definitely must replace the current ghost heat system but only as a temporary measure towards normal balance and increased TTK.

tldr
1. Ghost totally heat sucks and must be replaced with ED.
2. ED is an artificial measure too so it must be replaced with something better lately.
3. Revising base heat system and weapons' and equipment's values is key to good balance, not some artificial brand-new mechanics and fake limitations.

One of PGI's worst mistakes is that they tweak base stats of equipment very rarely and they do it only during some huge updates such as quirks, clantech introduction, GH, ED. Take a look at any other competitive multiplayer game: every single patchnote consists mostly of rebalancing. I think that ED implementation must become only the first step towards endless race of tweaking and rebalancing which every healthy multiplayer game represents.

[XX Sulla XX]

>>>>>> What we need is 12vs12 testing. <<<<<<<<

[ScarecrowES]

Appuagab, on 29 August 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

I guess that last question should have multiple votes option because I'd like for PGI to both improve the base heat system (along with other values of weapons such as cooldowns etc) and come up with some less artificial mechanics that would help to improve the balance and encourage people to use more various builds both boaty and eclectic. Anyway, further improvements will take some time (very long time taking into account how slowly PGI realizes their mistakes) so I think that ED definitely must replace the current ghost heat system but only as a temporary measure towards normal balance and increased TTK.

tldr
1. Ghost totally heat sucks and must be replaced with ED.
2. ED is an artificial measure too so it must be replaced with something better lately.
3. Revising base heat system and weapons' and equipment's values is key to good balance, not some artificial brand-new mechanics and fake limitations.

One of PGI's worst mistakes is that they tweak base stats of equipment very rarely and they do it only during some huge updates such as quirks, clantech introduction, GH, ED. Take a look at any other competitive multiplayer game: every single patchnote consists mostly of rebalancing. I think that ED implementation must become only the first step towards endless race of tweaking and rebalancing which every healthy multiplayer game represents.

With PGI many system changes are "one and done." There is no way we can suggest or assume that PGI will bother to develop a third system if significant investment is made to the second.

Thus, for this question, assume that further investment into any one existing system will preclude the possibility of investing in an alternate system.

XX Sulla XX, on 29 August 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; What we need is 12vs12 testing. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Agreed... it is impossible to get real data when a system is operating well outside its natural parameters.

Still, this is well outside the scope of the survey.

[XX Sulla XX]

ScarecrowES, on 29 August 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

Still, this is well outside the scope of the survey.

Just pointing out I cant answer the survey correctly without having more information on how it effects play etc.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 29 August 2016 - 12:35 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

XX Sulla XX, on 29 August 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

Just pointing out I cant answer the survey correctly without having more information on how it effects play etc.

An absolutely fair conclusion.

[Stone Wall]

ScarecrowES, on 29 August 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

That's not quite what the poll says. The point of the more detailed poll is to get a better picture than just "do you want this or that."

The results you see are not very encouraging for ED. In fact, by any objective standard these results would be considered an abject failure for the system.

That's not the case from what I just read multiple times today.

[Kalagaeth Peledaen]

1)The only role that the heat system should play in limiting alphas is in the mech lab. Both Ghost Heat, and energy draw attempt to force players to balance builds, while actually encouraging Min/max and alpha builds.

2) An alpha is by definition an alpha, lesser,greater, different builds will have different levels of damage output. To limit some with "this is too much" or "this is unfair boating" builds an artificial bias into the game.

3)Attempting to determine damage output by tonnage is Folly. there are too many variables (with non omni-mechs anyway) that are adjustable, engines, frame types, etc that make a huge difference in ability to output damage.

4) The heat system should not have additional mechanics in place to limit type or number of weapons fired. Trying to force limits based on heat output simple makes a "meta" where players figure out ways to "game" the system. The heat system, if implemented properly, encourages weapon diversity without "ghost heat" or "energy draw"

5) None.

*soapbox time*

I keep reading and hearing complaints about meta builds, ghost heat, and boating... You want to fix that? go to a balanced rate of fire across the board. and implement a real time equivalent to the table top system. All weapons have a 4.5 second cycle (gotta love solaris rules) and cap each mech at 30 heat (reminder 50 heat scale was EXPERIMENTAL rules) Pull the heat consumables, and give each heat sink a .1 or .2 per second heat flush. Want to alpha? go ahead, enjoy the scenery if you overheat.

Weapons: Balanced (not all weapons are created equal, deal with it)
Heat: Balanced (30 heat is 30 heat)

Complaints expected: Massive, it's a change and a big one, but it just might save all the CBT players, and return the Mechwarrior feel to the game. It's not a bad game as is, just not mechwarrior.

/endrant

[1453 R]

ScarecrowES, on 27 August 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

1) What role, if any, should the heat system have in limiting alphas (here defined as firing most or all of a mech's mounted weapons in one shot)?

A balance should be struck between low but consistent (DPS) damage and high but infrequent (burst/spike/alpha) damage. Neither option should completely eclipse the other; MechWarrior Online is a better game when there are fewer binary, on/off, yes/no decisions to be made. A system which overly encourages alpha strikes (current Ghost Heat) is as disadvantageous as a system which overly encourages DPS damage (possible current iteration of Energy Draw). Both options being valid choices in the correct circumstances is a better overall place for MWO to be.

ScarecrowES, on 27 August 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

2) Are there levels and types of alphas that are deemed more acceptable than others? If so, what are examples of acceptable/unacceptable alphas?

Difficult to quantify, but the current system - wherein spread damage is less 'valuable'/more acceptable than DoT damage is less valuable than instantaneous, PPFLD damage - feels correct. Spread weapons such as LBX autocannons and current missile technology feels better when it comes with the bonus of decreased draw to balance its more diffused damage, and single-slug autocannons, Gauss rifles, and other pinpoint weapons are demonstrably powerful enough to warrant extra controls.

ScarecrowES, on 27 August 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

3) Is it an acceptable/unacceptable expectation that heavier mechs should have higher firepower output than lighter mechs? Why?

It's an acceptable expectation, but a difficult one to really balance well and a possible reason we're testing ED in the first place. Larger 'Mechs being given increased ED thresholds, for example, continues the current Ghost Heat/base heat system trend of invalidating smaller machines with less alpha potential, as those machines cannot possibly hope to match the total combat capacity of a 'Mech that can erase them from play with a single click. Players have been decrying TTK as being too low for years now, largely because very big 'Mechs, even under GHost Heat, can generate alpha spikes able to kill or cripple a target with one salvo.

Any attempt to 'increase TTK' has to take into consideration the effect that large assault 'Mechs gigaboating all the everythings has on perceived TTK. Players don't remember the time they spent an entire match being slowly whittled down shot by shot, ducking in and around cover trying to line up a shot on their target, fighting tooth and nail and ending a match on twenty percent integrity with no ammo and two small lasers left. They remember the time when they poked their head around a corner and a Whale gigaspiked half their 'Mech off, removing them from the match before they had a chance to really participate in it. The latter is what allowing excessive firepower for larger 'Mechs entails, and there's no easy way to have both gigaboat-everything assault 'Mechs and high perceived TTK.

ScarecrowES, on 27 August 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

4) Should the heat system have mechanics in place to limit the firepower capability of mechs beyond what their build and heat capacity allow - either by limiting simultaneous damage, Damage-over-time, types and amounts of weapons fired together, etc? Why?

Yes. Because the game's playerbase would not allow otherwise. Players who've been around long enough remember the uproar that six-PPC Stalkers caused, no matter how bad six-PPC Stalkers actually were. The Playerbase, as a nameless aggregate whole, cannot tolerate being one-shotted. If they're crippled by a single strike from any source - high enemy alphas, Long Toms, consumable strikes, even legitimate headcaps - forum hue-and-cry will follow. For a multitude of reasons, the MWO playerbase refuses to accept any form of one-shot as valid. As such, controls need to be in place to limit one-shots to statistical abberations, and/or Locust pilots. Locust pilots know exactly what they're getting into when they get into a Locust.

ScarecrowES, on 27 August 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

5) What, if any, types of builds and conditions should a heat system provide limits for beyond the base capabilities of the heat and builds systems?

As stated above - the goal of any system above and beyond the base heat system should be to limit the ability of any player to one-shot another, non-Locust-driving player on anything but rare, statistically insignificant occasions. Builds which provide more one-shot kill or cripple ability than other builds should be more strictly controlled - the perfect example being the current PTS snapfire Gauss Rifle. The weapon is extremely problematic not because of its DPS (which is absolute garbage) but because it is easily the best one-shot weapon in MWO. Two Gauss Rifles, fired together as a single unit, deal a significant thirty points of damage to any point the firing player can target, essentially without fail, for very little heat and essentially zero risk. No other weapon has this capability - which is why the Gauss Rifle has been nerfed more than any other weapon in MWO.

Beyond limiting instagibs, a system above and beyond the base heat bar should be tuned to try and encourage more tactical, open-ended gameplay, as opposed to the "You do not EVER exceed your Ghost Heat limitation, EVER(!!!)" binary gameplay of Ghost Heat or the Alpha button all-day-erry-day gameplay often considered typical of pre-Ghost Heat MWO. Any system which widens the viable toolset of a player is a system which can only be beneficial to MWO as a whole, while any system which narrows that toolset can only be a hindrance.

[GreenHell]

Seriously, this is so easy...

Change total Heat Capacity to 30 for all mechs. (remove capacity from heatsinks)
Change dissipation for DHS to 0.25 heat per second.
DONE!

You alpha a big damage hit? Enjoy being at high heat for the next 12 seconds.
You group fire / chain fire? Enjoy the higher DPS, but lose out on the alpha damage.
But at least the system lets you have the choice - aka - You have the option to do either!!!

Remove "Ghost Heat - aka- Heat Scaling"
Remove "Erectile Disfunction - aka - Energy Draw"

The best solutions are often the simplest ones!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by GreenHell, 29 August 2016 - 07:13 PM.