78 replies to this topic

[Kaptain]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

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.

Ok, fine. Smurfy claims that the twin Ultras have 102% dissipation from the fixed engine heatsinks in a Jag. Is smurfy wrong? Are those 2 ultras not already either heat neutral or very close to heat neutral?

Are you worried they are going to become even more heat neutral than they already are?

(I do agree btw that things are fairly balanced on live atm)

[Quicksilver Aberration]

davoodoo, on 13 September 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

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

And it is an inferior build for that reason.

[davoodoo]

Kaptain, on 13 September 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

Ok, fine. Smurfy claims that the twin Ultras have 102% dissipation from the fixed engine heatsinks in a Jag. Is smurfy wrong? Are those 2 ultras not already either heat neutral or very close to heat neutral?

Are you worried they are going to become even more heat neutral than they already are?

(I do agree btw that things are fairly balanced on live atm)

Yes, smurfy doesnt take double tap into account...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

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.

I agreed with you until you hit the capacity and dissipation part, because it really depends on the numbers on whether dakka wins or not. Again though, what I am saying is doing this AND removing ghost heat, removing ghost heat allows for you to stack more heat efficient energy weapons and alpha them together. For example, take these two builds:
cLPL Boat
ERML Boat
Notice how despite the initial tonnage required by the cLPL boat, it actually ends up more heat efficient because of space constrictions? This is what I am talking about, part of the reason some of these energy boat builds are hampered are because they have to space out their firing far enough apart that they lose their advantage against something like quad 10s. Without ghost heat, quad 10s no longer have both a shorter duration burst, and the DPS advantage, but, you want a heat capacity to make sure crazy builds aren't able to fire consecutive shots which is where dissipation helps out in allowing more reasonable alphas to be at least shot consecutively before getting heat capped.

Honestly, if PGI could be trusted, I would love for them to make heat capacity and dissipation a bit more arbitrary rather than trying to come up with some mathematical formula to fix things, that way problem builds/mechs can be adjusted without needing a ghost heat system, it would also add a bit more flavor and actually allow for energy boats to potentially be DPS builds (like extremely low capacity values, but really high dissipation). Though they really need to add ballistics without the high tonnage investment so that lighter mechs can actually make use of more ballistics, unfortunately this is something I find problematic with TT in general (lighter mechs tend towards short range weapons, but lighter ballistics tend to be longer range rather than shorter).

Edit: I apologize in advance because this is me rambling a bit, but when factoring tonnage balance in a system where heat neutrality is considered the bane of all evil and really heavy weapons tend to be more heat efficient for the damage, the system gets complicated. Which is why getting away from this formulaic approach is really needed (and finding better game balance overlords) because of the complexity of this issue. Actually just getting away from the heavier weapons needing to be more heat efficient would be lovely but that would basically require a complete redesign of TT weapons and the mechlab, and it simply isn't going to happen.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 September 2016 - 04:07 PM.

[MechaBattler]

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

Increase heat dissipation to counteract the capacity nerfs.

Seems like a no brainer then.

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

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.



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

Would not increasing the value in the ED system for ballistics counter that possibility?

Edited by MechaBattler, 13 September 2016 - 04:09 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

MechaBattler, on 13 September 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

Seems like a no brainer then.



Would not increasing the value in the ED system for ballistics counter that possibility?

Oh, it would, but apparently ED was created by Satan blending children and puppies while he was hitting on your girlfriend/wife...

[ScarecrowES]

Gentleman Reaper, on 13 September 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

Oh, it would, but apparently ED was created by Satan blending children and puppies while he was hitting on your girlfriend/wife...

ED has it's own massive set of problems.

You're basically, at this point, using a half dozen different systems in which each has a different form of imbalance to try to counteract the specific imbalance in each other system.

You have a broken heat system, which causes one set of imbalances, and then a change to heat cap and dissipation, which causes another (and in some cases adds greatly to the first), and then ED on top adds another layer of imbalance.

I'm not saying PGI COULDN'T pull off a miracle and have every series of imbalances perfectly line up and properly counter the corresponding imbalance in another system. I'm just saying the couldn't do it.

Unfortunately, ED has gone from a fairly simple metering system... like an enforced cooldown... to something far more sinister. And the way it goes about it is fundementally wrong.

Ghost Heat, for all its faults, does get one thing right. It measures heat and punishes heat proportionally. ED measures damage and punishes heat.

If, for instance, you fire one AC/10 too many, you've exceeded your heat cap by 10 (I don't know what the value is today... just roll with me here), so you're punished with 10 heat, from a base heat of 3. That's a 333% penalty. If you fire one PPC too many, that's 10 damage too much, same as the AC/10, but you have a base heat of 9.5. That's only a 105% penalty.

A mech's heat cap is based largely on the build. Mechs that focus on ballistics don't need as many heat sinks, so they have a lower cap. That means the penalty hurts ballistics significantly more than energy weapons. BUT low-cap mechs are also BUFFED by the MWO heat system, giving them extra capacity and dissipation.

So as you can see, ED is doing a lot of things wrong. Not only is it trying to perform a metering action (intended), it's trying to help balance weapons (unintended). BUT it's not operating on a level playing field to begin with (unintended) AND it's looking at the wrong things to punish the wrong things (intended, sort of).

You can kinda see now why ED is not working right.

[ScarecrowES]

Kaptain, on 13 September 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

Ok, fine. Smurfy claims that the twin Ultras have 102% dissipation from the fixed engine heatsinks in a Jag. Is smurfy wrong? Are those 2 ultras not already either heat neutral or very close to heat neutral?

Are you worried they are going to become even more heat neutral than they already are?

(I do agree btw that things are fairly balanced on live atm)

As mentioned, no double taps are accounted for. Think of it this way though... 2 UAC/10s for 20 damage is 6 heat (single tap). 4 UAC/5s have 20 damage and 4 heat. They can do that damage more often, sure, but also cycle a lot faster. They also weight a LOT more and take up a LOT of crit space.

I don't worry about boated AC/5's because they're suboptimal already. Reasonable damage output comes at the cost of a LOT wasted tonnage and crits that could have been used for other things. I worry about AC/10s. These sit in about the perfect balance of damage, range, tonnage, crit space, heat requirements, etc. They're probably the most utilitarian ballistics in the game.

I'm not worried if someone wants to mount a lot of AC/5s. They're hampering their total possible output with a suboptimal specialized build. Outside of the 6xcUAC/5 Direwolf that's newly cooler under a low-cap high-diss system - The ones I'm really worried about are the ones allow a lot of AC/10s to be fired at once. This is why the Kodiak-3 is as dangerous as it is. It already gets a capacity and dissipation buff on live that makes it better should be. Only GH holds it back. Capacity nerfs won't severely hamper this mech. Dissipation buffs will definitely help it though.

[Kaptain]

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

As mentioned, no double taps are accounted for.

OK that makes sense. I was wrong. That said, changing the dissipation on 3 of its heat sinks from .14 to .20 does not radically change its output.

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

The ones I'm really worried about are the ones allow a lot of AC/10s to be fired at once. This is why the Kodiak-3 is as dangerous as it is. It already gets a capacity and dissipation buff on live that makes it better should be. Only GH holds it back. Capacity nerfs won't severely hamper this mech. Dissipation buffs will definitely help it though.

So its not that very low heat ballistic builds or long string sustained fire ballistic builds don't exist... just that you don't see those builds as a problem. Ok, sure I get that. The Kodiak is somewhat of a special case for now but I can see how future mechs like the NG could be cause for concern.

From the looks of it this monster has 5 extra double heat-sinks? So setting dissipation at .20 for all doubles would give it 3 more (free) heat-sinks. While that is certainly a small buff the reduced capacity is a nerf.

How does your real time TT heat system deal with this monster?

ScarecrowES, on 13 September 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

If, for instance, you fire one AC/10 too many, you've exceeded your heat cap by 10 (I don't know what the value is today... just roll with me here), so you're punished with 10 heat, from a base heat of 3. That's a 333% penalty. If you fire one PPC too many, that's 10 damage too much, same as the AC/10, but you have a base heat of 9.5. That's only a 105% penalty.

Indeed it has many problems and this is a big one.

Edited by Kaptain, 13 September 2016 - 10:56 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Kaptain, on 13 September 2016 - 10:51 PM, said:

How does your real time TT heat system deal with this monster?

The power of the Kodiak is less about anything inherent to that chassis and more that it contains a perfect storm of factors that sorta collude to produce something generally more capable than it might otherwise be. It's less an example of something that needs direct attention, and more a demonstration how a lot of unintended buffs can add up.

The most obvious factor here is that the Kodiak, as a low-cap build, gets a pretty good heat cap and dissipation buff from the MWO heat system. Fine when a weak 35-tonner sees this sort of buff, but not so good when it's a 100-tonner that doesn't need the help.

Next is the mechanics of the UAC in MWO. UACs are a lot more risky in TT... once they jam, you can't unjam them. That's the risk you take for getting double damage for only a teeny bit more investment. Even the expanded PTS jam times are a paltry punishment by comparison.

So UACs are way better than they should be... which no-one complains about because burst damage takes a bit of this away, and because the Clans have no alternative. To fix this one, we need to give players a reason to mount something else. Proper LBX, or lore-breaking compromise AC... something.

Fix these problems, and the Kodiak itself is fine.

PGI has to take direct action for the UAC issue. This takes work in weapon mechanics. Fixing the heat system solves the rest.

Under the TT-adapted system: Minor reduction in absolute heat cap over current system (removes effective low cap buffs), significantly lower practical heat cap due to penalty system mechanics. Slightly lower absolute burst damage output from current system, significantly lower sustained damage (typical for all mechs).

The typical Kodiak-3 build becomes a true burst-fire hero. But it'll require a more conscientious style of play. Once the burst is done, you'll have to get yourself out of battle in a hurry. You're probably on the ragged edge of shutting down, limping along under severe movement penalties, and unable to hit much of anything beyond extreme short range even if you COULD fire again. The Kodiak is too fragile to stick around for a face-to-face fight. Excellent ambushed and medium range fire support mechs... bad brawler.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 14 September 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Fix these problems, and the Kodiak itself is fine.

That's only if you assume the quad 10 build is the only problematic Kodiak build.

[davoodoo]

I thought you can make gunnery skill roll to unjam ballistics in tt.

You basically do nothing for a turn but its possible.

Edited by davoodoo, 14 September 2016 - 08:50 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 September 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

That's only if you assume the quad 10 build is the only problematic Kodiak build.

No... As I'd noted, the quad-10 just offers a caricature of the issue. The problem is persistent, but few builds are as extreme a demonstration as this one. Still, it DOES show that, while dakka is experiencing a strong period, it's not THAT bad. Certainly can be reigned in with minor effort.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 14 September 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

No... As I'd noted, the quad-10 just offers a caricature of the issue. The problem is persistent, but few builds are as extreme a demonstration as this one. Still, it DOES show that, while dakka is experiencing a strong period, it's not THAT bad. Certainly can be reigned in with minor effort.

So what do you do to balance the Gauss/PPC Kodiak which is arguably the strongest Kodiak variant on Live right now?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 September 2016 - 12:18 PM.

[Mcgral18]

davoodoo, on 14 September 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

I thought you can make gunnery skill roll to unjam ballistics in tt.

You basically do nothing for a turn but its possible.

Optional rule for UACs, but true for RACs

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2016 - 01:14 PM, said:

Optional rule for UACs

Which is actually what gave me incentive to fire in ultra mode, finally.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 September 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

So what do you do to balance the Gauss/PPC Kodiak which is arguably the strongest Kodiak variant on Live right now?

You want my honest assessment?

The gauss rifle is the problem. It's always the problem. If you know TT, you know the gauss was a risky weapon to mount. We pay lip service to the whole "explode when you crit it" thing here in MWO... it's an occasional annoyance that in no way actually deters mounting the weapon and trying to brawl with it.

But in TT, you protected that gauss like your life depended on it... because, well, it did. With a single ER-PPC having enough damage to strip a full ton of armor (32 points in MWO) off a mech, you were going to see components shed armor in short order, leaving all those juicy crit slots exposed. A gauss explosion often meant full-on death. It was dangerous to mount a gauss, hence why the thing has no heat.

But double armor and internals in MWO kinda removes most of that fear, right? Like with UACs, we got rid of nearly all of the risk of the weapon, and didn't put anything else in to replace it.

This is why UACs and gauss throw off basic ballistic balance... they perform WAY better than they're supposed to.

So of course, my honest assessment is make some common sense deviations from how TT sets those weapons up. We shouldn't be slavish to the rewards when we weren't slavish to the risk. Adding even a LITTLE heat to the gauss won't do much to hurt these weapons when paired with mixed builds or even in doubles alone... but put them with PPCs and it all just runs too hot to be practical for most builds that use them.

I also, personally, wouldn't mind seeing a more defined roll for the gauss. I once recommended a 90m min range like in TT, though most don't seem to want that. And then, with the snap-shot back in play, I recommended limiting snap-shots to 270m, and require charging to increase the range. Kinda the best of both worlds there, and harder to syncronize with PPCs.

But ultimately, I don't blame the PPCs for the PPC/gauss meta. I blame the fact that the gauss doesn't have its risk.

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2016 - 01:14 PM, said:

Optional rule for UACs, but true for RACs

This is what I thought. I remember you couldn't unjam playing basic rules, but I wasn't sure. I also remembered an unjam sequence - Turn 1, jam. Turn 2, declare intent to unjam. Turn 3, roll for unjam. Something like that. Been awhile since I scratched a PnP game out. Never cared for ultras myself... risky.

[Kaptain]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 September 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

Which is actually what gave me incentive to fire in ultra mode, finally.

Does anyone remember in the open beta days when one had to manually un-jam the ultra5 by adding it to all weapon groups, removing it from all groups and then reassigning it to the group you wanted? People hated that but I had a buddy who could do it in just a couple seconds. Not suggesting it as a fix just curious if any of you were around for that?

[JC Daxion]

Yea, i agree... this is the 4th PTS change now? they are data mining tons of things, then making changes and data mining again.. I really don't know what else people want.

Well outside, of them doing exactly what someone says..

I personally have been enjoying how things are changing, and how the feel is.. then trying something new.

I think one big issue with it, is people just keep playing the same builds and say, well now it sucks, and blah, blah,, verse trying different things on the same mech.

I know next time i get some time, i'm going to be trying a bunch of mixed builds, with a bunch of low heat weapons.. With cool down times, it might work to use some ranged, get hot, then push to short range.. We will see..

[davoodoo]

Kaptain, on 14 September 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Does anyone remember in the open beta days when one had to manually un-jam the ultra5 by adding it to all weapon groups, removing it from all groups and then reassigning it to the group you wanted? People hated that but I had a buddy who could do it in just a couple seconds. Not suggesting it as a fix just curious if any of you were around for that?

No i remember repair and rearm and running with stock mechs or full energy build or making nothing ;p