57 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Gentleman Reaper, on 29 August 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

Volley-fire doesn't measure to the long-established meta of firing all your weapons and turning to shield, which is what ED targets. ED encourages the need to either fire different groups or chain-fire, which is why your Nova is more effective, although it's balanced because you need to expose yourself to maintain that DPS.

...or you just boat DPS weapons which is the clear solution and is already part of the meta despite all the alphas in game.

[cazidin]

Alright. So. How do we make Energy Draw better then? As I said earlier in this thread, I am opposed to removing a system when it has the potential for improvement, a chance to be something great.

Let's look at the core design principles. 1.Effectively cap alpha strike damage and DPS. 2.Replace Ghost Heat without becoming Ghost Heat or something worse. 3.Infuriate Gas Guzzler, because at this point PGI must be making these changes just to spite him - even though he seems like an alright guy.

Now. Let's look at the problems that Energy Draw has, at least on PTS 2. 1.Inconsistancy. While PGI did originally state that their goal was to have individualized numbers to balance the game, at this time there doesn't seem to be much logic behind it and PGI seems to be approaching this a bit too slowly. This also leads into...

2.Complexity. A replacement for Ghost Heat should be simpler, more intuitive and generally easier to understand. We don't want a one size fits all system, but we don't want something that requires a spreadsheet to understand.

How do we fix this? To keep it simple, I would have all PPFLD weapons at a 1:1 ratio for Damage to Energy Draw (I.e. PPCs, Autocannons and Gauss Rifle.) and weapons with spread or a burn duration draw only 60-80% energy. (I.e. Lasers, SRMs, LBX and LRMs.)

Alternatively, if more depth is permitted, I'd have AC20s at 75% energy draw, PPCs at 80% (to have and fire 3 simultaneously without penalty), Small Lasers, etc. Basically, if the range is short or they have another very obvious weakness, their draw should be less.

Also. Granting exemption (or less draw) to U-AC double shots would be nice but I imagine it'd be a coding nightmare for PGI.

Edited by cazidin, 30 August 2016 - 09:54 AM.

[Tiantara]

Quote

To keep it simple, I would have all PPFLD weapons at a 1:1 ratio for Damage to Energy Draw (I.e. PPCs, Autocannons and Gauss Rifle.) and weapons with spread or a burn duration draw only 60-80% energy. (I.e. Lasers, SRMs, LBX and LRMs.)

- We already have gauss = 20 ed (15damage) AC20 - 24 ED (damage 20). If laser become 80% of damage - we'll see again 6LL walking tank Stalker. Well...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tiantara, on 30 August 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

If laser become 80% of damage - we'll see again 6LL walking tank Stalker. Well...

Like we did before the PTS.......oh wait.

[1453 R]

The 'ideal' is that a weapon's draw value is nothing more or less than another easily visible, clearly understood spec that Piranha can use as a balancing lever, like heat or cycle time or range or projectile speed or anything else. PPFLD weapons have higher overall draw because they deal the most advantageous sort of damage. Spread weapons have lower overall draw because they deal the least advantageous sort of damage. DoT pinpoint weapons (lasers) are in the middle, both in terms of draw and in terms of advantageous damage.

Why people think it's so diabolically complicated is beyond me. One system requires simple arithmetic to sort out. The other requires sesquipadelian vector-shift quadratta calculus that amounts to "don't go over your limit, bro."

If DPS is over-emphasized in the current iteration, then relax the restrictions a bit to make spike damage less punishing. If 0.5 heat per overdraw point was not enough and 1 heat per overdraw point is too much, then try 0.75 HPO. Adjust other stats in conjunction with ED, as was done for Clan lasers. Reinstate the Gauss charge already because it's clearly broken as a snapfire weapon regardless of what ED, Ghost Heat, or anything else says. Keep doing the thing where brawly weapons get lower cycle times to emphasize DPS and close-in slugging power. Fix the friggin' ED U.I. elements for better visibility.

Get a PTS3 rigged up already. Shortly, hopefully. Before Labor Day would be good, but I think we're already sunk on that score.

[Shadowspawn42]

My objection to ED is the nerf to Alpha and Sustain DPS while leaving long range DPS (missiles and snipers) virtually untouched. If you want an example of the balance required with the current numbers....

You are effectively halving the damage capabilities of Alphas and Sustain builds. So leave everything in ED the same, but halve the damage of any weapon being fired at more than say...600M. Firing missiles at 1200M? Or sniping at 1000M? Your weapons only deal half the damage they currently do at that range. Don't like this suggestion? Then quit trying to screw over brawler builds when the current game is balanced.

[Alteran]

cazidin, on 30 August 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Let's look at the core design principles. 1.Effectively cap alpha strike damage and DPS. 2.Replace Ghost Heat without becoming Ghost Heat or something worse. 3.Infuriate Gas Guzzler, because at this point PGI must be making these changes just to spite him - even though he seems like an alright guy.

Looking at the first two points:

1) What is the cap that people want to see for an Alpha strike and DPS? I've got a poll going and it seems to start at around 25+ the answers begin to say yes. That's just a CLPL and 2 CERML or 2 SRM6 and a SPL! Hell I thought I was going to see people pulling out the 40+ and people talking about the guy running around with 8+ ML boat or something crazy to that effect, alpha'ing everyone.

If that is really what people are getting so worked up over, GH/ED I don't care which, then we better just cut the damage per weapon in 1/2, double up the armor pts on every surface of Mech and triple the amount of heat per weapon.

2) ED is GH with slightly different effects and a reworked system to calculate heat. Heat is heat. You want to say well it's got an energy component to it... Really? The energy component is just another way of saying you can run 4 CERML, but when you go to 5 you take an extra penalty... Hmmm sounds like GH to me, just worked up a little differently with a visual for people to focus on and accept that it's a different system. GH right now allows me to take 5, but if I bump it to 6 I get way too hot.... jeeez I guess they could rework it to 5 and call it ED and then I'll be ok with it as long as I get a fancy looking bar. Stop being sheep.

I'd address the third, but PGI is just screwing with everyone with ED - IMO.

[cazidin]

Tiantara, on 30 August 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

- We already have gauss = 20 ed (15damage) AC20 - 24 ED (damage 20). If laser become 80% of damage - we'll see again 6LL walking tank Stalker. Well...

And I think the Energy Draw on Gauss Rifles and AC20s is too high, personally also one could still not fire all 6 large lasers without incurring significant heat penalties. The pairing would most likely be 3-3 or 4-2, so it wouldn't really change from live I guess but even at 1 point of Energy Draw per 1 point of damage they still wouldn't change.

Alteran, on 30 August 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

Looking at the first two points:

1) What is the cap that people want to see for an Alpha strike and DPS? I've got a poll going and it seems to start at around 25+ the answers begin to say yes. That's just a CLPL and 2 CERML or 2 SRM6 and a SPL! Hell I thought I was going to see people pulling out the 40+ and people talking about the guy running around with 8+ ML boat or something crazy to that effect, alpha'ing everyone.

If that is really what people are getting so worked up over, GH/ED I don't care which, then we better just cut the damage per weapon in 1/2, double up the armor pts on every surface of Mech and triple the amount of heat per weapon.

2) ED is GH with slightly different effects and a reworked system to calculate heat. Heat is heat. You want to say well it's got an energy component to it... Really? The energy component is just another way of saying you can run 4 CERML, but when you go to 5 you take an extra penalty... Hmmm sounds like GH to me, just worked up a little differently with a visual for people to focus on and accept that it's a different system. GH right now allows me to take 5, but if I bump it to 6 I get way too hot.... jeeez I guess they could rework it to 5 and call it ED and then I'll be ok with it as long as I get a fancy looking bar. Stop being sheep.

I'd address the third, but PGI is just screwing with everyone with ED - IMO.

Yes. I participated in that poll, and at that time it seemed that anything above 30 points of damage was agreed upon by the majority to be where damage should be capped out at but this would make a poor statistic, as you pointed out. SRM and LBX, both are spread weapons, draw less energy to compensate. This is working as intended and makes sense. I would apply similar reductions to lasers with significant burn duration for at least one testing phase then determine from that point, after I had collected sufficient data, whether to bring those changes to the live realm or move on to PTS IV.

I think, thus far, you have missed point of my post. The intent is to ask all of you what you personally would do to fix ED without scraping it or replacing it with a third system. (I.e. Convergence, lowered heat cap, etc.)

[Tiantara]

Quote

So leave everything in ED the same, but halve the damage of any weapon being fired at more than say...600M. Firing missiles at 1200M? Or sniping at 1000M? Your weapons only deal half the damage they currently do at that range. Don't like this suggestion? Then quit trying to screw over brawler builds when the current game is balanced.

- Emmm... We already have that.
C-ERLL do 11 damage on 750m. less than half on 1125 and nearly nothing in 1470.
Ans same thing in every weapon. What the problem? Missiles just blow at range 1000 and do no damage. Some weapon do 0 damage on max range like LRM because they don't hit the target. Half of zero is... sorry I just lost my calculator.

Quote

personally also one could still not fire all 6 large lasers without incurring significant heat penalties. The pairing would most likely be 3-3 or 4-2, so it wouldn't really change from live I guess but even at 1 point of Energy Draw per 1 point of damage they still wouldn't change

- We also have that on PTS1 and that was a cause for searching further to prevent that. That build cool but...

Edited by Tiantara, 30 August 2016 - 12:25 PM.

[Alteran]

cazidin, on 30 August 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

I think, thus far, you have missed point of my post. The intent is to ask all of you what you personally would do to fix ED without scraping it or replacing it with a third system. (I.e. Convergence, lowered heat cap, etc.)

How about we focus on the two different aspects of the ED system that has been introduced:

1) Overall heat scale - Call it GH/ED or Grandma's Sweet Tea - it doesn't matter. Heat is heat and we need to deal with it in game. Scale it up so I can only fire 4 CERML or 5 CERML it doesn't matter. GH says I can fire 5 before things get pretty hairy and ED says I can fire 4 before I get worried. ED is just another GH, with heat per weapon tuned up once you cross the threshold. The energy pool is just a red herring. Just like GH, we'll figure out what combinations of weapons we can fire before we get too hot. The pool bar is just a fancy new distraction.

Point is: There is nothing to fix, it's just adjusting what we already have for a heat system.

2) Heat effects on Mechs - This is the single most important feature that the PTS brings. You could introduce this aspect to the Live servers with GH and I'd be fine with it. I would even support increasing the effects by +50%.

Trying to tie both the way ED is worked and the Heat Effects is a cheap way of trying to sell ED to the masses.

Edited by Alteran, 30 August 2016 - 12:40 PM.

[Tiantara]

- Many mech just blow up in stock configuration and you want to make heat effect like

Quote

I would even support increasing the effects by +50%.

Am I right? Well... 67% of current mech in game and half of new come to junk than.

[Alteran]

Tiantara, on 30 August 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

- Many mech just blow up in stock configuration and you want to make heat effect like

Am I right? Well... 67% of current mech in game and half of new come to junk than.

I'm not sure I follow, I have this Nova that I like to play with in PTS with 8 CERML's. I take it to 90% heat and then Alpha with all 8 and I don't blow up. I go light orange in the CT and take 10+ sec's to reboot, but that's it. So unless I'm doing the overheating thing wrong....

As for the other effects: torso twisting, arm movement, speed and acceleration are all other aspects I'd like to see effected by heat.

[Requiemking]

ScarecrowES, on 29 August 2016 - 04:51 PM, said:

I don't think it's as gloomy a situation as you say. Still, even if it IS, the poll DOES show that if we keep GH, the game will go on without much of a ripple.

For all its faults, GH is doing an acceptable job right now on Live. Balance and build variety are the best they've ever been - and that's something almost everyone can agree with. I think the system is more than "livable" should a replacement that can satisfy everyone is not forthcoming.

Ummm, I hope your joking here? Balance and build variety are at an all-time low. Out of each weight class you have one to two clear-cut "good choices" and then a couple of situationally good mechs on top of that.

Edited by Requiemking, 30 August 2016 - 12:55 PM.

[Alteran]

Requiemking, on 30 August 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

Ummm, I hope your joking here? Balance and build variety are at an all-time low. Out of each weight class you have one to two clear-cut "good choices" and then a couple of situationally good mechs on top of that.

I can't agree with you on your assessment of the mechs. I believe that every mech has the ability to be a good mech, dependent on the pilot and their weapon system choice. The buffed out PPC finally has brought many changes to the loadout on mechs for many of our members in EK. The Summoner, Ice Ferret and Gargoyle are all being fielded now. I believe it's a matter of personal taste and perspective.

[ScarecrowES]

Requiemking, on 30 August 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

Ummm, I hope your joking here? Balance and build variety are at an all-time low. Out of each weight class you have one to two clear-cut "good choices" and then a couple of situationally good mechs on top of that.

I'm just going to throw out a "LOL WUT?!" Absurd.

And going back to the discussion of high alphas... keep in mind that the highest practical alphas come from weapon types and builds noone seems to have a problem with. And these are still more or less ruling the roost in ED. So the reality is... we don't have a problem with high alphas. Nobody actually thinks this is an issue.

The concept that all alphas are bad didn't even make it through the concept stage of ED, noting that even before the PTS draw values for certain weapons were lowered to 75%. And those 75% values? Lasted what... a week? And now the notion of an alpha "boogeyman" should be seen as finally put to rest.

Many people believe that SOME alphas are bad. Some weapons in some circumstances.

Ghost Heat exists purely to address those SOME weapons and SOME circumstances. ED is quickly morphing into the same, as balancing the current implementation of heat scale in MWO demands addressing those special cases where the deviation from TT seat system principles causes issues.

With all sincerity... if you really want to close the loopholes for those special circumstances, we really need to try the TT heat system.

[Trev Firestorm]

ED>GH so yes it would.

[Alteran]

Here is what happened 10 mins ago in a CW/FP match. Got face hugged by an Oxide Jenner with 4 SRM4's. He fired one 'alpha' as he got up to me and then a second as he got up in my face - cored the CT and yellowed up the LT and RT. EDIT: Oh yeah I was in my Ebon Jag.

Is this what ED is supposed to curb? I get 7 salvo's off, in an Oxide, before I shutdown @ 32pts damage per salvo in the PTS. My CT-core is only yellow from two shutdowns. ED is no better than GH in curbing this OP Alpha-Striking face wrecker of a demon spawn!@!!

If you didn't already know, I was fake-raging.

But that is a good example of what I believe people think is going to be curbed with ED. That the Oxide will just fire maybe 1 or 2 at a time to conserve heat. It won't... it doesn't.

Edited by Alteran, 30 August 2016 - 02:18 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Alteran, on 30 August 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

Here is what happened 10 mins ago in a CW/FP match. Got face hugged by an Oxide Jenner with 4 SRM4's. He fired one 'alpha' as he got up to me and then a second as he got up in my face - cored the CT and yellowed up the LT and RT.

Is this what ED is supposed to curb? I get 7 salvo's off before I shutdown @ 32pts damage per salvo in the PTS. My CT-core is only yellow from two shutdowns. ED is no better than GH in curbing this OP Alpha-Striking face wrecker of a demon spawn!@!!

If you didn't already know, I was fake-raging.

But that is a good example of what I believe people think is going to be curbed with ED. That the Oxide will just fire maybe 1 or 2 at a time to conserve heat. It won't... it doesn't.

The Oxide, as with all mechs in MWO, gets a free additional 30 points (equivalent to the 30pt penalty scale of TT) of heat added to it's base heat scale thanks to how PGI implemented the heat system for MWO. That's 30 extra points of penalty-free output that one can use for alphas, DPS, burst, whatever. And unlike in TT, that extra 30 points cools off at the same rate as the rest of the scale, which means you can replenish that extra 30 MUCH faster than you can proportional to TT.

Higher cap, faster cooldown, no penalties.

Even if we were to use MWO's base dissipation rates with TT's mechanics, heat cap space will be lower for most mechs, players will face real penalties for carrying heat, and players will spend more time cooling down than they do now... all without fundementally altering how weapons and builds work in MWO, or placing unnecessary limits on alphas, dps, burst, whatever.

The mechanics, here, are everything.