121 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

C337Skymaster, on 27 August 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

Oh, I've done well in stock builds of the Dire Wolf, myself. Frequently getting 600 dmg games, occasionally getting over 800 dmg, and once getting 1100 in a stock DWF-A. (I found myself in a good flank position and nobody seemed to notice me).

But that was all before Civil War tech, and long before Engine Desync. A lot has changed since then.

Again, none of that is impressive given what the Whale is truly capable of.

C337Skymaster, on 27 August 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

but it's not nearly the challenge and entertainment of 4x UAC/2's, two ERPPCs, two MPulse, one ERSL, and one LBX10. [DWF-B].

And there's nothing about "piloting wrong" or "bad aim".

Taking kitchen sink builds that have no synergy and probably have more weapons than a person can reliably use is indeed piloting wrong. Your brain has limitations, and if you are focusing more on adjusting your aim for the variety of velocities in that build and your heat given your weapon groups, that is less time you are focusing on what you need to be which is your positioning given you are one of the slowest mechs in the game. This is why people go for the simpler builds, because kitchen sink builds ask of a person more than a person can keep up with. This is a consistent underlying theme that gets in the way between players like you and players like me.

I want this game to focus less on the managing your mech and more on the teamwork, positioning, and strategy aspects (specializing and trying to make the most of it).

Players like you want this game to be more like a sim and focused on you overcoming the obstacle that is the mech itself rather than team compositions, enemy loadouts, etc.

These two are odds with each other because the have very different objectives, and specifically, what you want simply has never really been a part of mechwarrior which is why it has always been essentially a sim-lite game. It tries to be more realistic than your average game but ultimately it is still a game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 27 August 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

If its so inconsequential then theres no harm in adding a penalty.

Having an inconsequential penalty is still better than having no penalty as far as im concerned.

Khobai, on 27 August 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

So your argument doesnt really make sense. Youre basically saying there shouldnt be a penalty because people wont care about the penalty. Well thats all the more reason there should be a penalty...

I'm saying it doesn't really have an impact on balance and that it doesn't magically increase the skill of heat management. Not that it shouldn't be added to the game. As far as I'm concerned there are much more pressing things for the devs to spend time than this. Ultimately this would be a nice to have to improve the immersion a bit but there are other ways to do that as well.

Khobai, on 27 August 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

Because right now theres zero incentive to keep your heat lower at all.

Why does there need to be, this is what I don't understand? Heat is a resource what is the point in trying to incentivize people to not use it? Heat is meant to limit damage potential, if damage potential is too high then tune heat. Incentives don't really add anything to that.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 August 2018 - 07:57 PM.

[C337Skymaster]

Yes, I do want this game to be a sim. That's what's fun about it, and that's a large part of what's missing from MWO. Because loss and failure are so rampant in a multiplayer game, the repair costs would be astronomical, and so they aren't a factor in the game, but boy would they add some immersion and realism. Imagine if Ammunition was consumable, and you actually had to buy more when you used it? But at the same time, you'd need to earn enough to afford it, and ballistics and missiles would have to be advantageous enough to use, as opposed to straight energy boats all the time.

That was the best review I ever heard about MechWarrior 3, was that it was more a simulation game than a shooting game. You had your entire salvage economy to manage, on top of coordinating your lance, and shooting at the enemy. It's a wonderful personal challenge to be able to manage a complex machine and make it perform. Boats get boring too quickly. It's why I've always gravitated towards the DWF-Prime. The weapons have a simple and graceful logic to them, managing damage, heat and range, swapping over to shorter ranged weapons which have a higher accuracy once the ranges close.

The beauty of this game has always been that there's more to it than just marching out, shooting someone, and marching home again. There's history, and rationale behind why "the engineers" designed a 'mech the way they did, and how its specific design makes it unique, and the role it fills on the battlefield. I want more scarcity. I want the tech trees further divided between factions (Heavy Gauss being a Steiner development, RACs are Davion, Stealth Armor is Liao, MRMs are Kuritan, etc). It adds flavor to the game, increases the immersion, and enjoyment along with it.

[C337Skymaster]

Something else I'm hoping PGI will be able to implement someday: I want omnimechs to have an extra window at the start of a match, after the map/mode has been voted on, allowing them to choose from any of the stock loadouts of that chassis. Without something like that, we'll never see Inner Sphere Omnimechs, because they'll have fixed IS XL engines, and nobody's going to want to buy them. Flexibility was the strength of the Omnimech: the ability to change loadouts at the drop of a hat without spending months on end in a mechbay with mech techs reinstalling and re-calibrating all sorts of integral equipment.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

C337Skymaster, on 27 August 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

Yes, I do want this game to be a sim. That's what's fun about it, and that's a large part of what's missing from MWO. Because loss and failure are so rampant in a multiplayer game, the repair costs would be astronomical, and so they aren't a factor in the game, but boy would they add some immersion and realism.

We had repair and rearm in closed beta, it was stupid and was quickly dropped. Punishing half your players for playing the game is just counter-productive when this game is an arena only game.

C337Skymaster, on 27 August 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

That was the best review I ever heard about MechWarrior 3, was that it was more a simulation game than a shooting game. You had your entire salvage economy to manage, on top of coordinating your lance, and shooting at the enemy. It's a wonderful personal challenge to be able to manage a complex machine and make it perform.

That game was mostly a single player game....so yeah, it could do things a game like this can't. That said, it wasn't balanced, not by a long shot. From what little I know of the multiplayer of that game is that is was more broken than this game in-regards to boats and making stock builds look like jokes and that also meant those same builds could abuse things in single player too. That's the danger of rose-tinted glasses.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 August 2018 - 08:03 PM.

[Reno Blade]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 August 2018 - 02:24 PM, said:

This is where you get into a problem. To make disparate builds like the Timber Prime work (Marauder isn't really that out of meta for builds like the Bounty Hunter II or something like that), you have to do 2 things:

• Give it crazy bonuses like increased dissipation or damage to compensate for it's lack of ability to compete remotely well at those styles of combat
  
• Limit the build variety so that these can't be exploited by specialist-style builds.

The problem with mixed builds is they sacrifice way too much efficacy to be "jack-of-all-trades" and end up becoming crap at all things. There is no "system" that can single-handedly fix this, it will require case-by-case balancing to even try to attempt it.

Coming back to your comment (after I missed 2 pages already)...

What's the biggest benefit of boats?
- Easy weapon management of same heat/range and mechanics
- Easy aiming due to same range and velocity/mechanics
for the most part, right?

So just in theory, if any system like GH/ED or low capacity would penalize everyone for firing more than (lets say for an extreme example) 2 weapons of the same kind (e.g. 2x SRM6 or 2x any-thing), you would not have much of an advantage anymore.
You would still have some kind of advantage with 2x weapon over 1x weapon (choose any) simply because of pairing up weapons.
e.g. 4x PPC vs 2x PPC +2x LPL
or 6x AC2 vs 2x AC2 + 2x LRM15
basically you would get "down" to something like 2x PPC vs 1x PPC + 1x LPL in comparing "boats (of 2)" vs "mixed"
... well this should just display what the iead/goal of "penalties" for boats could "bring" for the crazy stock jack-of-all-trades builds.

This was probably the idea of PGI when thinking of Energy Draw or GH in the first place, to reduce the efficiency of boats by making them spread weapon damage.
If you have to spread your shots anyway, boats would handle in a similar fashion as mixed/bracket builds (that need to spread often anyway due to range or mechanic differences).

And it's my main reason for supporting Energy Draw (or similar) mechanics, as I want to "enjoy" playing more Sim-like.


One more point:
I think if the overall efficiency of all weapons/groups would be lower, the "thinking-mans-shooter" part would actually increase, because the tactics and strategies could include more formation/manouvers including retreats and long-range fading rather than increasing deathballs (if the brawling weapon groups are also affected).
e.g. some people call it sand-blasting or spray-n-pray (and claim it reduces skill by reducing the efficiency of aiming)...

[Reno Blade]

I also think a larger heatpool with added heat effects (penalties) like in BT is a major chance to increase imersion, sim-feeling and risk-reward gameplay.

If you experience an exponential degration of your agility if you are over 50% heat, (e.g. 5% slower around 50% heat, 50% slower around 90% heat), high-heat builds would suffer in brawls and in shielding/twisting because of the heat build up.

Builds that "sacrifice" firepower for more cooling (or just don't have as many hardpoints) would have an AUTOMATIC advantage (once the enemy is heating up in battle, not before) and does not need to have extra quirks on top for mobility, but everyone could have much higher base mobility.



On the topic of repair&rearm, the system was just not well done.
There need to be a maximum repaircost per mech, if there is no meta-game around logistics in the game.
e.g. Warthunder and Star Conflict both have repair cost if you lost your ship/plane, but that hardly cost much and only "required" repair after 5 games where you lost your ship/plane.

TBH, i expect(ed) logistics in Faction Play to have some kind of purpose of invading planets (supply lines and resources) and some kind of money sink.
But for now this is another topic that doesnt help us now, i fear.


So back to topic of heat and balancing...
I feel that there are some problems that could be "reduced" by having a proper risk-reward penalty system (heat effects on mobility/aiming, and gradual diminishing returns of boats/alpha builds).
1. - There is hardly any reason to take multi weapon types over boats
2. - There is hardly any reason to take weaker loadouts with any skill tree build, as everything revolves around dmg
3. - There is hardly any reason to use arm weapons when you can take torso slots and strip/sacrifice the arms (e.g. HBR)

Now IF we had such penalties, we COULD have some improvement in these points.
- Multi weapon builds could benefit from the overall balance (if boats are penalized earlier, e.g. max of 12SRM tubes rather than 24)
- Lower hardpoint builds would benefit from constant higher mobility (if lower heat) vs the penalized heat-builds and could even survive longer our "outbrawl" some.
- And the arm weapons would be more important, because the reduction of mobility (due to high heat) would make it harder to twist/turn, so the arms would be the faster aiming weapons.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Reno Blade, on 28 August 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

I think if the overall efficiency of all weapons/groups would be lower, the "thinking-mans-shooter" part would actually increase, because the tactics and strategies could include more formation/manouvers including retreats and long-range fading rather than increasing deathballs (if the brawling weapon groups are also affected).
e.g. some people call it sand-blasting or spray-n-pray (and claim it reduces skill by reducing the efficiency of aiming)...

Deathballs aren't effective in actual comp play, they are only really the effective playstyle at the moment in open queue, and that's just because it makes it easy for players to focus fire. There isn't really anything you can do about that either other than introduce some sort of long tom-ish weapon that people can use to punish tightly grouped players.

Reno Blade, on 28 August 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

This was probably the idea of PGI when thinking of Energy Draw or GH in the first place, to reduce the efficiency of boats by making them spread weapon damage.
If you have to spread your shots anyway, boats would handle in a similar fashion as mixed/bracket builds (that need to spread often anyway due to range or mechanic differences).

And it's my main reason for supporting Energy Draw (or similar) mechanics, as I want to "enjoy" playing more Sim-like.

Except energy draw had the opposite effect because it treated all weapons in the same pool which actually reinforced boating which is why ED was a disaster.

[Reno Blade]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 August 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:

Deathballs aren't effective in actual comp play, they are only really the effective playstyle at the moment in open queue, and that's just because it makes it easy for players to focus fire. There isn't really anything you can do about that either other than introduce some sort of long tom-ish weapon that people can use to punish tightly grouped players.

The comment was related to some people fearing that lowering the ability to deal damage with high-alpha long range trading would increase brawl-rush efficiency and especially deathballing with brawlers (because not enough punishing power).

So regarding this concern, I think that having lower dmg/alpha and lower dps in general would increase the possibility to "retreat" and "manouver".
You would not be in the current situation where you either go kamikaze, because you knew that in the next volley you either die or take at least one more down with you (e.g. override and alpha one last time before being alphad again).

Quote

Except energy draw had the opposite effect because it treated all weapons in the same pool which actually reinforced boating which is why ED was a disaster.

Yes the boats where not punished more than the mixed builds.
But the biggest problem for the past PTS was that the lasers had lower dmg when not locked the target. This ghost-dmg mechanic was the reason the people got on the baricades.

Having low dmg/alpha from ED for any combination might be another problem, but surely not be the biggest.
The fact that some DPS builds had nearly no problem at all (due to high energy regen) is the same problem we have with low-heatcap (like in this PTS2.1) and was one major problem.

And considering the interface and the high spikes, the overall experience was too punishing for overall gameplay and everything felt too complicated to use in the chaos of battle.

The whole system needs to feel natural and not more spiky than GH, but still give low-dmg builds some kind of benefit over high-alpha/dps builds.
- To achieve this, the first step would be to have the heat penalties being applied over time (e.g. 5-10s window).
- Another part of the solution could be to have MORE heat cap to further smooth the penalties, so they don't feel as high/fast.
- Now adding heat-effects such as the BattleTech mobility reduction over 50% heat would put a lower "soft cap" to that high heat bar where heat management gives you advantage over high-heat gameplay.
Then

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Reno Blade, on 02 September 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:

The comment was related to some people fearing that lowering the ability to deal damage with high-alpha long range trading would increase brawl-rush efficiency and especially deathballing with brawlers (because not enough punishing power).

So regarding this concern, I think that having lower dmg/alpha and lower dps in general would increase the possibility to "retreat" and "manouver".
You would not be in the current situation where you either go kamikaze, because you knew that in the next volley you either die or take at least one more down with you (e.g. override and alpha one last time before being alphad again).

I don't think you understand how higher level play works at all. The high alpha power only really helps once a team is committed to a push. Once you're committed it doesn't matter whether long range units are high alpha or high DPS, retreating is absolutely the worse thing you can do. That and most bad teams, wait way too long to actually commit and take way too much damage trying to find a "better approach" when they would've been better off just kamikaze rushing at the beginning.

Basically, you statements unfortunately lack understanding of how the game is actually works in coordinated environments.

Reno Blade, on 02 September 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:

Yes the boats where not punished more than the mixed builds.
But the biggest problem for the past PTS was that the lasers had lower dmg when not locked the target. This ghost-dmg mechanic was the reason the people got on the baricades.

Having low dmg/alpha from ED for any combination might be another problem, but surely not be the biggest.
The fact that some DPS builds had nearly no problem at all (due to high energy regen) is the same problem we have with low-heatcap (like in this PTS2.1) and was one major problem.

And considering the interface and the high spikes, the overall experience was too punishing for overall gameplay and everything felt too complicated to use in the chaos of battle.

The whole system needs to feel natural and not more spiky than GH, but still give low-dmg builds some kind of benefit over high-alpha/dps builds.
- To achieve this, the first step would be to have the heat penalties being applied over time (e.g. 5-10s window).
- Another part of the solution could be to have MORE heat cap to further smooth the penalties, so they don't feel as high/fast.
- Now adding heat-effects such as the BattleTech mobility reduction over 50% heat would put a lower "soft cap" to that high heat bar where heat management gives you advantage over high-heat gameplay.
Then

This just reads as incoherent so I don't know what to respond to it with. All I can say is the ED PTS was bad enough that it didn't deserve to go live, just because it was less bad than the laser-info-warfare PTS doesn't mean it was good enough.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 September 2018 - 10:42 PM.

[Khobai]

Reno Blade, on 02 September 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:

I also think a larger heatpool with added heat effects (penalties) like in BT is a major chance to increase imersion, sim-feeling and risk-reward gameplay.

I agree.

There should be no penalties upto 50 heat. And penalties would start between 51 heat and your max heat cap determined by the number of heatsinks you have.

Its a nice compromise between the current system and the 50 heat cap system.


Have the first shutdown trigger occur at 50 heat that you can override. If you override that you start suffering heat penalties for overriding the 50 heat cap.

Once you reach 100% max heat you should automatically shutdown though. And you shouldnt be able to override a 100% shutdown.

Quote

This just reads as incoherent so I don't know what to respond to it with. All I can say is the ED PTS was bad enough that it didn't deserve to go live, just because it was less bad than the laser-info-warfare PTS doesn't mean it was good enough.

The problem is PGI abandoned ED rather than fixing it. The concept of ED was a good one. But the implementation needed work. They shouldve fixed it instead of abandoning it.

Same with tying sensors into weapon damage. Their implementation was absolutely terrible, under their implementation ECM reduced laser damage wut lolol. But the idea of weapons doing reduced damage if you dont have a sensor lock was absolutely a good idea, because it wouldve actually made getting sensor locks important. PGI shouldnt have abandoned it, just fixed their poor implementation of it.

Edited by Khobai, 04 September 2018 - 04:08 PM.

[Tesunie]

Sable Dove, on 25 August 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

most he same as live, with the exception that it's 4v4 in the PTS, which accounts for the vast majority of the difference. If the PTS were 12 v 12, you'd be hard-pressed to see the difference that the 50 heat-cap causes. People would still peek out, alpha, then retreat to cool down.

Okay, I'm jumping in here a little late to the party, I know. But this is why it feels just like live...

Most mechs, especially lighter ones (I play mediums a lot, even on the PTS) have only their ten required heat sinks. As everyone basically upgrades to DHS as soon as they can and with every DHS adding to the threshold limits for heat, most mechs are already running at a 50 heat cap even on live. Those that took more sinks often didn't take enough to make that more than 60-70 on average (considering all mechs across all weights). So, though more sinks means more threshold and dissipation on live, the increased dissipation on the PTS coupled with a locked cap at 50 (which is minimum for almost all mechs live) just made it feel like live if not even better due to faster cooling.

As a side note, better dissipation also improved laser weapons, as they generate heat over a period of time, rather than all at once. So, as the lasers generated heat they are also dissipating that heat. This means that, even on the PTS, a mech could still alpha with above 50 heat generated values with enough DHSs to dissipate enough heat before it is fully generated. Then, with faster dissipation, the lower cap didn't feel as low as it may actually have been on some mechs.

Of course, all this is excluding heat threshold skills, which can probably already being that 50 hard cap up to 60 if not close to 70, which may be close to their mech's live threshold anyway.


I personally felt that 40 heat cap felt great. 50 didn't feel bad and did feel better than live marginally. I think 45 would probably end up being the "sweet spot" (even though I want 40 instead) for most people.

On the comment of lower caps, I'd love to test it. I wonder what a cap of 30 heat would do to the game... as a test. Not an actual suggestion of change.

[HARDKOR]

I truly hope PGI is not listening to this Sable guy, and honestly, MW has ALWAYS been about the alpha/min max builds and it always should be. Maybe we need a chain fire kiddy pool for the guys who's sole desire is to turn this into a suburban soccer league where everyone gets a participation trophy.

[HARDKOR]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 August 2018 - 07:15 PM, said:

Players like you want this game to be more like a sim and focused on you overcoming the obstacle that is the mech itself rather than team compositions, enemy loadouts, etc.

This, right here, is the thing...

MW5 should aim to please the guys who want it to be a resource based sim where it's you vs your machine.

If we're going to have a multiplayer arena game, it's going to be a min/max game of abusing whatever the system provided is, and either get on board with the meta or go play a non multiplayer game, because that is how multiplayer games work.

[Tesunie]

HARDKOR, on 28 September 2018 - 08:56 AM, said:

Maybe we need a chain fire kiddy pool for the guys who's sole desire is to turn this into a suburban soccer league where everyone gets a participation trophy.

Thing is, heat should be more of a concern than it seems to be in this game. I have to agree with the overarching statement that heat needs to be something more impactful, and I also agree with the general statement that the last PTS (2.1) didn't go far enough, but at the same time that PTS 2.0 probably took it a little too far.

However, seen as you seem to be about throwing a couple of sly insults around, I'll leave the statement that I don't want my MW to become like MW4 where it was difficult (when I played it) to find people playing with ammo and heat turned on. So if you wish to be part of the no heat and unlimited ammo crowd, then "maybe we need a no heat or ammo kiddy pool for the guys who's sole desire is to turn this into a suburban soccer league where everyone gets a participation trophy".


Personally speaking, I'd rather try to balance the game for both DPS builds as well as high alpha builds. Playing with the general heat scale is where this will most likely become possible. Otherwise, you might as well just remove DPS weapons such as AC2s and remove any consideration towards DPS... (AKA: Your statement is self defeating.)

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 03 September 2018 - 03:14 AM, said:

The problem is PGI abandoned ED rather than fixing it. The concept of ED was a good one. But the implementation needed work. They shouldve fixed it instead of abandoning it.

Same with tying sensors into weapon damage. Their implementation was absolutely terrible, under their implementation ECM reduced laser damage wut lolol. But the idea of weapons doing reduced damage if you dont have a sensor lock was absolutely a good idea, because it wouldve actually made getting sensor locks important.

Neither of these were good ideas, even conceptually. Heat already does the job energy and more (ED was only meant to control burst damage and nothing more). Tying damage to sensors just doesn't make sense nor does it add depth to the game, it just shifts the equation for firepower around (ERLL mechs would essentially have requirements to be on sensor based mechs to get good firepower or something stupid like that). In fact tying damage to sensor locks is just as stupid as LRMs requiring spotters. It doesn't make for good/fun gameplay nor does it add depth, it just shifts things around.

Tesunie, on 28 September 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

Thing is, heat should be more of a concern than it seems to be in this game.

Why? It does its job for better or worse which is to limit damage output. Could overheating damage potentially be increased given that the instakill risk is no longer there? Sure, but it's not like there is no concern for heat in matches, that's straight crap if that's what you think.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 September 2018 - 04:43 PM.

[Tesunie]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 September 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

Why? It does its job for better or worse which is to limit damage output. Could overheating damage potentially be increased given that the instakill risk is no longer there? Sure, but it's not like there is no concern for heat in matches, that's straight crap if that's what you think.

There is something wrong with the heat scale in this game somewhere, particularly with alpha, boating and apparently Clan DHS amounts. I currently have an Ebon Jaguar with seven ERMLs and an (LbX)AC10. It breaks GH (something else that does the job, but could use improvement), yet despite that I can alpha with very little problems due to the amount of DHS the mech has taken. Compared to IS mechs (yes, I know health quirks (which not all IS mechs have)), none of my IS mechs can pack that much weaponry at that tonnage (or even close to that tonnage) and run that cool.

To me, that indicates a problem somewhere along the lines. Personally, I felt that PTS 2.0 felt really good, and I wanted to continue to play that server. 2.1 felt a lot like live and didn't seem to do enough for what it's intention was. Something in between wouldn't have been too bad.

Is altering the heat cap the only possible fix though? Of course not. There have been many solutions, but I do feel that heat is something that could really use improvement and, depending upon the build of course, typically isn't enough of a concern. We've gone from one extreme (just tapped over 100% with override turned on, and died instantly) to the other (hit override and not care). We really could use some kind of middle ground.

[Y E O N N E]

You have to give players enough heat to work with if you want to have different build archetypes. DPS builds need enough margin to actually DPS for a reasonable amount of time. Alpha builds need enough margin to place a shot crippling enough that it isn't easy to simply tank the hit and close the range.

Where it is now accomplishes that.

If you drop the cap too far (and 40 was borderline) and leave the dissipation, you kill the alphas and just make everybody go DPS. If you then drop the dissipation, nobody can alpha and nobody can DPS and all you get is a brawl meta because those are the most heat-efficient weapons and nobody can deal enough damage at-range to stop them from charging.

Frankly, I don't see any issue with current firepower levels on the net. If you stand still and eat the hit, yeah you're boned. You ought to be. But if you are adept at the various damage mitigation techniques (spreading, evasion, poke timing, rush timing, etc.), 'Mechs are plenty durable. This entire heat effort, to me, is a giant red herring. The only changes that are sorely needed are improvements to IS heat dissipation.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 28 September 2018 - 06:06 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tesunie, on 28 September 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

There is something wrong with the heat scale in this game somewhere, particularly with alpha, boating and apparently Clan DHS amounts. I currently have an Ebon Jaguar with seven ERMLs and an (LbX)AC10. It breaks GH (something else that does the job, but could use improvement), yet despite that I can alpha with very little problems due to the amount of DHS the mech has taken. Compared to IS mechs (yes, I know health quirks (which not all IS mechs have)), none of my IS mechs can pack that much weaponry at that tonnage (or even close to that tonnage) and run that cool.

The fact that the IS can't really match should tell you it isn't heat, it is because IS tech really sucks without quirks. Heat should be seen as a resource that controls the pace of the game and I don't really see that much wrong with the current pace.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 September 2018 - 07:27 PM.

[Tesunie]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 September 2018 - 07:25 PM, said:

The fact that the IS can't really match should tell you it isn't heat, it is because IS tech really sucks without quirks. Heat should be seen as a resource that controls the pace of the game and I don't really see that much wrong with the current pace.

Okay. If heat scale is so well off right now, then why do we have GH? And why is it people constantly work on creating builds that work around said GH? Also, why is it that GH seems less detrimental against Clan mechs, but more detrimental on IS mechs (from my experience), despite lower GH caps on their weapons?

As mentioned above, even GH has it's issues. People are always trying to work around the system to get that "little bit more". Without GH we get some really crazy damage values. Hence, heat scale could use some work. It's not perfect (and probably never will be). So "it's fine as it is" doesn't mean "it doesn't need any farther reviews" either.


On the note of Clan vs IS tech, could it be possible that maybe, because Clans can so readily take so much of it, the Clan tech could be brought down instead (in relation to heat sink abilities)? Why do we always have to go upwards to the higher performing equipment? (Not an actual suggestion at the moment, more of a point of thought.)