HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:
Heresy.
Then it's Paul bot gunram tech. Not Battletech.
I think when people are saying "toss the books" they don't mean forget this is based on Battletech TT. They just mean that you can't balance this game as if it was a tabletop. That's pretty obvious. Keep the lore, the weapons, the roles, etc... But the actual rules and specs of those components have to change.
Edited by EnochsBook, 10 February 2018 - 05:32 PM.
I hate to derail, but I just feel to the need to share a thought: I find it interesting that MWO (PGI proper and the playerbase) continues to get slammed every time it tries to balance TT game values into a first person shooter environment that simply cannot support said values and still be playable, but HBS's Battletech gets cheers for adding game mechanics, simplifying how gameplay works, and modifying weapon values, despite it basically being a TT game in a computer.
Guess all the lore diehards play MWO and not Battletech. Interesting indeed.
I hate to derail, but I just feel to the need to share a though: I find it interesting that MWO (PGI proper and the playerbase) continues to get slammed every time it tries to balance TT game values into a first person shooter environment that simply cannot support said values and still be playable, but HBS's Battletech gets cheers for adding game mechanics, simplifying how gameplay works, and modifying weapon values, despite it basically being a TT game in a computer.
Guess all the lore diehards play MWO and not Battletech. Interesting indeed.
I disagree with that approach also. I do not laud them for changing melee but do for having it at all.
EnochsBook, on 10 February 2018 - 05:32 PM, said:
I think when people are saying "toss the books" they don't mean forget this is based on Battletech TT. They just mean that you can't balance this game as if it was a tabletop. That's pretty obvious. Keep the lore, the weapons, the roles, etc... But the actual rules and specs of those components have to change.
That's not how it sounds to me.
I do think that translation can be a LOT closer to 1 to 1. And cases where it doesn't, you translate the spirit and not come up with some horrific parody of what it should be. Now I have said my peace multiple times. Let's get back to numbers lest we be moderated.
Edited by HammerMaster, 10 February 2018 - 05:51 PM.
So that said, which weapons would you like to see removed from the proposal?
Excluding what I brought up specifically, IS LRMs most probably need more or different buffs due to the raw tonnage difference between Clan and IS. I very rarely use LRMs and I can't say I would have helpful commentary there.
I suppose I would also nix the GH of 12 for micro lasers, given that it's targeted at making them useful on a couple specialist boating machines and nothing else. The fact they weigh half of what cER Smalls and IS Smalls and a quarter of cspl or spl with similar range doesn't seem to have been considered.
Quote
My interpretation of the above as follows:
- remove cSRM changes entirely
- buff SRMs
- remove shell count buff from all cACs and cUAC20
- buff IS laser durations instead of cooldowns (which?)
Is this an accurate abbreviation?
Alright, the short version:
Revert cSRM changes. cSRMs + Artemis still maintain notably better spread than stock IS srms.
Reduce heat on IS SRMs by 0.5 from present values and increase velocity to 600.
It's not a full fledged rework. It IS simple XML changes that fix the weapon functionality. Set the exponential scaling value (effect scale) to 0, and ramp up and ramp down times (trgheatinctime, heatinctime, and RampDownDelay, respectively) which shuts off the exponential scaling and "fire window" mechanics. Then set heat damage, damage, and heat to the fixed flat values. It's literally that simple.
So maybe you might want to look into what is and isn't a simple XML edit to fix any given weapon system. This fix is completely viable and potential for inclusion in your objectives.
Unless I am misinterpreting, you are asking for a change in how the weapon fundamentally behaves.
You are asking for it to be nerfed to less than half of its present effectiveness in terms of heat applied to the enemy (which is the whole point of a flamer), while also making it an actual damage-dealing weapon - like an energy machine gun (which is what the SPL is for). This is a complete paradigm shift. Changing the purpose of a weapon. I would call that a rework.
Now, if you think they need a buff... like reduce the heat from 1.0 to 0.9, or simply change from exponential to linear overtime heat penalty, that's something we could discuss. (actually, what stat even says it's exponential? Is that effectscale="13.00" ? If so, how do you know for sure? I'm not familiar with this one. What if you even just reduced it to 6.00?)
LocationPeriphery of the Inner Sphere, moving toward the core worlds with each passing day.
Posted 10 February 2018 - 06:05 PM
FupDup, on 10 February 2018 - 03:44 PM, said:
My answers to your question:
1. The two latter mechs have their entire payload dependent on heat (energy), while the first one has heatless Gauss that allows it to keep firing something even after it reaches the heat cap.
2. The laser boats can potentially spread their damage across multiple hitboxes, depending on factors like the player's skill and the size of the target. The GaussPeeps build is going to lump that chunk into a single hitbox and also deal up to 10 points of splash damage to adjacent body parts. The GaussPeeps mech also has the least exposure time.
3. That Battlemaster is going to have to split his firing groups to avoid Spook Heat, which increases the amount of time the target has to react and makes him more vulnerable to return fire. It's also the slowest mech of those three.
In general, something to remember is that not all damage is created equally. Specifically, pinpoint damage of a certain amount is superior to spread damage of the same amount, i.e. 30 PPFLD massively trumps 30 laser or 30 splat damage. The way that spread damage makes up for this is by having much greater total damage when possible.
This was demonstrated most recently with Energy Draw where PPFLD was massively more favorable than laser or splat weaponry when you have a global damage cap set fairly low.
However, you are comparing a 78 alpha to 50 to the same component, and judging by my most recent experience, you can get all 78 on a single component relatively easily against *most* pilots in this game.
I contend the 78 alpha is worth *more* than the 50 alpha.
HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 06:23 PM, said:
Any consensus on lrm velocity?
For the simple fact that at 750 meters I can shoot or be shot by Gauss 2x before 1st lrm volley lands.
I see when in LOS tracking strength. Thank you!
Our consensus is that LRMs probably need a complete rework. Time and effort would need to be dedicated to that. At a later date.
In the meantime, any buffs to LRMs in their present state could run the risk of inciting a lurmaggeddon on the lower tiers. I don't want to be the harbinger of that potential doom. For now, we looked at mechs that run Clan LRMs, and mechs that run IS LRMs. For similar builds, right now, while including IS quirks, the IS LRM builds run into much more heat problems - their sustained DPS is considerably lower. So we gave IS LRMs only a slight heat buff to bring them closer to comparable Clan LRM builds. I don't want to go any further than that.
Our consensus is that LRMs probably need a complete rework. Time and effort would need to be dedicated to that. At a later date.
In the meantime, any buffs to LRMs in their present state could run the risk of inciting a lurmaggeddon on the lower tiers. I don't want to be the harbinger of that potential doom. For now, we looked at mechs that run Clan LRMs, and mechs that run IS LRMs. For similar builds, right now, while including IS quirks, the IS LRM builds run into much more heat problems - their sustained DPS is considerably lower. So we gave IS LRMs only a slight heat buff to bring them closer to comparable Clan LRM builds. I don't want to go any further than that.
this is fair, though it does sadden me as i was hoping for more of a change,
LocationCurrently dodging the pugs war crimes tribunal
Posted 10 February 2018 - 07:08 PM
Tarogato, on 10 February 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:
Just based on this I can't tell whether you support GaussPPC or are against it. =3
Dont let a few people with a hateful agenda kill an attempt to bring back a weapon combo that didnt need too get rekt. We need build option diversity. Especially in the higher tiers. 2 gauss 1 ppc. 2ppc 1 guass is completely acceptable and is a fun build to run. Plus it could be done on a thanatos which would be interesting
Edited by Johnathan Tanner, 10 February 2018 - 07:17 PM.
HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:
Heresy.
Then it's Paul bot gunram tech. Not Battletech.
HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 06:23 PM, said:
Any consensus on lrm velocity?
For the simple fact that at 750 meters I can shoot or be shot by Gauss 2x before 1st lrm volley lands.
I see when in LOS tracking strength. Thank you!
The game already follows battletech tightly in so many ways. The variants, hardpoints based tightly on stock weapons, quirks based on stock weapons, engine caps based on stock engines. Mech construction-wise, everything fits together pretty close to TRO/sarna/ruleset specs. The problem is, PGI is delegating mucho design off to some 20-30 year old book which is why so many mechs or variants make or break before you can even play them. (like to the point some mechs become super OP and others are so bad you cant quirk them)
One place that lore purists never complain about is the 2x armor and structure, the health quirks, and the skill tree survival. Overall it must be ~2.5x health altogether. At this point why try to have the illusion that a gauss rifle must do 15 damage or an AC-20 must do 20 damage? The 15 and the 20 are just throwback numbers, they dont mean anything anymore, its only lore on the surface. Once health values are like 2x, 2.5x over lore, why bother making the damage a sacred cow?
I am in the spiritual successor camp but only so much that PGI needs a little more elbow space to play with. I dont know if lore purists make up all the whales and that scares them or what but thats the camp I am in.
The game already follows battletech tightly in so many ways. The variants, hardpoints based tightly on stock weapons, quirks based on stock weapons, engine caps based on stock engines. Mech construction-wise, everything fits together pretty close to TRO/sarna/ruleset specs. The problem is, PGI is delegating mucho design off to some 20-30 year old book which is why so many mechs or variants make or break before you can even play them. (like to the point some mechs become super OP and others are so bad you cant quirk them)
One place that lore purists never complain about is the 2x armor and structure, the health quirks, and the skill tree survival. Overall it must be ~2.5x health altogether. At this point why try to have the illusion that a gauss rifle must do 15 damage or an AC-20 must do 20 damage? The 15 and the 20 are just throwback numbers, they dont mean anything anymore, its only lore on the surface. Once health values are like 2x, 2.5x over lore, why bother making the damage a sacred cow?
I am in the spiritual successor camp but only so much that PGI needs a little more elbow space to play with. I dont know if lore purists make up all the whales and that scares them or what but thats the camp I am in.
False.
I disagree on all those points.
If implementation was done properly you would NOT need 2x armor/structure.
Eg.
No free c3 lockons.
Beta bloom reticule fixing ppfld
Lore heatscale fixing absurd pplfd (again) builds (remember noisy cricket ppc cicada?)
Ecm (don't get me started)
Universal cool down (small laser and ppc and Gauss all 6 seconds)
"Soft" lock sized hard points (thanks konniving for pointing this out)
Lore build rules (chance rolls, time frames and techs)
Hardcore lore appropriate Battletech checkbook balance simulator. ( Repair and rearm!)
Edited by HammerMaster, 10 February 2018 - 07:28 PM.
LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 10 February 2018 - 07:31 PM
Hey Tarogato, could we just compromise on -50% less heat penalty instead of increasing GH limit of the Gauss PPC?
For example, 2x PPC + Gauss on a Timberwolf with 17 DHS gets at 75% when shot altogether, while simply shooting the 2x PPC get at 45%. Would it be okay to just make it so that 2x PPC + Gauss gets at 60%?
Also, what's the state of the RAC changes on your current draft? Was Navid A1's changes were accepted?
Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 February 2018 - 07:36 PM.
Unless I am misinterpreting, you are asking for a change in how the weapon fundamentally behaves.
You are asking for it to be nerfed to less than half of its present effectiveness in terms of heat applied to the enemy (which is the whole point of a flamer), while also making it an actual damage-dealing weapon - like an energy machine gun (which is what the SPL is for). This is a complete paradigm shift. Changing the purpose of a weapon. I would call that a rework.
Now, if you think they need a buff... like reduce the heat from 1.0 to 0.9, or simply change from exponential to linear overtime heat penalty, that's something we could discuss. (actually, what stat even says it's exponential? Is that effectscale="13.00" ? If so, how do you know for sure? I'm not familiar with this one. What if you even just reduced it to 6.00?)
First, the damage added to the weapon takes it back to about how it was before Flamergeddon, when the weapon did 0.8 DPS. I recommend between 0.8 DPS to 1.0 DPS. This would allow it to at least compete as an "energy machine gun" seeing as they both fill similar niches as support weapons . . . wherein the MG uses ballistic hardpoints to shred crits and the Flamer would use energy hardpoints to inhibit cooling and/or build heat on the target. It's not a fundamental change to how the weapon's functioned in MWO, it's just restoring the damage it used to do and tuning it appropriately.
Secondly, the reason for lowering the Flamer's Heat DPS is to make it manageable and controllable as a sustained fire weapon, since you're getting rid of the exponential scaling mechanics and cooldown windows. To lay out how it all intertwines as best as I can without a massive essay:
Spoiler
The current 4.5 second firing window with ~7-9 second cooldown time (4.5 seconds of non-firing to start cooldown plus 3-4.5 seconds of cooling down) allows a target mech to cool off mostly any amount of heat applied to it during that time, which inherently makes all efforts to use the weapon meaningless, given the heat cost of shooting it vs. the net heat damage done.
Therefore, the massive 4.5 heat per second is the only thing to attempt to make any heat damage during this brief firing window meaningful . . . which it still fails at, overall, due to the cooldown time. Removing the firing window and the exponential scaling allows it to be a more consistent and easily balanced support weapon. In addition, because of the exponential acceleration of heat buildup and heat damage, this stacks among Flamers to send multiple Flamers into uncontrollable levels of heat and quick shutdowns for users, since targets cap at 90% heat and walk away to cooldown.
With the firing limits and exponential generation gone, 1 Flamer constantly stream-fired at 1.5 Heat DPS Negates the cooling of 10 DHS, but doesn't add heat. However, the shooter is building 1.0 HPS, negating about 6.5 of their heat sinks. This is manageable and controllable for a single weapon system; and functions more as a sustained "crowd control" weapon that it's intended to be.
On the other hand, the current 4.5, if left alone, would allow it to defeat up to 30 DHS and add massive heat to anything else. Therefore, lowing the value is needed. Again, the only reason PGI set the starting Heat DPS value to 4.5 was to try to make the heat inflicted by the weapon actually noticeable under the exponential scaling system; and this in turn got exploited with macros and created "Flamergeddon". The 4.5 second firing window attempts to keep it in check, but the 7-9 second cooldown window make the effects useless unless boated; but if you boat Flamers the exponential heat generation inflicts more heat on the shooter than the target, allowing them to easily shut themselves down.
The end results, however, are much more balanced and consistent. You cannot macro-spam a Flamer and prevent heat buildup while inflicting infinite amounts of heat damage (Flamergeddon). In addition, the heat DPS becomes as controlled as any other facet of the weapon, open to small tuning adjustments that have controlled impact. Weapon usage is also not limited to a 4.5 second firing window with an ~7-9 second cooldown, which makes it more readily employed by any level of play instead of managing an incredibly short firing window with a punishing cooldown system.
The short version is that without exponential scaling and extreme cooldown conditions, while permitting sustained fire at flat fixed values, you don't need an absurd heat damage of 4.5 to get something done. 1 Flamer is a mild annoyance, 2 is a modest deterrent, and 3-4+ become a threat. Most importantly, it becomes more balanced and easily tuned.
In regards to the exponential scaling, PGI themselves stated it as such (some of the oldest patch notes I can find on the subject are 21 May 2013 when they changed the rates of exponential heat generation and again in 17 Sep 2013 when they tried to actually make the Flamer cause more heat than it generated, which still didn't work). This can also be seen by just taking a single flamer mech into testing grounds with as many heat sinks as you can fit on it (I think some assaults can get something like 60+ SHS on them), and just hold down the trigger . . . you can watch the exponential acceleration happen in real time, both for yourself and (if you use a private match) the victim. McGral18's old video showcases this problem perfectly: HERE. XML tuning can easily just shut off this facet and allow for real balancing.
The "effectscale" attribute I believe is the seed with which it grows by. Making the XML changes to just turn off exponential scaling allows weapon tuning to be actually tuned without instantly flipping the weapon's effects from useless (pre and post Flamergeddon) to game-breaking OP (Flamergeddon). Thus a reason for setting it to 0 and not just lowering it. We want tuning to be manageable tuning . . . not sending the weapon into wild swings of OP or Junk.
The6thMessenger, on 10 February 2018 - 07:31 PM, said:
Hey Tarogato, could we just compromise on -50% less heat penalty instead of increasing GH limit?
For example, 2x PPC + Gauss on a Timberwolf with 17 DHS gets at 75% when shot altogether, while simply shooting the PPC get at 45%. Would it be okay to just make it so that 2x PPC + Gauss gets at 60%?
Also, what's the state of the RAC changes on your current draft? Was Navid A1's changes were accepted?
That could somewhat bring back 2gauss2ppc. At least, potentially on the Kodiak (though it would run too hot on the NTG for sure). I'd have to do maths to figure out how 2gauss2ppc would be affected. I have no clue off the top of my head. HelI, I remember proton running 2gauss3ppc on the Supernova before the nerf, and just chugging the ghost heat on that. It was effective. (lol, 60 PPFLD + 15 splash, with JJs)
RACs... heat is staying the same as we proposed (10% better), the spread is still gone, the velocity is going up slightly more than we proposed (1300 and 1800 perhaps), and the damage on RAC2s... well, Navid wants it up to 1.0 damage, which is a 25% increase in DPS which I think is just absurd and way too big for an "incremental change in the right direction." I'm trying to talk him down to 0.9 damage with is a 12.5% increase. Also, I'll bet you're regretting about now for typing your note in tiny text. Heh. =P
22
HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:
