67 replies to this topic

[Twinkleblade]

When the Energy Draw PTS happened I wasnt around for most of it. Just the beginning and I didnt test it. Ultimately it was shutdown because it turned really bad.

However fact still stands that it needs to be removed. In the pts forum discussion about possible return of energy draw have flared up.

Now I dont really want ED to come back like it was earlier. It aint gonna work.
But how to solve the issues then?

Her is my take on the issue:
First penalties shouldnt be binary, we need a more dynamic way of punishment. From no penalty growing to a heavy or even catastrophic punishment for the firing mech.

Ballisitcs
My inspiration for a penalty system for ballistics is based on what people have been wishing for and HBS Battletech. A refire penalty. How might it work here in MWO?
We have a gyro that gets taxed each time a ballistic weapon is used. Normal aim on first salvos but the more you tax that gyro the more shaky the aim gets. It might even get so bad if you keep firing that the mech just trips over from an overloaded gyro.

Missiles
The best way of balance is their spread. When chain fired the isnt much problem no penalty but the more missiles you fire at once the higher they spread out. Imagine it like the missiles have a sensor that tries to keep its distance to other missiles to prevent an collision. The more missiles try to exit the mech at the same time the bigger the spread gets up to a point where missiles will start missing the intended target. Furthermore if an absurd amount is fired at once the safety of missiles dissappear and any missile fired above a to be determined amount simply explode because they collided with other missiles. The explosion will even damage the firing mech and lower the amount of missiles fired.
There is also a way to buff mechs that add hittable geometry to the mech (ex. Mauler, Griffin)
These mechs have an improved missile count because of the added hitbox.

Energy
Well the most controversial of my opinions is this and probably you already foresaw it
Energy draw. But aim energy to keep most current laser vomit builds intact. The most important aspect of this is to prevent whatever is happening to the PPC family (3 LPPC GH limit lul) and keep things clear( So if I have 5 HSLAS and 1 ERSLAS I have the same GH as 5ERSLAS and 1HSLAS but if I use a ERMLAS instead I wont suffer any GH...???). The ultimate punishment though is that when a mech overdraws so badly that they just permanently damage their own engine resulting in reduced ED values(lower capacity slower regen) stacking up multiple times making it even worse and worse the more you overdraw.

What made Energy Draw 1.0/2.0 so bad was that all 3 weapon system were linked together, resulting in a total shitfest. However having 3 seperate penalty systems is the best solution to this to keep things clear.
(Why has my AC5 same ED as my MLAS?)
I know it doesnt look very newbie friendly but most newbie builds usually shouldnt have any of these 3 penalties at all. Its only extreme mechs (6 AC5 mauler, full splat builds, hardcore laser vomiters EBJ 6ERMLAS+2LPULSE) that should be ffected the most with this.

Edited by Twinkleblade, 04 July 2017 - 04:14 AM.

[El Bandito]

PGI's energy draw was a glorified Ghost Heat MKII. I want the penalty to be switched to Forced Chainfire, so there will be no ways to get around it, especially with Gauss. Adjust power draw value not by damage alone, but by overall attributes of the weapon.

Such a solution will be relatively simple to implement--simple even for PGI.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 July 2017 - 05:30 AM.

[Toothless]

El Bandito, on 04 July 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

simple to implement--simple even for PGI.

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. Think about what you're saying.

[El Bandito]

ZacharyJ, on 04 July 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. Think about what you're saying.

I'm placing some stock on the balance underling.

[Metus regem]

El Bandito, on 04 July 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

I'm placing some stock on the balance underling.

This is the same guy that though 1.5/12/1.5 dmg for a 10t, 4 crit, 90-540m ranged weapon was a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks an 11 crit IS LB-20X is a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks a minimum range dead zone on the new ATM's are a good idea....

[TheLuc]

more of one weapon you mount the more recycle time you have, that is EZ

Edited by TheLuc, 04 July 2017 - 08:20 AM.

[El Bandito]

Metus regem, on 04 July 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

This is the same guy that though 1.5/12/1.5 dmg for a 10t, 4 crit, 90-540m ranged weapon was a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks an 11 crit IS LB-20X is a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks a minimum range dead zone on the new ATM's are a good idea....

I'll give him some leniency, judging from the PTS changes he made soon afterwards. I suppose the 11 crit LB20X is due to PGI's policy of not changing TT weight/slots, perhaps.

[Cy Mitchell]

Metus regem, on 04 July 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

This is the same guy that though 1.5/12/1.5 dmg for a 10t, 4 crit, 90-540m ranged weapon was a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks an 11 crit IS LB-20X is a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks a minimum range dead zone on the new ATM's are a good idea....

Chris doesn't design the weapons. He has input on balance and quirks. That is a lot different from assigning the base attributes of a weapon or deciding how it functions. IMO, he is doing a great job in his area of responsibility. He listens. He reacts and he is personally involved in the community.

Edited by Rampage, 04 July 2017 - 11:26 AM.

[Metus regem]

El Bandito, on 04 July 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

I'll give him some leniency, judging from the PTS changes he made soon afterwards. I suppose the 11 crit LB20X is due to PGI's policy of not changing TT weight/slots, perhaps.

And that policy is where they fall flat... I don't mind weight staying as is, but crit slots should be adjusted as needed to be viable, if they cannot get the tech working right in the first place.

[El Bandito]

Metus regem, on 04 July 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

And that policy is where they fall flat... I don't mind weight staying as is, but crit slots should be adjusted as needed to be viable, if they cannot get the tech working right in the first place.

Right. Technically, reduced weight/slots will not harm stock mech builds in anyway. PGI is simply being selectively stubborn--without making much sense.

[Toothless]

El Bandito, on 04 July 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

I'll give him some leniency, judging from the PTS changes he made soon afterwards. I suppose the 11 crit LB20X is due to PGI's policy of not changing TT weight/slots, perhaps.

I mean Clan Autocannons and lostech LBX Slug/Pellet selection would like to have a word with them if thats the case. To this day the fact that they made up weapons because changing ammo types is hard is baffling.

[El Bandito]

ZacharyJ, on 04 July 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

I mean Clan Autocannons and lostech LBX Slug/Pellet selection would like to have a word with them if thats the case. To this day the fact that they made up weapons because changing ammo types is hard is baffling.

They do have issue with the coding of alternative ammo even now. From what I heard MWO's engine coding is a total mess. CACs should simply be removed, IMO.

[Gas Guzzler]

You guys and your "great ideas". Did it ever occur to you that maybe people want to play MechWarrior instead of PaperCutWarrior?

[El Bandito]

Gas Guzzler, on 04 July 2017 - 06:23 PM, said:

You guys and your "great ideas". Did it ever occur to you that maybe people want to play MechWarrior instead of PaperCutWarrior?

From the earliest TT inception Battletech was PaperCutWarrior. Pinpoint accuracy was basically non existent and mechs could fire their weapons every 10 seconds. My Power Draw Forced Chainfire idea was based on a Battletech novel. I want to combine both immersion and game play. Current instant convergence PPFLD is being detrimental to gameplay. More so, once MCII arrives--which I own the pack of. Gauss is completely immune to GH penalty so something else must be done.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 July 2017 - 06:43 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I want the penalty to be switched to Forced Chainfire

Im not sure I like that because it would make assault mechs pretty weak. Assault mechs need to be able to fire a bunch of weapons simultaneously because firepower is their only real advantage.

They dont get speed. Their durability sucks because they dont get speed and have huge hitboxes. And they dont get enough armor to counteract not having speed or huge hitboxes. Firepower is their only advantage.

I think something like energy draw was the right idea. It just needed to be tweaked. For example they needed to give more energy to heavier mechs. Because you cant take away their firepower advantage. One of the main reasons why energy draw failed is because it limited assaults to the same firepower as a light mech, which defeated the whole point of being an assault.

Edited by Khobai, 04 July 2017 - 07:10 PM.

[Requiemking]

Metus regem, on 04 July 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

This is the same guy that though 1.5/12/1.5 dmg for a 10t, 4 crit, 90-540m ranged weapon was a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks an 11 crit IS LB-20X is a good idea.... Also the same guy that thinks a minimum range dead zone on the new ATM's are a good idea....

Your forgetting that everything Chris does has to run through Paul first. As long as Paul has the power to veto everything he doesn't agree with, game balance will never become more sane.

[Gas Guzzler]

El Bandito, on 04 July 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

From the earliest TT inception Battletech was PaperCutWarrior. Pinpoint accuracy was basically non existent and mechs could fire their weapons every 10 seconds. My Power Draw Forced Chainfire idea was based on a Battletech novel. I want to combine both immersion and game play. Current instant convergence PPFLD is being detrimental to gameplay. More so, once MCII arrives--which I own the pack of. Gauss is completely immune to GH penalty so something else must be done.

This isn't Table Top Battletech so your point is invalid. Gauss has its own GH in the form of you can only fire 2 at once.

How will the MCII have any effect on that which is already in game? Sounds like B.S. to me. No, the MCII is not going to cause some huge increase in ER PPC Gauss... that loadout is already in game, and the MCII isn't quite the perfect platform for it, so it has nothing to do with this discussion.

This is all based off of your opinion that this needs to change and will be better for gameplay, which isn't really much to go on, if anything at all.

[El Bandito]

Gas Guzzler, on 04 July 2017 - 07:14 PM, said:

This isn't Table Top Battletech so your point is invalid. Gauss has its own GH in the form of you can only fire 2 at once.

How will the MCII have any effect on that which is already in game? Sounds like B.S. to me. No, the MCII is not going to cause some huge increase in ER PPC Gauss... that loadout is already in game, and the MCII isn't quite the perfect platform for it, so it has nothing to do with this discussion.

This is all based off of your opinion that this needs to change and will be better for gameplay, which isn't really much to go on, if anything at all.

And your counter argument is your opinion as well.

[Khobai]

Quote

This isn't Table Top Battletech so your point is invalid. Gauss has its own GH in the form of you can only fire 2 at once.

Except not really since you can fire two gauss and two PPCs at the same time and still do high PPFLD while circumventing ghost heat entirely.

If youre going to limit PPCs to 2. And limit gauss to 2. Then you also need to limit Gauss+PPC so you cant fire 2+2.

They should link gauss and PPC in the same ghost heat group as a stopgap measure till we get a better version of energy draw (if we ever do). That way you at least have to fire them half a second apart to avoid the ghost heat.

Forcing people to fire them half a second apart seems fair to me.

Quote

This is the same guy that though 1.5/12/1.5 dmg for a 10t, 4 crit, 90-540m ranged weapon was a good idea.

I think the HPPC is pretty okay now at 13/1/1, other than the heat.

People also underestimate how good the removal of that 90m damage deadzone is.

But the heat on the HPPC still has to come way down to like 12.5-13.

And if Gauss and PPC are linked in the same ghost heat group, the HPPC could be buffed more. But right now the combination of Gauss/PPC really limits how good those weapons can be.

Edited by Khobai, 04 July 2017 - 07:30 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

El Bandito, on 04 July 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

And your counter argument is your opinion as well.

Yeah it is. Sorry, I want to still have a MechWarrior game to play not some strung up gimped out version that don't allow mechs to actually use their weapons. This will turn out just like Energy Draw, 10s of thousands of dollars (at least!) wasted on developing some arbitrary mechanic, that ultimately will crash and burn in PTS or will go live and will cause ANOTHER mass exodus of players (which is the last thing the game needs). So why don't we just stop trying to think of great ideas to make TTK longer because a handful of hardcore battletech fans want their nerdgasm sim "feel" that will ultimately just waste everybody's time? If you want to shoot chainfire, shoot chain fire in MechWarrior 5. You can come up with whatever firing pattern you want.