374 replies to this topic

[ROSS-128]

Honestly, having engine heatsinks follow your heatsink type was a mistake that FASA really should have fixed in the tabletop too.

Because once DHS are available, if you're running less than 20-30 heat per turn (depending on the size of your engine) DHS' downside, more crit slots, simply doesn't come into play at all. And if you're running more than 30 heat per turn, well you ain't cooling that with SHS are ya?

Of course, then they came out with the joke that was the compact heatsink. Oh boy it only takes up half a crit... and weighs 1.5t for SHS cooling, and therefore gets the SHS treatment in the engine. Talk about DoA, you'd have to spend 15 tons on those things just to get what a DHS engine gives you for 0 tons.

[Jiang Wei]

Gas Guzzler, on 02 February 2018 - 04:30 PM, said:

Your drawing a lot of conclusions about Clan mechs for someone who has never owned any Clan mechs...

Really? I thought I was just raising questions...

Tarogato, on 02 February 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:

Yes, you're right. It shows how ridiculous a mech like the MAD-IIC is, it's so strong and versatile that removing DHS from the game almost doesn't nerf it at all. But removing DHS will nerf a lot of other mechs by a lot.

Take for example, the Timberwolf:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c298e93d20428c0
25 DHS, two alphas, 5.8 sustain


http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bd909e9de92e65b

29 SHS, cannot fire two alphas, 4.7 sustain (19% loss in sustained DPS, substantial, compared to the only ~6% loss for the MAD-IIC)





So removing DHS... just increases the performance gap between the good and bad chassis that already exist? And you think it's a good idea?

Well those few outlier mechs would have to be altered to be in line with all the others.

Yeonne Greene, on 02 February 2018 - 06:10 PM, said:

Or even bothered to do the math or any sort of investigation for himself.

It's not hard, I promise.

Uh... I looked at the loadout and he did all the math for me. It didnt require any effort on my part apart from a 2 mouse clicks and 5 seconds of reading. You are just a troll.

Samial, on 02 February 2018 - 06:44 PM, said:

Yes but those flaws only effected the top players.. not the low tiers. Now its just lrm spam and poking lasers at a 1000 paces.. Ballistics are garbage and non lrm missiles are used for last minute light mech bug spray removal..

Seriously i understand its not wholly competitives fault as all the damn maps are basically designed for those two play styles as well.. But a lot of why we are here now is from elites feedback..

The low teirs are also affected by the same flaws. casual players just dont care or notice.

ROSS-128, on 03 February 2018 - 12:58 AM, said:

Honestly, having engine heatsinks follow your heatsink type was a mistake that FASA really should have fixed in the tabletop too.

Because once DHS are available, if you're running less than 20-30 heat per turn (depending on the size of your engine) DHS' downside, more crit slots, simply doesn't come into play at all. And if you're running more than 30 heat per turn, well you ain't cooling that with SHS are ya?

Of course, then they came out with the joke that was the compact heatsink. Oh boy it only takes up half a crit... and weighs 1.5t for SHS cooling, and therefore gets the SHS treatment in the engine. Talk about DoA, you'd have to spend 15 tons on those things just to get what a DHS engine gives you for 0 tons.

Combining SHS and DHS like that would make high heat mechs even more efficient. Plus it wouldnt be possible for them to program that anyway.

Edited by Jiang Wei, 03 February 2018 - 02:01 AM.

[FupDup]

Jiang Wei, on 03 February 2018 - 01:50 AM, said:

Plus it wouldnt be possible for them to program that anyway.

Yes it is very possible, and easy.

Here is some sample code from Equipment.XML:

<Module id="3000" name="HeatSink_MkI" CType="CHeatSinkStats" faction="Clan,InnerSphere">
	<ModuleStats slots="1" tons="1" health="10" />
	<Loc nameTag="@HeatSink_MkI" descTag="@HeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\HeatSink_MkI.dds" />
	<HeatSinkStats cooling="0.12" engineCooling="0.12" heatbase="-1.2" />
	<EffectList>
	  <Effect name="SteamEffect" asset="mech_effects.heatsinks.steam_a" />
	</EffectList>
	<Audio OnDestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed" />
  </Module>

Notice how there's two different stats for both cooling and engine cooling. Let's look at DHS for comparison:

<Module id="3001" name="DoubleHeatSink_MkI" CType="CHeatSinkStats" faction="InnerSphere">
	<ModuleStats slots="3" tons="1" health="10" />
	<Loc nameTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI" descTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\DoubleHeatSink_MkI.dds" />
	<HeatSinkStats cooling="0.15" engineCooling="0.2" heatbase="-1.5" />
	<EffectList>
	  <Effect name="SteamEffect" asset="mech_effects.heatsinks.steam_double_a" />
	</EffectList>
	<Audio OnDestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed" />
  </Module>

So yeah, cooling and engine cooling can be set to different values very easily.

Edited by FupDup, 03 February 2018 - 05:03 AM.

[ROSS-128]

Jiang Wei, on 03 February 2018 - 01:50 AM, said:

Combining SHS and DHS like that would make high heat mechs even more efficient. Plus it wouldnt be possible for them to program that anyway.

Not by very much, it would be a little optimization space on heavier mechs and maybe some light mechs that don't use any external heatsinks would be 1.5MCb cheaper. You wouldn't be mixing heatsink types, you would just have a standardized engine cooling rate.

If your top priority is making mechs toastier you could standardize the engines to 10 instead of 20, though that would disproportionately screw the aforementioned light mechs.

The only real hangup is they might have to add an "external engine heatsink" item that exists solely to bring sub-250 engines up to standard, or maybe just autofill with "dynamic engine heatsinks" like endo and ferro do. Though given the current TrueDub vs PoorDub situation, they kind of need to do that anyway.

[Y E O N N E]

Jiang Wei, on 03 February 2018 - 01:50 AM, said:

Uh... I looked at the loadout and he did all the math for me. It didnt require any effort on my part apart from a 2 mouse clicks and 5 seconds of reading. You are just a troll.

That's the problem.

You are making uneducated, sweeping statements about things and then people have to come in here to correct you.

I'm the troll? At least I know what I'm talking about.

[nehebkau]

All I can say is :

[Sjorpha]

Jiang Wei, on 03 February 2018 - 01:50 AM, said:

Well those few outlier mechs would have to be altered to be in line with all the others.

Any Clan assault with 6+ energy hardpoints and a lot of tonnage becomes one of those "outlier mechs" in this scenario, currently MAD-IIC, Supernova, MK2-DS, Kodiak-5, DWF, and maybe I'm forgetting someone.

This problem comes from the space and tonnage efficiency of clan tech, not from the specific chassis. That would be a lot of mechs to alter (nerf) and how exactly do you nerf them? Even more **** agility? Negative quirks? Doesn't sound very fun to me.

And then we have the issue of all the mechs that get super nerfed by removal of DHS, mainly IS mechs in the lighter tonnages, the same category that are already the weakest in the game. Great idea...

That is entirely besides the fact that DHS are stock equipment on so many released mechs, so it's not gonna happen no matter what argument you make. We can argue for fun of course.

Edited by Sjorpha, 03 February 2018 - 08:33 AM.

[Jiang Wei]

I wouldnt know how to balance them exactly without alot of play testing of every mech in the game. And thats not really feasible for me to do.(I could do it) Even if I did do that, whos to say that the effort would be worth it? In the end its up to PGI. For me, the time to invest wouldnt be worth it. Thats probably how PGI views it too.

Edited by Jiang Wei, 03 February 2018 - 10:45 AM.

[FireStoat]

I am absolutely floored by the quick recognition and incredibly intense scrutiny & follow-up PGI has had with the very real concerns of the OP's video. It's a breath of fresh air considering how many companies will pay a bit of lip service and then quietly direct player attention away to new topics so they don't have to deal with anything at all.

In other news --- hey, Blood Asp is dropping! Would you like to buy a mechpack? And oh, dev time and money is being spent on the desperately wanted ability to walk around in your mech bay to view your mechs from all different angles, with exciting dynamic lighting! Players have been asking for this for years, right?

[Bud Crue]

FireStoat, on 03 February 2018 - 03:27 PM, said:

I am absolutely floored by the quick recognition and incredibly intense scrutiny & follow-up PGI has had with the very real concerns of the OP's video. It's a breath of fresh air considering how many companies will pay a bit of lip service and then quietly direct player attention away to new topics so they don't have to deal with anything at all.

What are you talking about? Serious question. The last I saw was a single tweet from Russ saying he would talk to Chris about the video. That’s it. Has there been some new development to suggest “incredibly close scrutiny” and “follow up” from PGI. I am legit curious.

[FireStoat]

I was hoping my second paragraph would impart my tone of sarcasm for the first.

[Bud Crue]

FireStoat, on 03 February 2018 - 05:48 PM, said:

I was hoping my second paragraph would impart my tone of sarcasm for the first.

Ah damn it! My sarcasm detector was jammed by a moment of irrational hope.
Crap.

[ShaneoftheDead]

Current balance issues exist because of a few architectural choices PGI made before they even wrote a single line of code.

* Hard Points & Mech Design - By choosing quantity, location, and type of weapons each Mech variant has... PGI directly determines that Mech's viability. This is the main reason we have to give quirks to Mechs. Any Mech that has low weapon mounts is at a disadvantage and needs massive quirks to be viable. Any Mech that has fewer hardpoints than average for their weight class is at a disadvantage and needs quirks to be viable. Any Mech that has larger torsos than average for their weight class is at a disadvantage and needs quirks to be viable. Any Mech that is slower than average for their weight class is at a disadvantage and needs quirks to be viable.

* Faction Warfare Implementation - By deciding to follow only some of the Clan Lore, they created a Frankenstein monster that they cannot contain. (No 2 Star vs. 3 Lance, No Clan drop right under-bidding) Superior Mechs with superior Tech dropping in equal numbers and approximate weight against inferior Mechs with inferior Tech is balanced? The direct result is the 3 IS Tukayyid Defeat banners I have.... that and the never ending drop deck weight limit changes. This results in all IS Mechs and IS weapon systems needing buffed to some degree. This is not, nor ever will be, done. Faction Warfare will never be balanced, as indicated by PGI's past statements.

* Power Creep - As seemingly all games do, they sell their new content by making it more powerful than the older options. This forces old Mechs to need massive quirks to be viable. But only after the new content gets it's month or two of Pay-2-Win. I don't really fault PGI for this because they do not have much choice, but it does affect balance.

There are more... but with just these reasons, causing overlapping needs for all sorts of buffs, it makes it impossible for PGI to balance the game.

Bonus Design Choice Disasters: (not causing Balance issues)

* Experience & Skills - Would you put a bathtub on a Ferrari F-40? I hope not. Bathtubs belong in homes, RVs, or Campers. Exp and Skills belong in RPGs. MWO is not an RPG. They do not belong here any more than a hot-tub on a Porsche 911. No matter how it is implemented, it will feel cumbersome and irrelevant. There will be exactly 1 optimal path to take (due to design, hard points, and quirks) for a particular Mech variant and you will be forced to suffer until you grind your way to achieve it. The old skill tree was just more up-front and obvious about it.

* Steam Release - Not a design choice, but still a choice. By going live on Steam, the largest digital game distributor in the world, with a poorly balanced Faction Warfare, no Solaris 7, and relatively expensive packages for sale, they doomed MWO to slow death. The launch was a FAILURE. As everyone knows, you get 1 shot to make a first impression. Despite fan boys giving positive reviews in droves, players that tried the game have left it. According to Steamcharts, a 4k simultaneous peak player spike at launch quickly fell to below 2k six months later and has flat lined there ever since with small spikes occurring when they do drastic changes and large give-aways. For comparison, according to Steam: World of Tanks Blitz had 17,000 simultaneous players today while MWO had 1,300.

Edit: formatting errors fixed.

Edited by ShaneoftheDead, 03 February 2018 - 08:38 PM.

[Jiang Wei]

Bud Crue, on 03 February 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

What are you talking about? Serious question. The last I saw was a single tweet from Russ saying he would talk to Chris about the video. That’s it. Has there been some new development to suggest “incredibly close scrutiny” and “follow up” from PGI. I am legit curious.

I hope they dont take the video too seriously, there some issues with it.

[Bud Crue]

Jiang Wei, on 03 February 2018 - 09:09 PM, said:

I hope they dont take the video too seriously, there some issues with it.

And I hope they listen very carefully and change not only their conduct toward "balance" accordingly, but also fix some of the outliers that are totally obvious to those actually playing the game.

I am a player of this game but I was also a customer. I will keep being the former until the game dies, but until they stop nerfing without concern to game play reality, they have lost me as to the latter (and I was a a hell of a good customer).

[Deathlike]

Mech The Dane, on 30 January 2018 - 05:57 PM, said:

I wouldn't blame Chris so much as PGI not playing their own game. Many other studios require that their developers play x amount of their game every day. So that they don't lose touch with whats going on and the player experience.

Something it feels like PGI has never had a good handle on. How many Long Toms do you figure fell upon Russ before the community FORCED him to remove them?

The # of Long Toms dropped onto Russ is closer to the number you expect PGI to actually fix things properly. Like, try ZERO.

[l33tworks]

Mech The Dane, on 26 January 2018 - 09:27 PM, said:

Is there anyone who likes it?

I like it. If it was player controlled vip it would literally become 90% of the game

[FuzzyNZ]

With regards to the CBill consumables, is there a way that we, the players, can think up of a way for the Cbills to generate REAL revenue for PGI?

I mean, this would be beneficial to both PGI and players if both PGI can profit, eg. Strikes and Consumables cost MC only, not available for CBills. But only players with enough resources or premium time can use them.

Thus, a REAL game change = A Real Revenue Change!

[FupDup]

FuzzyNZ, on 04 February 2018 - 01:10 PM, said:

With regards to the CBill consumables, is there a way that we, the players, can think up of a way for the Cbills to generate REAL revenue for PGI?

I mean, this would be beneficial to both PGI and players if both PGI can profit, eg. Strikes and Consumables cost MC only, not available for CBills. But only players with enough resources or premium time can use them.

Thus, a REAL game change = A Real Revenue Change!

Making consumables only available for premium users would be Pay 2 Win, so that's going to get a resounding LOLNO from most of the community.

[FuzzyNZ]

It wouldn't be Pay2Win, it would be more like Pay2BeAbleToMaybeDoMoreDamageOnlyIfYouAreGoodEnough. So not really, it might give some users a slight advantage, but I'd think most users would not use MC on them, we would probably see less of them.

Supply and Demand.