Jump to content

Pts 5- Energy Draw- Sept 16


111 replies to this topic

#101 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,354 posts

Posted 14 October 2016 - 05:58 AM

I haven't voted because half of your questions in that poll are way too specific.

#102 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,382 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 October 2016 - 01:40 PM

View PostYeonne Greene, on 14 October 2016 - 05:58 AM, said:

I haven't voted because half of your questions in that poll are way too specific.

That doesnt make sense to me. If the questions were too vague, ok, but too specific?
They are focused to each part separately, so you can show your feedback to ALL the parts of the PTS5 changes.
And there are 2 polls,one for the Energy Draw settings and one for the weapon and heatsink changes in addition.

People were always asking PGI to use polls to assess the player's feedback for possible changes and this is the most detailed poll I could come up with (without creating a poll for each weapon stat (e.g. one for heat, one for dmg, one for range ...)).

#103 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 14 October 2016 - 06:55 PM

View PostReno Blade, on 14 October 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

That doesnt make sense to me. If the questions were too vague, ok, but too specific?
They are focused to each part separately, so you can show your feedback to ALL the parts of the PTS5 changes.
And there are 2 polls,one for the Energy Draw settings and one for the weapon and heatsink changes in addition.

People were always asking PGI to use polls to assess the player's feedback for possible changes and this is the most detailed poll I could come up with (without creating a poll for each weapon stat (e.g. one for heat, one for dmg, one for range ...)).


Your polls sucks because it's not as simple as "too much" or "too little". It's a lot more complicated than that.

Balance isn't always about numerical values (even though it does boil down to them), it's about effectiveness at the other non-ED/GH values.

Changing LBX ED values doesn't really help LBX get better as an example.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 October 2016 - 06:57 PM.


#104 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,354 posts

Posted 15 October 2016 - 04:51 AM

View PostReno Blade, on 14 October 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

That doesnt make sense to me. If the questions were too vague, ok, but too specific?
They are focused to each part separately, so you can show your feedback to ALL the parts of the PTS5 changes.
And there are 2 polls,one for the Energy Draw settings and one for the weapon and heatsink changes in addition.

People were always asking PGI to use polls to assess the player's feedback for possible changes and this is the most detailed poll I could come up with (without creating a poll for each weapon stat (e.g. one for heat, one for dmg, one for range ...)).


Because your questions are so pointed, I have to agree with the numbers you are proposing in order to vote yes. While I might agree with the concept behind the numbers (i.e. increased penalty, decreased penalty) I don't necessarily agree with the exact changes.

#105 Kalimaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,343 posts
  • LocationInside the Mech that just fired LRM's at you

Posted 25 October 2016 - 03:02 PM

Concerning Pulse Lasers. I have always thought that the Pulse Laser gave a trade off, increased damage for less range. Shorter range but greater damage, no problem. The weight is fine without increasing the tonnage value, however for some balance I would suggest two things:

Make it so that a player has to spend some GXP on unlocking Pulse lasers for purchase in the Mechlab, say 3,000-5,000 GXP and increase how much they cost in the way of C-BIlls.

As far as I have been reading the argument, it seems that the focus is against high Alpha Strikes in which a player can bring all of their weapons to bear at once. Solution: remove the Alpha strike from the keyboad. Turn it into an expensive one shot Consumable. All weapons cannot be bound to the same key so that one click of the mouse will fire all weapons at once. If you have one weapon no problem. Two or more weapons, at least one will have to go to Mouse Button 2 instead of both on Mouse Button 1.

#106 Huron Fal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 133 posts

Posted 26 October 2016 - 08:33 AM

View PostKalimaster, on 25 October 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

Concerning Pulse Lasers. I have always thought that the Pulse Laser gave a trade off, increased damage for less range. Shorter range but greater damage, no problem. The weight is fine without increasing the tonnage value, however for some balance I would suggest two things:

Make it so that a player has to spend some GXP on unlocking Pulse lasers for purchase in the Mechlab, say 3,000-5,000 GXP and increase how much they cost in the way of C-BIlls.

As far as I have been reading the argument, it seems that the focus is against high Alpha Strikes in which a player can bring all of their weapons to bear at once. Solution: remove the Alpha strike from the keyboad. Turn it into an expensive one shot Consumable. All weapons cannot be bound to the same key so that one click of the mouse will fire all weapons at once. If you have one weapon no problem. Two or more weapons, at least one will have to go to Mouse Button 2 instead of both on Mouse Button 1.


That alpha strike idea is horrible and easily worked around with macros anyhow, the pulse laser idea has slightly more merit but I don't see a logical reason to make them be unlockable. If its an unlock, it is implied that it is better, which is simply not the case. As you just pointed out, there is a trade-off between pulse and non-pulse, one is not necessarily superior over the other.

#107 Laois

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 06 November 2016 - 12:09 AM

Seriousy, out of all the crap that needs fixed you are going to ruin the game trying to be more technical.

If you you want to go technical the go all the why or just keep it as close to the board game as possible. "YOU NEVER GO HALF (******) TECHNICAL" re-phrasing from tropical thunder. Lets say you want to add the energy draw affect. Then you have to add a couple other effects to counter the adjustments:
  • engine size produces a set amount--a 150 will produce less energy then a 400
  • mech movement draw....put a 300 in a 65 ton mech takes less energy to move at cruise speed then a 300 in a 100 ton mech at cruise speed.
  • then you will have to count for different engine size for cricical spaces--lets face it a 150 engine is not the same Cubic size of a 400.
  • wait then you have to look at critical spaces for the mech--no way a 15 ton locust and the 100ton kinder-bear (Kodiak) would hold the same amount of critical spaces.
  • then you will have to look at the cost of repairs of mech and reload of ammo.
  • then you will have to into unit supply lockers.
  • drop ships that stay on the deck to stop spawn campers..
  • now these are just starters--i could get real TECHNICAL.
​My 2-cents, fix the issues we are currently having, before you chase off more people. Mech Warrior and Battle-Tech has a proven system, leave things alone. WHY RE-INVENT THE WHEEL. Just saying keep you job easy....

#108 cswertwertwert

    Rookie

  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 1 posts

Posted 08 November 2016 - 07:49 AM

The True Solution to Energy Draw

​Initially this is acceptable in a way of stopping only alpha strikes, aside from it there is no use. A few things that need changing:
  • Firstly is that energy should not cause heat, it makes sense that loosing energy would not cause heat (in physics and chemistry); instead of heat, just have the weapon stop firing (not sure about ballistics and missiles)
  • If the laser is cut off, full heat is still taken but no damage is dealt, or no heat and no damage because no laser
  • Different energy levels for the weight classes (light=20, medium=25, heavy=30, assault=35) to maintain fair play of firepower and not have a light stronger than an assault
  • Add the ability to chain-fire groups of weapons, thus one can reach the max and let it rebuild before next volley (players should be able to realize if weapon cool-down is close to recharge to change configuration)
  • Lastly, I feel that flamers should cause loss of heat at the expense of energy (heat is directed outward into a flame rather than sitting within a mech); also jump jets could create heat as a counter measure
Under only these circumstances and "1 dmg = 1 energy", the following problems would be fixed...
  • The 12 ER-MED laser Nova-Prime will now only be able to fire three at a time before this takes effect, a full alpha strike would result in very little damage because the energy is gone and the lasers were cut off. Then it could be they are unable to fire again until until that negative energy is built back up
  • The Arctic Cheaters who run around with 8 C-SM Pulse could only fire two before this takes effect. As a result they could switch out for stronger powered weapons, or just be smart when they shoot
  • A wolfhound with 5 medium pulse would be limited to two lasers per volley
  • And a shadowcat who hops on the walls with two C-ER PPC can only fire one at a time and then wait for energy to recharge, thus no more exploiting where people cannot touch them
Just my thoughts on all of this, feel free to implement and alter whatever feels fit. These modifications are what seem to make the most sense when it comes to necessary changes. I played on the PTS and know that the current state is worthless.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users