17 replies to this topic

[Daekar]

OK, I don't usually make suggestions because I believe that the Devs know better than we clamoring forumites 99% of the time. However, I just wanted to lay out an idea for consideration because it seems like a simple solution to a number of problems now, and more importantly, in the future as well.
You remember that in the beginning, we tripled the firing rate of most weapons to make them interesting and more believable? Well people were dying too fast. No big surprise there.
So we doubled armor.
Wait, we tripled damage and doubled armor? Hmm. We'll get back to that.
"Well, that's fine," we said, "people might die a little fast sometimes but it's OK."
We forgot that we were on the low end of the damage spectrum then. With sucky weapons.
Fast forward to now, the DHS forum explosion. Waaaah, we want 2.0 heatsinks!! "But," say the Devs, "if we give you 2.0 heatsinks you're doing to be vaporized as soon as you step out from behind a building." That's cool. I'm with you, it's important to keep Time To Kill (TTK) high in this game.
"But," say the forumites, "this will gimp my favorite build of" - insert PPC/Large laser Heavy/Assault build here - "or my stock Clan configuration of" - insert canon Clan mech configuration here.
They do have a point - we can't continue to rely on totally nerfed heat reduction values to keep play fair for early Inner Sphere configurations when the Clan configurations universally rely on fully-functional DHS to work.
So how do we solve this problem? Why we let them eat cake! That is, make the transition to 2.0 DHS and move from doubled to tripled armor, of course! As was logical to do in the beginning, so we should do now. As far as I can tell, this will do two things: Increase current TTK to "a-little-too-much" for some builds and to "just-right" for high damage builds enabled by 2.0 DHS. It will also increase TTK for Clan technology to "just-right" or "a-little-too-quick." I really feel this has the potential to be a good thing, and to make things easier for the devs to balance in the long run.
What say you?

EDIT: As Arisaema suggests, this would also entail a 50% increase in ammunition per ton for ammo based weapons in order that damage potential should scale appropriately with armor.

Edited by Daekar, 02 November 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[Arisaema]

Seems like a good solution. Armor was already doubled once in closed beta to get the games running longer. If they are going to put even more armor on, then they will also need to consider upping the amount of ammo per ton for ballistic and missile weapons.

[Daekar]

Excellent point. I'll add it to the OP. Thank you for pointing that out!

[SpL33n]

Sounds like a good plan! now we just need to get the devs to agree with us...

[tPagen]

I have a different idea. It doesn't necessarily affect DHS, but it will help with the weapon heat values versus their damage. This is the equation that I'm using:

Y = XR / 10

Y is MWO damage or heat for a specific weapon, X is TT damage or heat for the same weapon, and R is the Rate of Fire for that weapon. As an example, the modified stats for the most discused about weapon in the game: the Gauss Rifle

Damage
Y = (15)(4) / 10
Y = 60 / 10
Y = 6

Heat
Y = (1)(4) / 10
Y = 4 / 10
Y = 0.4

As you can see, with a ROF of 4, it should have a damage of 6 and should generate 0.4 heat. Now lets look at the PPC:

Damage
Y = (10)(3) / 10
Y = 30 / 10
Y = 3

Heat
Y = (10)(3) / 10
Y = 30 / 10
Y = 3

Damage: 3
Heat: 3

With this armor values can be brought back to their original values while making the length of battle similar to TT. This also makes Heat Sinks seem a bit more effective than they are now. Finally, it makes stock 'mechs actually viable again.

Edited by zenthon, 04 November 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[Arisaema]

That's interesting Zenthon. I hope someone from PGI will take a look at this.

[Daekar]

I have actually proposed exactly such a system before.  The reason they didn't do that is that supposedly everybody already knew the canon damage values and they didn't want to mess with that.  I can understand that logic even if I don't agree with it.  If your suggestion were on the table, it would get my vote, no question.  However, I think there is very little chance of seeing it implemented, whereas my DHS/armor suggesion would do something similar with less effort: it would restore the ratios of heat/damage/armor to closer to TT values. It would NOT address the poor performance of standard configurations like your suggestion, however.

Edited by Daekar, 02 November 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Pirofantasma]

Well, what's for sure is that making DHS useless is NOT the way to go. I've gone from "DHS? Niiiiice" to "Why the hell would I want 1.4 HS that take 3 spaces and therefore don't fit either in CT nor legs?"

They pretty much killed the technology there.

[Daekar]

While the above post was not at all constructive, it does bring to mind the question, "What would be a weakness of the proposal in the OP? What will become unbalanced, what will make it harder to implement?"

[Bogus]

Interesting, I think a lot of ballistics might need some looking-at to be more viable but slowing down TTK fixes a lot of problems.

That said, we need to keep in mind that not everyone has eleventy billion cbills and a premium wang farmwagon to afford millions in mech upgrades and the associated massive repair costs (even with no upgrades and no perks a victory is often only around 50k). I didn't play the tabletop games but my understanding is DHS/ES/XL/FF all "became the new standard" and that's a very dangerous thing to do under the current game mechanics. I would personally prefer to see SHS get buffed such that DHS is good, but SHS has its own advantages.

[Daekar]

I agree with what you're saying in principle, although I understand there will be a buff to payouts or a nerf to repair costs soon. Apparently when they fiddled with the prices of things it threw those values off.

Still, there is a fundamental problem: the systems aren't and never have been balanced. They were never intended to be balanced, and trying to force them to be isn't a great idea. They're better off simply updating the stock variants to be the later DHS versions (this would take care of some Trial Mech issues too) than to try to kludge together two (or three, really, with the Clans) systems that are in no way equivalent. It would play hell with the other balance in the game and cause bigger headaches later.

[Elirion Dawn]

Nice stuff in here...

i did some maths by myself and regarding the numbers available (rofand damage of Weapons in MWO) there are some weapons that just don't fit in BT as they are in here and it should be no real problem.. man it took me around 20 minutes and some skill in Excel to get a viable Weapon stat conversion table for TT to MWO which would make it more consistent.

Example AC/2:
This Gun is used mainly as a Anti Aircraft weapon in BT because it just does to few damage to mechs http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC/2

• in MWO it allows me to put on dual AC/2 and deal more damage over a given time than an AC 20 while also having more than twice the range (720m base range vs 270m base range)
  
• i also have less weight than the AC 20 (2 x AC/2 +4 tons of ammo weight the same as 1 x AC/20 +2 tons of ammo)
  
• the two AC/2 deal 2x4 DPS while the AC/20 deals 5 DPS

Only downsides are: i have to sustain aim and build up considerably more heat. but i also constantly shake the enemys cockpit so he has problems targeting me back unless he already has me locked with missiles or stuff.

when i should start getting stuff balanced, i would use the TT round times compared to the MWO Rate of Fire as a measure to do the following:

taking the aforementioned AC/2 and AC/20 this would give, assuming a TT Base round time of 10 seconds and a Rate of Fire of 0,5 seconds (and drastically reducing the shaker effect on this weapon) for the AC/2 and 5 seconds for the AC/20 (which should really shake you, a hit with an AC/20 could knock your mech down in TT as far as i remember)

multiply ammo by the given factor

• the AC/2 would then have 900 shots per ton (due to the high rof and low damage per shot)
  
• the AC/20 would then have 10 Shots per ton

calculate heat per second and per shot according to these factor

• the same AC/2 would have a heat buildup of 0.05 heat/shot -> 0.1 heat/second -> 1.0 heat / tt round
  
• while the AC/20 would build up 3.5 heat/shot -> 0.7 heat/sec -> 7 heat / tt round

calculate damage per shot / per second

• this AC/2 Flyswatter would then do 0.1 damage per single hit -> 0.2 damage/second -> 2 damage / tt round
  
• while the monstrous AC/20 would just plain do 10 damage per single hit -> 2 damage/second -> 20 damage/ tt round

now, before you complain:
through MWO already trippled/doubled armor/damage numbers, we set damage and armor to double TT rules and you have your AC 20 deal 20 damage per hit (still not allowing you a single AC /20 headshot on most targets, keeping the fights take some more time)

Heat handling could be done at the same rate as it is now, 0.1 heat/second per heatsink or 0.2 per DHS (which really should not be toned down cos most 3050+ mechs wont work well with this few heatsinks)

[Ialdabaoth]

Here's a different suggested compromise:

1. Make DHS dissipate 2x heat per heat sink, rather than 1.4x per heat sink
2. Have targeting and movement heat effects begin to kick in at 0 heat.
3. Reduce the shutdown/ammo explosion threshold by 33% to 40%.
4. Give all 'mechs a "heat buffer" equal to the number of heat sinks, regardless of type.

Put another way, make heat sinks (single or double) stretch the heat scale; double heat sinks increase the dissipation rate, but do NOT increase the amount that the heat scale stretches by.

Thus, a Battlemech with double heat sinks and lots of energy weapons will be able to chain-fire more often, but will still shut down if it alpha strikes. The same Battlemech with 1.5x as many single heat sinks will be able to alpha-strike with less risk, but will be able to fire fewer salvos before overheating than the Battlemech with double heat sinks.

Does that make sense?

[Lawler]

Unfortunately, this solution also exacerbates the problem we have now of light mechs being a little too hard to kill.

Netcode and hit registration issues aside, light mechs can take a serious beating while still laying out some rather formidable dps. Part of this is the hardpoint system and part of it is the hear system in general making small and medium lasers fundamentally the best weapons in the game. Yes, heavies and assaults will have quite a bit more muscle to chew through before they die, but they will die and it will most likely be at the hands of the light mech pilot that has been harassing them the whole match and hasn't been seriously injured by any return fire.

I think a far simpler solution would be to drop the heat cap and add in traditional heat modifiers to mech performance. As it stands now, it seems significantly higher than it should be. This allows mechs to stay at relatively high heat levels for significant periods of time which is definitely not in line with lore and basic gameplay. A pilot would have passed out or died within the confines of his cockpit long before return fire would have done that.

With a lower heat cap and fully functional double heat sinks, a mech would be much spikier, especially builds built around the alpha strike, but heat would drop off quicker. If we then add in the possibility of ammo explosions and the reduction of movement speed as a direct result of overtaxing the engine (read as heat buildup), then the prospect of laser boating and alpha strikes becomes more risky (read as tactical). Larger energy weapons with potentially slower cycle times become more relevant while the smaller energy weapons become filler in between since you'll have that time to vent the larger weapons heat. It would allow the devs to put longer (than current) cycle times on weapons in general to encourage a healthy mix of weapons while simultaneously allowing for traditional battletech weapon heat (somewhat). You end up with the player having to find the right mix of outgoing fire so as to maintain heat levels under potential trigger effects while keeping a sustained fusilade of fire. It looks good and, more importantly, feels like battletech.

Additionally, adding a "tunnel vision" effect to the game would give the impression of heat levels threatening to black out the pilot, further giving incentive not to simply alpha your way to victory. If you press on, the "tunnel vision" eventually goes black as your pilot "passes out" and then mech throttles down to a stop as he takes his little nap. Sort of like another shut down effect, only pilot related instead of engine related.

Since movement speed was also penalized in the heat scale at certain intervals, it also forces light mech pilots to be for more conservative even if they don't necessarily have to worry about heat. Since heat sinks will still dissipate only over time, firing 5 or 6 medium lasers would still put him upwards off 20 points on a traditional heat scale. This would have slowed the mech considerably as well as triggered ammo explosion rolls and pilot consciousness tests. Sure, the mech will dissipate this heat in only a matter of seconds, but that's 5 or 10 seconds that an adversary has a chance to hit him as a much slower speed and with less chance of him seeing it coming if the above "tunnel vision" effect is implemented.

Edited by Lawler, 03 November 2012 - 02:58 AM.

[tPagen]

Arisaema, on 02 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

That's interesting Zenthon. I hope someone from PGI will take a look at this.

Thanks, me too.

Daekar, on 02 November 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

I have actually proposed exactly such a system before. The reason they didn't do that is that supposedly everybody already knew the canon damage values and they didn't want to mess with that. I can understand that logic even if I don't agree with it. If your suggestion were on the table, it would get my vote, no question. However, I think there is very little chance of seeing it implemented, whereas my DHS/armor suggesion would do something similar with less effort: it would restore the ratios of heat/damage/armor to closer to TT values. It would NOT address the poor performance of standard configurations like your suggestion, however.

I see, but didn't the Devs say that canon and TT are supposed to just be a set of guidelines for balancing in MWO, not the end-all and be-all for it?

[MustrumRidcully]

Arisaema, on 02 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

That's interesting Zenthon. I hope someone from PGI will take a look at this.

I hope so, too. Many posters had this idea before him though, so it's possible they are aware of the idea and don't like it. I will not claim that I know why they don't like weapon balance, though.

Oh, and Zenthon - you should post your idea separately as well, in a different thread, so that it's more visible.

---

Oh, and the OP's idea is interesting as well. If double armour really doesn't prove sufficient anymore with Double Heat Sinks (which I am not convinced off yet), then going with triple armour could work. Adjusting ammo per ton would be necessary as well, of course. (Which isn't what PGI did the first time around either. Or at least enough to actually compensate the full effect of increased armour.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 November 2012 - 11:55 AM.

[Daekar]

Lawler, on 03 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

Unfortunately, this solution also exacerbates the problem we have now of light mechs being a little too hard to kill.

Netcode and hit registration issues aside, light mechs can take a serious beating while still laying out some rather formidable dps. Part of this is the hardpoint system and part of it is the hear system in general making small and medium lasers fundamentally the best weapons in the game. Yes, heavies and assaults will have quite a bit more muscle to chew through before they die, but they will die and it will most likely be at the hands of the light mech pilot that has been harassing them the whole match and hasn't been seriously injured by any return fire.

I considered this issue when i was composing the OP, and I concluded that the survivability of the light mechs would increase at the same rate as the rest of the mechs at worst, because it's being done percentage-wise. That means that an Atlas is going to receive far more from its 50% bump in CT armor than the Jenner, for instance. If this were actually put to the test, I would propose that the initial test be with equal armor boosts. If, with collisions accounted for, the lights were still too hard to kill, a scaled armor increase might be called for, with lights receiving slightly less of a boost than the other three classes.

Lawler, on 03 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I think a far simpler solution would be to drop the heat cap and add in traditional heat modifiers to mech performance. As it stands now, it seems significantly higher than it should be. This allows mechs to stay at relatively high heat levels for significant periods of time which is definitely not in line with lore and basic gameplay. A pilot would have passed out or died within the confines of his cockpit long before return fire would have done that.

With a lower heat cap and fully functional double heat sinks, a mech would be much spikier, especially builds built around the alpha strike, but heat would drop off quicker. If we then add in the possibility of ammo explosions and the reduction of movement speed as a direct result of overtaxing the engine (read as heat buildup), then the prospect of laser boating and alpha strikes becomes more risky (read as tactical). Larger energy weapons with potentially slower cycle times become more relevant while the smaller energy weapons become filler in between since you'll have that time to vent the larger weapons heat. It would allow the devs to put longer (than current) cycle times on weapons in general to encourage a healthy mix of weapons while simultaneously allowing for traditional battletech weapon heat (somewhat). You end up with the player having to find the right mix of outgoing fire so as to maintain heat levels under potential trigger effects while keeping a sustained fusilade of fire. It looks good and, more importantly, feels like battletech.

Additionally, adding a "tunnel vision" effect to the game would give the impression of heat levels threatening to black out the pilot, further giving incentive not to simply alpha your way to victory. If you press on, the "tunnel vision" eventually goes black as your pilot "passes out" and then mech throttles down to a stop as he takes his little nap. Sort of like another shut down effect, only pilot related instead of engine related.

Since movement speed was also penalized in the heat scale at certain intervals, it also forces light mech pilots to be for more conservative even if they don't necessarily have to worry about heat. Since heat sinks will still dissipate only over time, firing 5 or 6 medium lasers would still put him upwards off 20 points on a traditional heat scale. This would have slowed the mech considerably as well as triggered ammo explosion rolls and pilot consciousness tests. Sure, the mech will dissipate this heat in only a matter of seconds, but that's 5 or 10 seconds that an adversary has a chance to hit him as a much slower speed and with less chance of him seeing it coming if the above "tunnel vision" effect is implemented.

I've been hoping for the increased heat effects you described... they would be totally awesome. I would love it, especially the variety in loadouts (cure for boating!?). However, I'm not sure that they qualify for the term "simple." What you propose here is far, FAR more complex than what I'm suggesting in the OP, by orders of magnitude. They would be able to implement the solution described in the OP in a single patch cycle by changing a few numbers a couple of files rather than implementing entirely new systems.

Not knocking your thinking, though, they are great suggestions! I just think they're hard to do on any short timescale.

[tPagen]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 November 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

I hope so, too. Many posters had this idea before him though, so it's possible they are aware of the idea and don't like it. I will not claim that I know why they don't like weapon balance, though.

Oh, and Zenthon - you should post your idea separately as well, in a different thread, so that it's more visible.

Fixed. New thread here.

Edited by zenthon, 04 November 2012 - 10:01 PM.