78 replies to this topic

[Kaptain]

Greyhart, on 13 September 2016 - 06:15 AM, said:

What pleases me is the fact that they clearly have listened and are trying something in line with what has repeatedly been suggested. Whether it will work or not has been something that has been debated on the forums for years! So I am inclined to say it is not cut and dry.

What? At no point has the idea of a reduced capacity AND greatly reduced dissipation been suggested. We did suggest, many time over the last 4 years, that reduced capacity with INCREASED dissipation be tested.

The only reason they have for dangling this carrot is so that when it fails they can say "see we tried the heat cap thing and it didn't work/was received badly so we are scrapping it." They (and apparently you) are ignoring the fact they nerfed dissipation so badly the entire test was bound to be a failure.

[MechaBattler]

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

The heat cap and dissipation are too low for a mech to carry weapons from more than one "range bracket."

PTS4 is more like load up an assault mech with the loadout of a medium mech and then pack an assload of SHS so that you can actually ******* fire your weapons.

Suggestions? Besides doing away with the whole thing.

[FupDup]

MechaBattler, on 13 September 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

Suggestions? Besides doing away with the whole thing.

Increase heat dissipation to counteract the capacity nerfs.

[Kaptain]

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

Increase heat dissipation to counteract the capacity nerfs.

You know... the thing many of us have been asking for over the last 4 years.

Instead dissipation is nerfed below live and below pts3. Engine heat-sinks are critical to assaults and heavies as they do not have the space to cram in a bunch of 3 crit sinks.

[ScarecrowES]

MechaBattler, on 13 September 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

Suggestions? Besides doing away with the whole thing.

Doing away with the whole thing at this point is the smartest thing to do. I think most folks are realizing there's really no way to make ED work with its base mechanics.

Where to go from here depends on what "problems" you want to solve. Most "problems" people perceive in MWO have very different causes. Some problems like some of the alpha problem and high output are caused by the heat system... not the numbers but the MECHANICS.

Some problems are caused by basic weapon balance, and part of that is a desire for parity that is unnecessary. Base weapon stats.

Some problems are caused by an inability to properly rectify weapon mechanics with output value across all weapons. A lot of that is the fault of cooldowns, spread, duration, etc. Weapon mechanics.

ED tried to address all of these sorts of issues with one system - not surprisingly, it made them worse.

First order of business needs to be to fix the heat system. And not adjusting numbers, but fixing the mechanics. Cap and dissipation are not the problem.

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

Increase heat dissipation to counteract the capacity nerfs.

So make most ballistics heat neutral in order to... FIX the system?

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

So make most ballistics heat neutral in order to... FIX the system?

Most ballistics already are or are relatively close.

The actual goal is to make energy and missile weapons usable without boating nearly 40 SHS on an assault mech.

[Kaptain]

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 02:29 PM, said:

Most ballistics already are or are relatively close.

Don't. just don't. Another guy spent pages trying to explain it to him. He is either trolling or VERY thick.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 02:29 PM, said:

Most ballistics already are or are relatively close.

The actual goal is to make energy and missile weapons usable without boating nearly 40 SHS on an assault mech.

Not really true though, is it. Even without GH, the quad-10 Kodiak can only get a few bursts out before shutdown. You're talking about making it at least a few more. And the infinitely cooler uac/5 builds could run forever without overheating.

We can do better than that.

Kaptain, on 13 September 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

Don't. just don't. Another guy spent pages trying to ex
plain it to him. He is either trolling or VERY thick.

The other guy doesn't understand how the system works, and neither do you. So please, run the numbers yourself. Elementary math, so it should be no problem.

You want to argue with what things actually are, I can't help you.

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

Not really true though, is it. Even without GH, the quad-10 Kodiak can only get a few bursts out before shutdown. You're talking about making it at least a few more. And the infinitely cooler uac/5 builds could run forever without overheating.

We can do better than that.

The quad Ultra 10 sans Ghost Heat build isn't any hotter than the average energy or missile mech.

Energy mechs got smashed hard by the combination of dissipation and capacity nerfs. Missile mechs are better off than those but they still feel it. If you want to be heat efficient in PTS4, your choices are Gauss, Dakka, or boating a fuckton of SHS on an assault mech.

I really don't want to punish the non-dakka mechs just because of one specific boogeyman Kodiak build.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

Not really true though, is it. Even without GH, the quad-10 Kodiak can only get a few bursts out before shutdown.

More than most energy assaults can pump out, with the setup we currently have, energy weapons have diminishing returns for firepower because of the how many heat sinks are required to make them heat neutral. That isn't necessarily a bad thing given that it is really the only thing ballistics have going for them, but energy weapons have been overnerfed throughout this PTS because of the fact above, energy weapons are unable to be heat neutral or even close to it without implausible investment, this is what pushes them to burst damage, their role is to do more damage per shot to make up for the heat inefficiency.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 September 2016 - 02:51 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

The quad Ultra 10 sans Ghost Heat build isn't any hotter than the average energy or missile mech.

Energy mechs got smashed hard by the combination of dissipation and capacity nerfs. Missile mechs are better off than those but they still feel it. If you want to be heat efficient in PTS4, your choices are Gauss, Dakka, or boating a fuckton of SHS on an assault mech.

I really don't want to punish the non-dakka mechs just because of one specific boogeyman Kodiak build.

Are we talking about PTS4 now, or the live game, because that matters to the convo. At this point the PTS is so gaffed compared to the live server that it's not a good idea to use this as a base point.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

More than most energy assaults can pump out, with the setup we currently have, energy weapons have diminishing returns for firepower because of the how many heat sinks are required to make them heat neutral.

Ok... so once again... why BUFF dakka? You guys are high-fiving each other with the likes up there, but you can't seem to actually agree on what you want.

Dakka is strong on live. It's even stronger in the new PTS. It would be stronger still with low-cap, high-dissipation. If we're concerned that energy weapons are not keeping up, why are we asking for changes that ONLY buff dakka more? That's beyond moronic, and you folks have the nerve to say I'M trolling?

Edited by ScarecrowES, 13 September 2016 - 02:53 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

It would be stronger still with low-cap, high-dissipation. If we're concerned that energy weapons are not keeping up, why are we asking for changes that ONLY buff dakka more?

Who said I'm asking for anything like what's in PTS4 or in the PTS period? I'd much prefer a slightly lower heat (and no screwed up dissipation, just nerf the skill tree and give us truedubs) cap so we can get rid of ghost heat and energy draw.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 September 2016 - 02:56 PM.

[davoodoo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

More than most energy assaults can pump out, with the setup we currently have, energy weapons have diminishing returns for firepower because of the how many heat sinks are required to make them heat neutral. That isn't necessarily a bad thing given that it is really the only thing ballistics have going for them, but energy weapons have been overnerfed throughout this PTS because of the fact above, energy weapons are unable to be heat neutral or even close to it without implausible investment, this is what pushes them to burst damage, their role is to do more damage per shot to make up for the heat inefficiency.

On live its basically 3 salvos, youll fire then doubletap and youre at 80%.or so.

On pts 4, its bit more, cause pretty much everytime i try to doubletap something jams...
5 salvos without doubletapping.

Edited by davoodoo, 13 September 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

davoodoo, on 13 September 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

On live its basically 3 salvos, youll fire then doubletap and youre at 80%.or so.

He said without ghost heat, and I'm pretty sure you can't even get 3 on live because of the ramped up ghost heat, which is why no one uses that build anymore unless they are just out of the loop.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 September 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Kaptain]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

The other guy doesn't understand how the system works, and neither do you. So please, run the numbers yourself. Elementary math, so it should be no problem.

3 ultra ac5s on a 65ton clan/IS heavy is 2/2 dissipation. That's heat neutral on live and no one would argue it is under-gunned.

As has been said many times before it is easy to build ballistic mechs that are either heat neutral or are so close to heat neutral that heat does not play a role in the vast majority of their engagements.

This is already a thing.

Edited by Kaptain, 13 September 2016 - 03:12 PM.

[davoodoo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

He said without ghost heat, and I'm pretty sure you can't even get 3 on live because of the ramped up ghost heat, which is why no one uses that build anymore unless they are just out of the loop.

I still run that build.
put them in 2 groups and fire them 2 by 2.

3 salvos if you fire all 4.

Before they nerfed ghost heat on those it was 8 salvos(4 doubletaps)

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 September 2016 - 02:55 PM, said:

Who said I'm asking for anything like what's in PTS4 or in the PTS period? I'd much prefer a slightly lower heat (and no screwed up dissipation, just nerf the skill tree and give us truedubs) cap so we can get rid of ghost heat and energy draw.

Like I said, you guys can't seem to agree on what you want - and yet "liking" each others posts seems to indicate you agree with each other's opinions... even though they're different from your own.

So let's break it down with the no-BS assessment. Weapon balance is the best it's ever been on Live right now. Aside from a handful of specific weapons most everything is viable... and all your major build types, including mixes, work pretty equally.

Dakka is technically stronger than it should be, but it's only really problematic to overall game balance some of the time.

If we reduce capacity while simultaneously buffing dissipation, this will proportionally buff builds that focus on low heat, fast cycling weapons. That means dakka. This will invariably make dakka stronger than on the Live servers.

This will result in a strong shift further away from high-heat, slow cycle weapons, and toward dakka (and maybe small lasers).

Is there any disagreement about this? I don't really see any, so I'm just asking to be sure that people acknowledge that reducing capacity and increasing dissipation does not affect all weapons equally, and will result in dakka builds becoming much more strong than on Live.

[davoodoo]

Kaptain, on 13 September 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

3 ultra ac5s on a 65ton clan/IS heavy is 2/2 dissipation. That's heat neutral on live and no one would argue it is under-gunned.

As has been said many times before it is easy to build ballistic mechs that are either heat neutral or are so close to heat neutral that heat does not play a role in the vast majority of their engagements.

Depends if you jam.
If they dont jam then you produce nearly twice as much heat as 10 engine dhs can vent.

3uac5 is pretty **** on clan 65 tonner.
2 uac10 + backup lasers would yield better results and it aint even that great.

65 tons is pretty much black hole between something like hunchback 2c with 50 tons and 2uac10 and night gyr at 75 tons with 3 uac10.

Edited by davoodoo, 13 September 2016 - 03:21 PM.

[JadeWolf01]

I appreciate that PGI ran the numbers on, not tested, the 30 cap idea. It has been repeatedly suggested in the forums and knowing it won't work, but double checking your math to be sure isn't a waist of time. Too often people assume they KNOW something because it SEEMS to make sense because of a bad assumption. This checking to be sure that the math doesn't work and there isn't a logical fallacy or poor assumption being made on PGIs part about the idea's merit is exactly what we should expect. Too often people assume their opinion is right. Opinions are neither right or wrong, but facts are and too often people get those two things confused. This is just my opinion and I expect many to disagree with it. That is the joy of discourse. We all get to say what we think and debate what we disagree with.

[ScarecrowES]

Kaptain, on 13 September 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

3 ultra ac5s on a 65ton clan/IS heavy is 2/2 dissipation. That's heat neutral on live and no one would argue it is under-gunned.

As has been said many times before it is easy to build ballistic mechs that are either heat neutral or are so close to heat neutral that heat does not play a role in the vast majority of their engagements.

This is already a thing.

I think you could quite easily argue that a 3x cUAC/5 EBJ is very undergunned. Not quite heat neutral, but close enough for comfort, but it's output for that tonnage is extremely low... especially for a Jag. You'll be taken out long before your cooling advantage comes into play.

Undergunning your mech for the sake of heat neutrality is ALWAYS an option. It's just a really dumb option.

So why don't we focus on mechs that actually mount appropriate weaponry. Let's say the same Jag mounting 2x UAC/10 for instance.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 13 September 2016 - 03:28 PM.