137 replies to this topic

[Snazzy Dragon]

An idea with good intentions behind it, but oh my god it's terrible.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Maybe they are pushing crazy and unwanted change so PGI can justify unlocking clan locked heat sinks and engines.

Edited by Remover of Obstacles, 17 December 2018 - 08:56 AM.

[Racerxintegra2k]

SirSmokes, on 17 December 2018 - 03:15 AM, said:

Oh no the game is asking me to manage my heat what will I ever do....

How exactly do you "manage heat" with 5-6 variables completely out of your control? Managing heat was a skill a lot of good players developed through years of experience (riding that heat meter for max dps). Are you suggesting we start doing quantum string theory level mathematics to "manage our heat" now?

[Verilligo]

Racerxintegra2k, on 17 December 2018 - 07:39 AM, said:

How exactly do you "manage heat" with 5-6 variables completely out of your control? Managing heat was a skill a lot of good players developed through years of experience (riding that heat meter for max dps). Are you suggesting we start doing quantum string theory level mathematics to "manage our heat" now?

Not really. What this change does do is force you to redefine what good heat management is. Riding your heat scale so that you're always hot and as close to max DPS without shutdown is what good heat management was before. You were playing correctly. With this change, that behavior is bad heat management. You now were playing incorrectly, which is a statement that I'm sure would get me smacked upside the head by an English teacher. But what Moadebe experienced isn't an error, that's the intended outcome of this change. He made a mistake, the enemy exploited it with perfect timing, and it resulted in his insanely swift demise. The idea is that making a mistake like that, with a build that hot on that map, should be harshly punished. The alternative would be to run a cooler build with lower DPS, thus leading to higher TTK on average.

Now one can make the argument that this intended outcome is bad and that the only time where people would actually gimp their damage enough to avoid this level of punishment is in a magical world of unicorns and sparkles. But that's clearly what you're supposed to be doing, dropping damage and bumping up cooling or going with a less vulnerable engine. I can see valid reasons for keeping things the way they are, it plays very much into the harsh tabletop way of handling heat management. But I can just as quickly agree with Ash that it just isn't fun at all. Clever idea, but not really an improvement in terms of gameplay quality.

And then it doesn't actually fix the bug it was supposed to fix, so there's that.

Edited by Verilligo, 17 December 2018 - 08:16 AM.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Verilligo, on 17 December 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

Not really. What this change does do is force you to redefine what good heat management is. Riding your heat scale so that you're always hot and as close to max DPS without shutdown is what good heat management was before. You were playing correctly. With this change, that behavior is bad heat management. You now were playing incorrectly, which is a statement that I'm sure would get me smacked upside the head by an English teacher. But what Moadebe experienced isn't an error, that's the intended outcome of this change. He made a mistake, the enemy exploited it with perfect timing, and it resulted in his insanely swift demise. The idea is that making a mistake like that, with a build that hot on that map, should be harshly punished. The alternative would be to run a cooler build with lower DPS, thus leading to higher TTK on average.

Now one can make the argument that this intended outcome is bad and that the only time where people would actually gimp their damage enough to avoid this level of punishment is in a magical world of unicorns and sparkles. But that's clearly what you're supposed to be doing, dropping damage and bumping up cooling or going with a less vulnerable engine. I can see valid reasons for keeping things the way they are, it plays very much into the harsh tabletop way of handling heat management. But I can just as quickly agree with Ash that it just isn't fun at all. Clever idea, but not really an improvement in terms of gameplay quality.

And then it doesn't actually fix the bug it was supposed to fix, so there's that.

I understand what you are saying, really good explanation. Although i feel we are arguing semantics. IMO the argument we should be having is ... are you having more fun shooting your weapons or running around not shooting your weapons ? When you pick shooting weapons it will be simple to see this change is terrible for game play.

[Grus]

Racerxintegra2k, on 17 December 2018 - 07:39 AM, said:

Are you suggesting we start doing quantum string theory level mathematics to "manage our heat" now?

This and add in some basic thermodynamics and i think youre set.

IMO; this is staying with PGI's want to increase TTK by makeing the risk/reward for "riding the dragon(heat)" not as rewarding as it should be in a fight.

Follow me here: if youre in a brawl mech that runs hot (8srm6 phaket for example) and you normaly run it hot to max dps, and just so happen to lose a ST, you spike well over the 100% mark and boom goes the dynamite. If this happens enough times then obviously you need to change either the build to run cooler or change the mech. Thus lower damage, lower heat, inc TTK.

*puts tin foil hat down*

[East Indy]

See, the problem with these intense negative reactions is that they're coming from players who neither make nor accept excuses about skilled play.

Side torsos don't randomly disappear; they take damage between exchanges and reach a point at which they're at risk of destruction. Immediate destruction is the result of poor positioning or rear fire, and again, these players know better. So the practical response is to maintain the cited "90% full" threshold when undamaged; with an appropriately lower threshold when finally in danger of losing a torso, or a Coolshot at the ready, etc. But again: no risk to torso, no change in play.

This is about optimizers liking things as they are and not wanting to adapt, even though they're quite good at it. "I have your game figured out, don't change it" may be sincere but it's not persuasive.

[Tarl Cabot]

Remover of Obstacles, on 17 December 2018 - 05:03 AM, said:

Maybe they are pushing crazy and unwanted change so PGI can justify unlocking clan locked heat sinks and engines.

imho, it is a good change, simply not with the current 40%. If this change had been implemented before the change in dissipation rate/capacity, it would have been 10x worse since both engine and non-engine HS added their bulk to the heat capacity, whereas now it is primarily the just the baseline and engine HS, while the external HS add only 0.50 SHS or 0.25 DHS.

Again, 40% is 4 heatsinks *2 towards max capacity. 30+ (20-8) = 42, changing the capacity by 16%. If reverted back so the capacity is reduced by 20% instead of 40%, that is 2 HS. 30 + (20 - 4) = 46 which would change the capacity by 8% instead of 16%. External HS on the side lost would add their 0.25 DHS or 0.50 SHS on top of that.

[Grus]

Tarl Cabot, on 17 December 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

imho, it is a good change, simply not with the current 40%. If this change had been implemented before the change in dissipation rate/capacity, it would have been 10x worse since both engine and non-engine HS added their bulk to the heat capacity, whereas now it is primarily the just the baseline and engine HS, while the external HS add only 0.50 SHS or 0.25 DHS.

Again, 40% is 4 heatsinks *2 towards max capacity. 30+ (20-8) = 42, changing the capacity by 16%. If reverted back so the capacity is reduced by 20% instead of 40%, that is 2 HS. 30 + (20 - 4) = 46 which would change the capacity by 8% instead of 16%. External HS on the side lost would add their 0.25 DHS or 0.50 SHS on top of that.

https://goo.gl/images/ZRWes2

Wat?

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Grus, on 17 December 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

This and add in some basic thermodynamics and i think youre set.

IMO; this is staying with PGI's want to increase TTK by makeing the risk/reward for "riding the dragon(heat)" not as rewarding as it should be in a fight.

Follow me here: if youre in a brawl mech that runs hot (8srm6 phaket for example) and you normaly run it hot to max dps, and just so happen to lose a ST, you spike well over the 100% mark and boom goes the dynamite. If this happens enough times then obviously you need to change either the build to run cooler or change the mech. Thus lower damage, lower heat, inc TTK.

*puts tin foil hat down*

As much as I hate to agree with you (lol), I agree with you on PGI’s possible intent. It will also bring back IS XL on hot builds (why not slap an XL and a couple more Heatsinks in there...you are probably dead anyway if you lose a ST with a hot LFE build) and even Standards to some degree. So, they might have thought they could increase TTK and give reasons to run the unloved IS Xl and standards with this change. But idk...could just be the nerf dartboard at work as well. It’s a big change, surprised they didn’t have us test it first.

[Grus]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 17 December 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

As much as I hate to agree with you (lol), I agree with you on PGI’s possible intent. It will also bring back IS XL on hot builds (why not slap an XL and a couple more Heatsinks in there...you are probably dead anyway if you lose a ST with a hot LFE build) and even Standards to some degree. So, they might have thought they could increase TTK and give reasons to run the unloved IS Xl and standards with this change. But idk...could just be the nerf dartboard at work as well. It’s a big change, surprised they didn’t have us test it first.

Stop it Frenchman, youll start giving me some sort of street cred and i dont appreciate it lol

But youre hitting the nail on the head, as it were, on what im seeing. It is a kind of change that really hits the core (pun intended) of every mech. More so to the "meta" builds that run hot.

More indirectly nerfing the clan omni mechs hard due to not being able to change eng types (why WOULD you( based on the build i.e. 4 gauss kdk3)) as well as clan battlemech builds with the clan xl... but yeah, hard nerf to the Cxl IMO.


*i know the kdk is a battle mech just useing an extrem example of useing a STe vs XL*

[Tarl Cabot]

Grus, on 17 December 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:

https://goo.gl/images/ZRWes2

Wat?

Below is simply a mech equipped with an engine just with its 10 HS, no externals HS equipped with ST is lost. New base capacity 30 + 20 for engine HS = 50, whether tis SHS or DHS.

LFE 10%: 1 HS / 30+ (20-2) = 48 new capacity or a 4% loss
cXL 20%: 2 HS / 30+ (20-4) = 46 new capacity or a 8% loss (originally when cXL ST loss was added)
isXL 30%: 3 HS / 30+ (20-6) = 44 new capacity or a 12% loss
or
isXL 40%: 4 HS / 30+ (20-8) = 42 new capacity or a 16% loss. Current setup for cXL/LFE

Heat dissipation penalty equates to the number of engine heatsinks that are destroyed. See above.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 17 December 2018 - 10:02 AM.

[Grus]

*so lets go down the rabbit hole*

Previous to this change clan laz vomit was doing well. Maybe even better even after the damage reduction. So now comes this change. Clan laz vomit lives at high heat levels as it stands. Now with the "poke" tactic you tend to lose a ST before anything else. Now you run a higher risk of overheat due to ST loss. So you have a choise, either slow down your rate of fire to mitigate over heat or change locations to poke with the other side of the mech. But there again you still run the risk of losing that now vulnerable ST to a lucky shot and GG..

**even further down**

Now take the position of an IS pilot... now you KNOW 99.9% of the time a clan mech has a XL. And clan armor on ST's is weak and the structure hp is laughable... add to this they already run hot.. where are you gonna shoot? The ST, criple the mech, make it harder for that clan sob to fire its hot overpowered ( ) lazors.. easy kill.

*climbs out of hole*
Its scary down there...

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Grus, on 17 December 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

Stop it Frenchman, youll start giving me some sort of street cred and i dont appreciate it lol

But youre hitting the nail on the head, as it were, on what im seeing. It is a kind of change that really hits the core (pun intended) of every mech. More so to the "meta" builds that run hot.

More indirectly nerfing the clan omni mechs hard due to not being able to change eng types (why WOULD you( based on the build i.e. 4 gauss kdk3)) as well as clan battlemech builds with the clan xl... but yeah, hard nerf to the Cxl IMO.


*i know the kdk is a battle mech just useing an extrem example of useing a STe vs XL*

If it makes you feel any better, you will never have street cred in my eyes. Lol

But, that doesn’t make you wrong here. I pretty much agree with everything you have said in these last couple of posts. I have no idea if PGI had a master plan here, but this change has not insignificant effect on balance. Mechs like the dual Gauss Fafnir are relatively stronger today vs. Clan heavy large laser/ erml builds this Monday when compared to last Monday. Was that intended? Idk......But I doubt it.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 17 December 2018 - 10:26 AM.

[TinFoilHat]

Grus, on 17 December 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

*puts tin foil hat down*

Leave me out of it dammit!

[Kubernetes]

East Indy, on 17 December 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

See, the problem with these intense negative reactions is that they're coming from players who neither make nor accept excuses about skilled play.

Side torsos don't randomly disappear; they take damage between exchanges and reach a point at which they're at risk of destruction. Immediate destruction is the result of poor positioning or rear fire, and again, these players know better. So the practical response is to maintain the cited "90% full" threshold when undamaged; with an appropriately lower threshold when finally in danger of losing a torso, or a Coolshot at the ready, etc. But again: no risk to torso, no change in play.

This is about optimizers liking things as they are and not wanting to adapt, even though they're quite good at it. "I have your game figured out, don't change it" may be sincere but it's not persuasive.

Maybe we don't want to adapt to a crappy, completely unnecessary mechanic. Why do LFE and CXL only suffer from this restriction? STD or IS-XL can ride the heat curve, but LFE has to stay below 60% or risk instadeath? The tradeoff for LFE is survivability with a single ST loss, but at greatly reduced mobility/dissipation. Why this new mechanic? Was anyone asking for this?

All I see are spuds cheering it on because by their crippled logic they'll benefit if better players are hampered.

Edited by Kubernetes, 17 December 2018 - 10:24 AM.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Grus, on 17 December 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

This and add in some basic thermodynamics and i think youre set.

IMO; this is staying with PGI's want to increase TTK by makeing the risk/reward for "riding the dragon(heat)" not as rewarding as it should be in a fight.

Follow me here: if youre in a brawl mech that runs hot (8srm6 phaket for example) and you normaly run it hot to max dps, and just so happen to lose a ST, you spike well over the 100% mark and boom goes the dynamite. If this happens enough times then obviously you need to change either the build to run cooler or change the mech. Thus lower damage, lower heat, inc TTK.

*puts tin foil hat down*

Grus, i think you finally found an argument that may change my stance on something game related. However, and this is completely anecdotal the change is less fun for me. The less fun the game is the less i play unfortunately.

[Grus]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 17 December 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

If it makes you feel any better, you will never have street cred in my eyes. Lol

But, that doesn’t make you wrong here. I pretty much agree with everything you have said in these last couple of posts. I have no idea if PGI had a master plan here, but this change has not insignificant effect on balance. Mechs like the dual Gauss Fafnir are relatively stronger today vs. Clan heavy large laser/ erml builds this Monday when compared to last Monday. Was that intended? Idk......But I doubt it.

Well lets dive further shal we?

With these changes this opens or exadurates a weaknes in the clan mechs that use XL.. so 99% of them... thier ST. With clans having paper for armor/structure this makes it more advantageous for a IS pilot to go for a ST of they see said mech is a hot build. Now going a bit further,.. a lot of clan mechs are not very symmetrical. So if you can isolate a ST and take it out. Not only due you nuter that mech but have a chance (if its running hot) to out right kill it due to overheat. Now IS has the insta death xl st loss and im not gonna detract from that, but if a clan mech now has to chain fire its 3 med laz to avoid over heating... is it realy viable then? Otlr just J out and get a new mech (FP).

Racerxintegra2k, on 17 December 2018 - 10:24 AM, said:

Grus, i think you finally found an argument that may change my stance on something game related. However, and this is completely anecdotal the change is less fun for me. The less fun the game is the less i play unfortunately.

Dont tell Ash or Bandito... lol

[Grus]

As Kubernetes, amd more so Marquis De Lafayette, this alose applys to LFE's. Now for the most part, its a hit ore miss for a IS mech sometimes weyher or not its a LFE. But they will have (if not more) of the drawback that cxl will have. Just the benefit of cooler weapons.

So now its kinda a space availability in the mech to either take the xl or lfe for IS.

Dang...

[Verilligo]

Racerxintegra2k, on 17 December 2018 - 08:44 AM, said:

I understand what you are saying, really good explanation. Although i feel we are arguing semantics. IMO the argument we should be having is ... are you having more fun shooting your weapons or running around not shooting your weapons ? When you pick shooting weapons it will be simple to see this change is terrible for game play.

Not even arguing semantics, really, just isolating the actual argument. Which is as you've said: independent of whether the skilled or unskilled can adjust or not, does this change IMPROVE gameplay flow and make the game more fun? Given the change does nothing for encouraging other builds and is indescriminate about the builds it does penalize, I'd lean towards agreeing and saying that no, this doesn't make the game more fun. At best it just raises the barrier for entry into the being able to play the game properly, at worst it also decreases build variety because you only incur the penalty after taking critical damage, which naturally leads to even more snowballing in an already snowball-y game.