534 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Volthorne, on 05 November 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Bonus points for quoting Captain Jack Sparrow, minus points for using DPS in your equations. Unless you can calculate the average hit chance (NEVER assume 100% in an FPS), DPS doesn't count for ****. If my weapon deals 1000 damage per hit, and I swing/shoot 50 times per second, but my chance to hit is 1%, then my DPS is only 500. On a stationary target. If all we had to shoot at were Training Dummies, your math would be correct. Instead, we're shooting at other people, who have their own wills and go where they damn well please.

Therefore, ranged weapons without hitscan are impossible to calculate DPS for, and hitscan are nearly on-par for difficulty. The best you can do for balancing is use trial and error until the weapon *feels* balanced. I'll grant you that PPCs and Gauss are not there by a long shot, but if you hadn't noticed, weapons balance isn't exactly the most important thing in the world right now.

We can even account for accuracy. We just state accuracy with a Gauss is an effective multiplier of "x" and the accuracy of en ER PPC is an accuracy of "y". Then we can try to figure out how x and y would need to be if the two weapons are supposed to be balanced, and check if these values are likely.

But we can simplify things - ER PPCs and Gauss Rifles have the same characteristics for accuracy purposes, so the only thing that could make x different from y is if we assume different pilots. But... how do you ensure that only bad shots take the weapon that need a low accuracy to stay balanced?
You can't, of course. That's why you generally ignore pilot skill here. And so the only remaining thing is the specific behavior of the weapon itself, and that is, as established, identical.

[CCC Dober]

Indoorsman, on 05 November 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

...
Get my stance right cosmopolitan. I completely agree that heat is imbalanced. The problem I see with most of the posts in this thread is you guys admit some weapons are very useable right now, if not OP. And yet the solution is to triple heat dissipation across the board? Tweak heat dissipation carefully not haphazardly, as in a little at a time. Tweak the hot weapons heat down independent of heat dissipation changes and perhaps the Gauss or other cool outliers heat UP. Most of all, don't suggest using values/ratios from a board game... this isn't a board game.

PGI saw fit to radically alter the parameter that governed the general weapons balance. Namely time.
As a direct result, most weapons fire considerably faster across the board.

The only aspect that PGI left untouched for now (compare to TT), was heat dissipation over time, again, across the board.
I'm not asking you to come to the obvious conclusion by yourself, you see. Totally your call.

Now you were asking for a less than radical method why again?
To appease somebody important maybe?
To help justify a wrong decision?
Or maybe to keep your cookies?

I'm curious, honestly.

[Stabbitha]

Volthorne, on 05 November 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Therefore, ranged weapons without hitscan are impossible to calculate DPS for, and hitscan are nearly on-par for difficulty. The best you can do for balancing is use trial and error until the weapon *feels* balanced. I'll grant you that PPCs and Gauss are not there by a long shot, but if you hadn't noticed, weapons balance isn't exactly the most important thing in the world right now.

Now you're just being pedantic, and it shows...

Theoretical balance between weapons doesn't take in to account player skill, normal/elite heat disappation buffs or any of the other claptrap you'll spew to try and not be just flat out wrong. It just compares weapon for weapon as if you were on a target range with no other variables.

Indoorsman, on 05 November 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

I like how you quote me twice and in the first quote I say PPCs generate too much heat. And then after your second quote of me you say I am a yokel who claims heat is fine.

If you agree with Volthorne, which you have, then the appellation fits...

Quote

Get my stance right cosmopolitan.

"Familiar with and at ease in many different countries and cultures."

K, not much of an insult but whatever floats your boat...

Quote

I completely agree that heat is imbalanced. The problem I see with most of the posts in this thread is you guys admit some weapons are very useable right now, if not OP. And yet the solution is to triple heat dissipation across the board? Tweak heat dissipation carefully not haphazardly, as in a little at a time. Tweak the hot weapons heat down independent of heat dissipation changes and perhaps the Gauss or other cool outliers heat UP. Most of all, don't suggest using values/ratios from a board game... this isn't a board game.

A few points. If heat is demonstrably broken, why not fix it across the board? They tripled the fire rate, so triple the heat disappation. Wallah, back in to line. The current values of heat disappation are what they rolled with before triple fire rate, so obviously they weren't that bad.

Second, trial mechs are straight out of the tabletop "board" game. That's why most of them are irredeemably broken. Are you advocating tweaking all the weapons then tweaking all the designs (then trying to balance the whole shebang against a mechlab that let's you have some bizarre min/max frankenmechs)? Geez, add in clan mecha and try to balance those against IS (pro tip: You can't, clan mechs are inherently unbalanced). Sounds like a huge exercise in pointless when you can go back to making weapons balanced by reasserting their true weight as a form of balance. And these are the first mechs most of the playerbase will experience.

Third, the cool weapons don't need tweaking, they're working just as they are supposed to. Gauss are supposed to be very powerful but have very limited ammo (similarly with AC's, the heavier the AC, the less shots per tonne, wonder why that could be...). The tradeof is you can blaze through ammo at high speed without worrying as much about heat. PPC's are for the long game, stand at range and keep up measured fire chewing away at your opponents. Except currently, that doesn't really work, you get a few shots off and all of a sudden you're risking shut down with every shot.

If you honestly agree that heat is broken, why push for a solution that involves months of tweaking and playtesting rather than just lining the system back up as originally intended and at least seeing if it works? It's not like they can't back it out if all of a sudden trial mechs start b#tchlapping everyone...

[Indoorsman]

CCC Dober, on 06 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

PGI saw fit to radically alter the parameter that governed the general weapons balance. Namely time.
As a direct result, most weapons fire considerably faster across the board.

The only aspect that PGI left untouched for now (compare to TT), was heat dissipation over time, again, across the board.
I'm not asking you to come to the obvious conclusion by yourself, you see. Totally your call.

Now you were asking for a less than radical method why again?
To appease somebody important maybe?
To help justify a wrong decision?
Or maybe to keep your cookies?

I'm curious, honestly.

The obvious conclusion is PGI thought TT values/ratios would not be fun. People would die too quickly. They've already tried it, it's what they started with apparently. To suggest they go back and re-test TT values just for you is a waste of everybodys' time, you see.

Stabbitha, on 06 November 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

If you agree with Volthorne, which you have, then the appellation fits...

"Familiar with and at ease in many different countries and cultures."

K, not much of an insult but whatever floats your boat...

I guess by saying Volthorne wasn't 100% right and that PPC were too hot was me agreeing with him? Yokel... Cosmopolitan... I thought by calling me "An uneducated and unsophisticated person from the countryside." that you must be the exact opposite. Figured I'd give you the recognition you deserve. Didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you though...

Stabbitha, on 06 November 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

A few points. If heat is demonstrably broken, why not fix it across the board? They tripled the fire rate, so triple the heat disappation. Wallah, back in to line. The current values of heat disappation are what they rolled with before triple fire rate, so obviously they weren't that bad.

Second, trial mechs are straight out of the tabletop "board" game. That's why most of them are irredeemably broken. Are you advocating tweaking all the weapons then tweaking all the designs (then trying to balance the whole shebang against a mechlab that let's you have some bizarre min/max frankenmechs)? Geez, add in clan mecha and try to balance those against IS (pro tip: You can't, clan mechs are inherently unbalanced). Sounds like a huge exercise in pointless when you can go back to making weapons balanced by reasserting their true weight as a form of balance. And these are the first mechs most of the playerbase will experience.

Third, the cool weapons don't need tweaking, they're working just as they are supposed to. Gauss are supposed to be very powerful but have very limited ammo (similarly with AC's, the heavier the AC, the less shots per tonne, wonder why that could be...). The tradeof is you can blaze through ammo at high speed without worrying as much about heat. PPC's are for the long game, stand at range and keep up measured fire chewing away at your opponents. Except currently, that doesn't really work, you get a few shots off and all of a sudden you're risking shut down with every shot.

If you honestly agree that heat is broken, why push for a solution that involves months of tweaking and playtesting rather than just lining the system back up as originally intended and at least seeing if it works? It's not like they can't back it out if all of a sudden trial mechs start b#tchlapping everyone...

There is heat IMBALANCE, as in unequal - not proportional. Ballistics have had RoF changes lately, LRMs and SRMs have differing RoF from smallest to largest. They've adjusted heat generated values on several weapons. You can't just triple heat dissipation to achieve your holy TT ratios again.

Think about DHS and how they say they did internal testing and determined that having 2x DHS was too good so we only get 1.4x DHS. Do you really think, based on that example/behavior, that they will ever double, let alone triple, heat dissipation? They are going the route of adjusting each weapon individually, good. Obviously haven't gotten to PPCs yet.

Stock mechs may work fine once they're done balancing, they may have to change some of them though. I'd rather they balance the weapons vs themselves rather than balance the weapons around the stock loadouts.

Edited by Indoorsman, 06 November 2012 - 04:50 AM.

[Kmieciu]

If the Devs insist on increasing the ROF they should divide the damage and heat at the same time, and increase the ammo per ton.
That way they could keep the TT heat dissipation rates and TT armor.

But in reality they`ll probably just lower heat on PPC and ERPPC some more.

Edited by Kmieciu, 06 November 2012 - 04:54 AM.

[Asatruer]

Kmieciu, on 06 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

If the Devs insist on increasing the ROF they should divide the damage and heat at the same time, and increase the ammo per ton.
That way they could keep the TT heat dissipation rates and TT armor.

I do think that that approach would have been more ideal than the current one, but some of the boost to armor comes not only from the increased RoF of weapons, but from the fact that we are not using the results of 2d6 compared to a table to determine where on a mech we hit. LRMs and SRMs doing more damage per missile than TT because they are scatter weapons seems to demonstrate this, though the LB 10X is an odd exception.

[MCXL]

You wanna know more about the math of heat? Click the link in my sig.

[MustrumRidcully]

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

I do think that that approach would have been more ideal than the current one, but some of the boost to armor comes not only from the increased RoF of weapons, but from the fact that we are not using the results of 2d6 compared to a table to determine where on a mech we hit. LRMs and SRMs doing more damage per missile than TT because they are scatter weapons seems to demonstrate this, though the LB 10X is an odd exception.

That is true, but you have to remember:

Currently, an AC20 can deal 20 damage every 4 seconds against doubled armour.
With the approach, an AC20 can deal 8 damage every 4 seconds against doubled armour.

Net effect is pretty much the same as now. Only difference may bet hat the current approach has the AC20 overheat faster. But fast enough that it really matters for someone that can reliably hit center torso or the head slot? I don't really think so.

And if he can, especially once we get Double Heat Sinks or Clan Power Creep Tech - then we can simply decide that we still need doubled armour. Or reduce all damage across the bird by another 30 % or so. Whatever works. The fundamental problem remains that the Gauss (or the AC10, to use a weaker weapon than the standard boogey man) can fire at their full ROF with only marginal heat problems, while a PPC cannot - for no balance reason what so ever.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 November 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Dark Mortuus]

Honestly they really need to adjust the heat dispersion time frame. either that or reduce the heat generated by some of these weapons. Ive tried to run my 3 LL (not ERLL) cat-a-**** build that i pop sniped with in previous MW's and needless to say the damage is subpar and i overheat like the dickens. I have as many heatsinks as i can put on there and a slow xl 200 in it. Crazy. Wonder y people cant resist the dual guass cats.

[Abrahms]

These threads are hugely popular, yet the developers say nothing regarding this issue. Even when I hopped into a AMA on Reddit, first thing, I asked this and they ignored it. It was towards the top, with + votes, and it was ignored. I however got a response to some pointless dialogue on a deeply hidden post... they read everything (or most). They certainly read mine, and ignored it.

Is it a desire (or forcing) people to buy custom mechs? Is it incompetence? I dont know. Despite being a longtime mechwarrior fan, league player, and playing over 1k matches in early BETA, now that its OPEN, I honestly hardly play. I log in maybe an hour a week to see what cheese comp the premades are steamrolling trial mech pubs with.

How can a company take a player that basically grew up on mechwarrior and the BT franchise, and totally turn them away from an artistically beautiful game? By making horrible gameplay and balance decisions... Seriously, fix heat. Its not that hard. Its a mechlab mechanic with potential gameplay implications based on your choices. It was never intended to be a tool that forced you into using 10% of the available weapons and buying your way out of useless ovens.. err I mean trial mechs.

[Volthorne]

Stabbitha, on 06 November 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

Now you're just being pedantic, and it shows...

Theoretical balance between weapons doesn't take in to account player skill, normal/elite heat disappation buffs or any of the other claptrap you'll spew to try and not be just flat out wrong. It just compares weapon for weapon as if you were on a target range with no other variables.

Us "pedantic" people are the ones who actually recognize what good ideas are. Ideas like...

Stabbitha, on 06 November 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

A few points. If heat is demonstrably broken, why not fix it across the board? They tripled the fire rate, so triple the heat disappation. Wallah, back in to line. The current values of heat disappation are what they rolled with before triple fire rate, so obviously they weren't that bad.

Well, NOT that. Triple heat dissipation? Right, let me go get my stock HBK-4P and Alpha strike all day long. HunchWarrior Online, anyone? How you can even suggest *trippling* heat dissipation with a straight face is beyond me, much less think it's a good idea.

[Jennest]

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

The obvious conclusion is PGI thought TT values/ratios would not be fun. People would die too quickly.

I want everyone to stop and think about this assertion. Think about it hard. The claim is that in order to decrease the lethality of combat, PGI had no choice but to increase the rate of fire of every weapon by 2.5 to 5 times without adjusting damage. This is what Indoorsman is actually saying. This isn't a fun strawman I built to amuse myself. This is the actual thought process PGI defenders have. They heard something vaguely exculpatory once, so it must be true. No, no, don't bother examining it. Even if it's patently ridiculous, it has to be true. The developers of Days of Thunder would never make a mistake.

[Volthorne]

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I want everyone to stop and think about this assertion. Think about it hard. The claim is that in order to decrease the lethality of combat, PGI had no choice but to increase the rate of fire of every weapon by 2.5 to 5 times without adjusting damage. This is what Indoorsman is actually saying. This isn't a fun strawman I built to amuse myself. This is the actual thought process PGI defenders have. They heard something vaguely exculpatory once, so it must be true. No, no, don't bother examining it. Even if it's patently ridiculous, it has to be true. The developers of Days of Thunder would never make a mistake.

Hold on. Twisting words much?

PGI 1: "Let's have a game where you can only fire every 10 seconds"
PGI 2: "...This is too slow, we need to at least triple the fire rate for something that's got a decent pace"
PGI 1: "Good idea, let's try now"
PGI 2: "Everything is dying way too fast"
PGI 1: "So if 10s fire rate is too slow, and 3s fire rate is a nice pace - but too brutal - then let's double armor to compensate for increased fire rate and player-based accuracy"
PGI 2: "That makes sense, but we still have the issue of heat..."
PGI 1: "Leave it at base TT, otherwise people will start boating ERLLs, PPCs and other crap like that, and you know how MW:4 went..."

[Indoorsman]

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I want everyone to stop and think about this assertion. Think about it hard. The claim is that in order to decrease the lethality of combat, PGI had no choice but to increase the rate of fire of every weapon by 2.5 to 5 times without adjusting damage. This is what Indoorsman is actually saying. This isn't a fun strawman I built to amuse myself. This is the actual thought process PGI defenders have. They heard something vaguely exculpatory once, so it must be true. No, no, don't bother examining it. Even if it's patently ridiculous, it has to be true. The developers of Days of Thunder would never make a mistake.

I want YOU to stop and think about the REAL reason why RoF was increased. Wiki says TT/BT is from the 80s. This is 2012. Attention span of the average internet user is plummeting. Do you really expect people(gamers specifically) to even show remote interest in a game where you can't take actions more often than once every 10 seconds? People have changed, the medium of the game has changed, the way the game is played has changed. Yet you and the other TT defenders are being inflexible to change. The way to decrease lethality with and increased RoF is to have a heat penalty and increased armor. If you remove the heat penalty as you are suggesting, and don't change RoF then what can be done to increase survival? Triple, quadruple armor? Decrease damage dealt? In other words make each individual action mean less while allowing more total actions. That is what you and other TT defenders are saying.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

I want YOU to stop and think about the REAL reason why RoF was increased. Wiki says TT/BT is from the 80s. This is 2012. Attention span of the average internet user is plummeting. Do you really expect people(gamers specifically) to even show remote interest in a game where you can't take actions more often than once every 10 seconds? People have changed, the medium of the game has changed, the way the game is played has changed. Yet you and the other TT defenders are being inflexible to change. The way to decrease lethality with and increased RoF is to have a heat penalty and increased armor. If you remove the heat penalty as you are suggesting, and don't change RoF then what can be done to increase survival? Triple, quadruple armor? Decrease damage dealt? In other words make each individual action mean less while allowing more total actions. That is what you and other TT defenders are saying.

What he'S saying is -you can increase rate of fire just fine. Just adjust damage and heat per shot accordingly.

Want to fire four times as often - each shot deals 1/4 the damage, 1/4 the heat, and requires 1/4 the ammo. Is this also a concept too difficult to grasp for 2012 gamers?

Volthorne, on 06 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Hold on. Twisting words much?

PGI 1: "Let's have a game where you can only fire every 10 seconds"
PGI 2: "...This is too slow, we need to at least triple the fire rate for something that's got a decent pace"
PGI 1: "Good idea, let's try now"
PGI 2: "Everything is dying way too fast"
PGI 1: "So if 10s fire rate is too slow, and 3s fire rate is a nice pace - but too brutal - then let's double armor to compensate for increased fire rate and player-based accuracy"
PGI 2: "That makes sense, but we still have the issue of heat..."
PGI 1: "Leave it at base TT, otherwise people will start boating ERLLs, PPCs and other crap like that, and you know how MW:4 went..."

PGI Beta Testers: "Ah, I see why yo uwant to do that. But did you notice that this will just mean that different weapons need to be boated, like small lasers, or people cramming ballistics and missiles wherever they can? Also, not only are some stock mechs already boat, but actually, even the non-boaty ones will suffer from this if they use their original loadouts. This may make running them a lot less effective and fun then it could be!"

If wishes where horses reaction:
PGI 1: "Oh, you're right: We should look into this!

Actual Reaction:
PGI: Ah, fine, we're almost done! Game is close to balanced!

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 November 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[Asatruer]

Volthorne, on 06 November 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Triple heat dissipation? Right, let me go get my stock HBK-4P and Alpha strike all day long. HunchWarrior Online, anyone? How you can even suggest *trippling* heat dissipation with a straight face is beyond me, much less think it's a good idea.

The HBK-4P was not a problem in TT compared to the HBK-4G. An alpha from the -4G dealt 30 points of damage for a neat rise of 1 if standing still. An alpha from the -4P does 40 damage for a net neat rise of 1 point if standing still. Did allowing the -4P in BattleTech alpha strike all day long make it HBK-4PTech? No, because heat was not the point of balance that made boating lots of weapons disadvantageous over one big weapon, it was the RNG hit location tables. Heat "neutrality" is not the cause of the problem, and should not be the method used to fix the root cause of the problem. Using heat to balance aiming is a bad solution, it drives people to low heat and high accuracy weapons (such as the gauss and small lasers).

Volthorne, on 06 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

PGI 1: "Leave it at base TT, otherwise people will start boating ERLLs, PPCs and other crap like that, and you know how MW:4 went..."

I am curious, which mechs have the Hardpoint, tonnage, and critical slots to pull that off?
Could you build me that mech so I can see it?


If boating lots of small or large weapons is the problem, remove the ability to boat lots of weapons rather than nerf heat that punishes high heat weapons more than it does low heat weapons.

[Asatruer]

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

In other words make each individual action mean less while allowing more total actions. That is what you and other TT defenders are saying.

Each individual action is doing less in the current system in MWO here this very day. Since armor was doubled in MWO, even though weapons have a listed damage that looks the same, 10 damage AC/10, the unit conversion is wrong. It would be like saying that 1 pound is the same thing as 1 kilogram because they are both 1. MWO damage scale is half that of TT damage scale due to the doubling of armor. This means that the AC/10 here is actually doing 5 points of BattleTech damage. So I will say it again, we are already in a place where each individual action means less while allowing more total actions...

Wait, sorry... I got that wrong, I forgot about heat balancing it. Heat is limiting the number of actions we are taking, so we are actually doing less per individual action, and not getting more actions.

[Jennest]

Volthorne, on 06 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Hold on. Twisting words much?

Nope.

Quote

PGI 1: "Let's have a game where you can only fire every 10 seconds"
PGI 2: "...This is too slow, we need to at least triple the fire rate for something that's got a decent pace"

That isn't what Indoorsman said. This is:

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

The obvious conclusion is PGI thought TT values/ratios would not be fun. People would die too quickly.

He says specifically TT values/ratios result in people dying too quickly. In your sample conversation between morons, the decision to increase rate of fire without adjusting heat and damage, deviating from TT ratios, happens before lethality is considered.

You don't even know what you're defending. Indoorsman right there claims it was necessary to deviate from TT so people don't die so fast. How does this game deviate from Battletech? The biggest ways are increased rate of fire, doubled armor, and perfect accuracy. In what universe could make people fire 2.5 to 5 times faster with the same damage with higher accuracy against armor that's only doubled result in lower lethality?

You, on the other hand, are saying the rate of fire change came first for reasons that have nothing to do with lethality. That's a completely different argument. I'm not twisting words. I'm simply not putting your claim in Indoorsman's mouth as you seem to want.

Indoorsman said:

Do you really expect people(gamers specifically) to even show remote interest in a game where you can't take actions more often than once every 10 seconds?

First of all, there's absolutely no need to do that. You can preserve TT ratios with elementary division. Tripling rate of fire while keeping the same damage and heat per shot isn't the only or even normal method. It's frankly insane.

Second of all, yes. World of Tanks is far more popular than this game could ever hope to be, and most high tier tanks fire slower than once every 10 seconds. That's with only a single weapon per tank. If we think about all the games in which players have multiple abilities, can we find any where any ability has a longer cooldown than 10 seconds? Does World of Warcraft ring any bells? FTL? League of Legends? Halo Reach? Guild Wars?

People in the Mechwarrior Online forums keep talking about how nobody has the patience to wait more than 2 seconds to do anything and no one can stand to have shots miss sometimes. These statements seem to apply exclusively to people on the Mechwarrior Online forums.

[Indoorsman]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 November 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Want to fire four times as often - each shot deals 1/4 the damage, 1/4 the heat, and requires 1/4 the ammo. Is this also a concept too difficult to grasp for 2012 gamers?

You said what I said you'd say. Make each individual action mean less by removing the heat penalty and decreasing damage. I grasped it before you brought it up again for the nth time.

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Each individual action is doing less in the current system in MWO here this very day.
-snip-
we are already in a place where each individual action means less while allowing more total actions...
-snip-
we are actually doing less per individual action, and not getting more actions.

Well you say 3 times that each individual action is doing less in MWO, due to double armor. Compared to MWO before doubling armor that is true. Compared to your TT though that's false, ~triple RoF + x2 armor = ~3/2 more result per individual action. Since you knew that RoF was increased I am surprised you tried to claim this.
You contradict yourself a bit on total actions, but that's not black and white anyways. More total actions are allowed over a short period of time. Over a long period of sustained weapons fire, the heat penalty begins to limit the total # of actions.

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

You don't even know what you're defending. Indoorsman right there claims it was necessary to deviate from TT so people don't die so fast. How does this game deviate from Battletech? The biggest ways are increased rate of fire, doubled armor, and perfect accuracy. In what universe could make people fire 2.5 to 5 times faster with the same damage with higher accuracy against armor that's only doubled result in lower lethality?

Pretty sure you've read the rest of this thread and the previous 10 incarnations of it. So you should know then how heat limits damage over long periods of time. Short term survivability is less, over time less damage gets dealt though so your survivability goes back up some. Tell me how tripling heat dissipation would affect lethality?

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

First of all, there's absolutely no need to do that. You can preserve TT ratios with elementary division. Tripling rate of fire while keeping the same damage and heat per shot isn't the only or even normal method. It's frankly insane.

Second of all, yes. World of Tanks is far more popular than this game could ever hope to be, and most high tier tanks fire slower than once every 10 seconds. That's with only a single weapon per tank. If we think about all the games in which players have multiple abilities, can we find any where any ability has a longer cooldown than 10 seconds? Does World of Warcraft ring any bells? FTL? League of Legends? Halo Reach? Guild Wars?

People in the Mechwarrior Online forums keep talking about how nobody has the patience to wait more than 2 seconds to do anything and no one can stand to have shots miss sometimes. These statements seem to apply exclusively to people on the Mechwarrior Online forums.

First, they haven't kept the same damage and/or heat per shot, it's changed on almost all weapons in one way or another. MWO isn't a board game, that's another reason not to refer to TT values/RATIOS for balance issues. Why apply elementary division to a complex problem anyways.

Second, I looked @ the WoT Tankopedia because I don't play that game. But after looking at TWO tanks I say weapons with RoF over 20 rounds per minute, most were more than 10 rounds per minute. I saw 1 weapon with ~6 rounds per minute which was the slowest firing that I saw and that is ~ your example of firing once every 10 seconds. Most weapons in WoT don't fire that slow it looks like to me. As for your other examples, are you kidding? Any example where ANY ability has a cooldown > 10 seconds? MOST abilities in those games are much shorter cooldowns. If this game had a 10 second RoF that would mean EVERY ability had a 10 second cooldown. I honestly can't see what you were trying to show there.

As for attention spans, it's not just this forum... it's everybody. See for yourself, read up on it.

[Asatruer]

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Well you say 3 times that each individual action is doing less in MWO, due to double armor. Compared to MWO before doubling armor that is true. Compared to your TT though that's false, ~triple RoF + x2 armor = ~3/2 more result per individual action. Since you knew that RoF was increased I am surprised you tried to claim this.

Per action means just that. You cannot say that per action a weapon does ~3/2 damage because that is three actions. You started talking per action, I continued talking per action, and then you claim I am wrong because I was talking per action rather than per three actions? If I was feeling less charitable I would apply Hanlon's Razor here, but I am guessing you are just overworked and feeling overly defensive so are not paying as much attention to what you are arguing as you should be.