534 replies to this topic

[Jennest]

Indoorsman, on 07 November 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Prove more people play tanks w/slower RoF than 10s in WoT than don't, not just that MOST of the best tanks are slow RoF.

Why should I prove that? Here's my case: People can and will play games even if they can only shoot slower than once every 10 seconds. Here's my evidence: People are at this very moment playing a game and only shooting slower than once every 10 seconds. There. I win. You can put the goalposts down now. They're only hurting your back.

Volthorne said:

But PPCs will be hitting far outside the range of MLas, meaning you're taking a hard-to-hit target and making it harder by adding distance.

Yes. The advantage of going from single heat sinks to double heat sinks for that build is . . . some range. I'm shaking in my boots! You know, a lot of mechs used double heat sinks to extend their range. It's really not a big deal. That's what double heat sinks are supposed to do.

Quote

We don't have Heavy PPCs yet. Argument invalid.

Your super scary Catapult has a 40 damage alpha. My canon Catapult has a 40 damage alpha. How does our lack of Heavy PPCs make your Catapult scarier? You were making some terrifying predictions of what awaited us with people stacking ridiculous numbers of PPCs. 4 PPCs aren't terrifying. They're well within canon parameters.

If this Mechwarrior game is designed so that canon mechs are spooktacular, maybe there's something wrong with the design of this Mechwarrior game. Of course, there could be something wrong with Battletech canon mechs. I'm open to the possibility. However, you actually have to prove that. You can't just hint at it and expect us to wet our pants at the idea of a Jenner doing 20 damage alphas as if that's some kind of violation of all that's good in the world. Of course, if we scaled damage according to rate of fire, those alphas wouldn't even be 20 damage. Man, it's like Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster had a baby.

[Hoshi Toranaga]

It is already balanced by the amount of DHS you can put in the mechs. DHS with the 1.4 modifier are not really a huge improvement, they free up tonnage for 3 crits and you can get more heat dissipation for the engine internal HS.

In TT I could fire a 4 LL CAT-K2 continously. Here I get off 2 Alphas if not in Frozen and the 3rd will kill me.

In TT with an 8Q Awesome you could fire (with SHS) 3 PPC / 2 PPC / 3PPC ... quite easily, here I will be dead on the third cycle. The 9M (with DHS) will overheat all the time with ERPPCs.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for "heat controlling" the PPCs and Pulse Lasers, but the system we have now, makes anything but the medium pulse unusable, period.

[Indoorsman]

Jennest, on 07 November 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Why should I prove that? Here's my case: People can and will play games even if they can only shoot slower than once every 10 seconds. Here's my evidence: People are at this very moment playing a game and only shooting slower than once every 10 seconds. There. I win. You can put the goalposts down now. They're only hurting your back.

People are at this very moment playing a game and only shooting slower than once every 10 seconds. Are they the majority or the minority, even amongst WoT players? How many more people are playing a game besides WoT, where you can fire more often than 10 seconds? You think MWO would be successful if it had a 10 second RoF? This is just ONE of your examples, the other 5/6 are bad examples obviously not even worth your own time defending.

Edited by Indoorsman, 07 November 2012 - 02:48 AM.

[CCC Dober]

Please indoor, drop the act.
You are either a paid or unpaid PGI drone that either tries to keep this thread alive (for which I thank you)
OR
wants to convince a good number of reasonable people to agree on a very unreasonable course of action.
And to top it off, the same people managed to see and continue to see through this without your interference, try as you might.

Be a smart spin doctor and try to reach more 'friendly' waters. The ship that brought you here is so busted by Logic MK II torpedoes, it's a wonder the reef it currently sits on even tolerates that hunk of junk

Edited by CCC Dober, 08 November 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[Indoorsman]

TT wouldn't be balanced w/o BV, accuracy/aiming reduces heat required to kill a mech.

[Indoorsman]

CCC Dober, on 08 November 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Please indoor, drop the act.
You are either a paid or unpaid PGI drone that either tries to keep this thread alive (for which I thank you)
OR
wants to convince a good number of reasonable people to agree on a very unreasonable course of action.
And to top it off, the same people managed to see and continue to see through this without your interference, try as you might.

Be a smart spin doctor and try to reach more 'friendly' waters. The ship that brought you here is so busted by Logic MK II torpedoes, it's a wonder the reef it currently sits on even tolerates that hunk of junk

BTW, you didn't refute anything I said aside from name calling.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 08 November 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

TT wouldn't be balanced w/o BV, accuracy/aiming reduces heat required to kill a mech.

May I point out, perhaps, that my analysis in the thread linked in my signature does not actually assume any Table Top Game notions, but only considers.

- How much damage can you deal within x seconds?
- How costly will this be in terms of ammunition, heat sinks and weapons?

It doesn't assume to-hit rolls nor randomly generated hit locations.

If you can manage to hit 5 shots in a row with a PPC in someones Center Torso, youc an manage to do so with 5 shots with the Gauss Rifle. If you miss 20 % of the time with the PPC, you' probably miss 20 % of the time with the Gauss.


Forget the Table Top. Look at the stats. Analyze the performance of the weapons as they are in the game.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 November 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[Asatruer]

CCC Dober, on 08 November 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Please indoor, drop the act.
You are either a paid or unpaid PGI drone that either tries to keep this thread alive (for which I thank you)
OR
wants to convince a good number of reasonable people to agree on a very unreasonable course of action.
And to top it off, the same people managed to see and continue to see through this without your interference, try as you might.

Be a smart spin doctor and try to reach more 'friendly' waters. The ship that brought you here is so busted by Logic MK II torpedoes, it's a wonder the reef it currently sits on even tolerates that hunk of junk

Indoorsman has clearly stated that he wants to see the same thing that most of the rest of us want to see. That the weapons in MWO are balance in a hierarchical fashion similar to TT, but he feels the solution to that problem is different than some of the other people that share the same goal in mind. Calling someone who wants the same end product, balance, as you a "shill" or a "troll" is pretty bad form.

Indoorsman, on 04 November 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

I've read all kindsa threads like this. Started a few as well. I comprehend and agree that weapons are imbalanced. TT values or ratios are not the solution and TT shouldn't be referenced HEAVILY in balance issue threads.

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

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.

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

The way this game works, is played and how it's played are absolutely different than a board game. The only similarity this game should have with TT balance is the hierarchy. Weapon A < B < C. Not weapon A = 5 damage 2 heat 10s reload 300 range... or any ratio/fraction of TT values.

Edited by Asatruer, 08 November 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[Indoorsman]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Forget the Table Top. Look at the stats. Analyze the performance of the weapons as they are in the game.

I agree, that's how it should be. That's not how it is w/most of the people posting in these threads. How many posts do you see people saying to mirror TT balance?

[Keifomofutu]

Indoorsman, on 08 November 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

I agree, that's how it should be. That's not how it is w/most of the people posting in these threads. How many posts do you see people saying to mirror TT balance?

I think you misunderstand them. They don't want TT balance for the sake of TT. They point to TT because it was much more balanced in regard to weight and heat than MWO is.

Its harder to state where MWO is in regards to balance when you have nothing to compare it to.

[PlasmonDawn]

While I've almost been a proponent that the heat system in this game is broken, I just want to point out that PPCs and energy weapons are not completely useless anymore with the current double (1.4x) heatsinks. It is possible to make a reasonably heat efficient mech that boasts PPC's, which do almost the same DPS as Gauss. Even if the mech doesn't have the efficiency to do so, if the PPC is fired only as often as a Gauss (once every 4-5seconds), it still makes a comparable damage output ratio to TT.

However, it takes much more heatsinks (and much more double heatsinks) to efficiently run energy weapons in this game as it does in TT. I think the heat system should have been reworked from the ground up ages ago, but at the very least still needs some adjustments.

[Indoorsman]

Keifomofutu, on 08 November 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Its harder to state where MWO is in regards to balance when you have nothing to compare it to.

Let's say this was a Starcraft 2 beta, and you were saying we should compare it to the original Starcraft for balance. That would make perfect sense. But saying to compare MWO balance to TT balance doesn't make sense.

[CCC Dober]

Asatruer, on 08 November 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Indoorsman has clearly stated that he wants to see the same thing that most of the rest of us want to see. That the weapons in MWO are balance in a hierarchical fashion similar to TT, but he feels the solution to that problem is different than some of the other people that share the same goal in mind. Calling someone who wants the same end product, balance, as you a "shill" or a "troll" is pretty bad form.

Apologies, I wasn't aware of calling him anything of the like. Maybe you can point out where I did, because I can't remember having said, written or thought anything like that. No kidding. My actual opinion of his 'mental capacities' is less flattering if you really need to know.

His position, at least from my perspective, is that of a PGI apologist and quite frankly, I don't see a good reason to do so with the irrefutable and continued failure of their core rule tweaks. Namely tripled fire rate and standard heat dissipation.
That it took us!, the community to realize this using crumbs of data without access to the bigger picture and continued denial from above ... let's just say we haven't even discovered the base of the tip of the iceberg.

Sum up all the reports of Closed Beta and the neverending list of problems and the fact that they shut down the Closed Beta Forums for good ... are you in doubt that we as testers did bad or rather too well?
Let's just assume for a second that we did too good, what does that mean in the bigger picture?
That we understand PGI's game better than they ever wanted us to? Maybe? Possibly?

Who knows. I'd bet that a dedicated group of testers can analyze this whole game indepth over a weekend with all information available to them and tell PGI exactly what is wrong with their game. But ofc, PGI would never want to hear about it. They can't face the consequences or we would have seen some dramatic improvements in the heat sector.

We as a community have been very outspoken and convincing in this particular matter, regardless of the more overt and hidden attempts at silencing us or questioning our abilities.

The community knows this game better than its devs ever want to admit and I don't see them working with us as they rather should.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Anyone who spent 2 seconds in the BETA knew that the heat system and high heat weapons are FUBAR. Range is meaningless for direct fire as the maps dont support it, and you cann't see a mek far enough away, exception LRMS. I've not played since the open beta, im deployed and my internet is so bad my ping is 800+. Was hoping this would get worked out before I get home in DEC, seems like that is looking pretty slim.

[Asatruer]

CCC Dober, on 08 November 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Apologies, I wasn't aware of calling him anything of the like. Maybe you can point out where I did, because I can't remember having said, written or thought anything like that. No kidding. My actual opinion of his 'mental capacities' is less flattering if you really need to know.

His position, at least from my perspective, is that of a PGI apologist and quite frankly, I don't see a good reason to do so with the irrefutable and continued failure of their core rule tweaks. Namely tripled fire rate and standard heat dissipation.
That it took us!, the community to realize this using crumbs of data without access to the bigger picture and continued denial from above ... let's just say we haven't even discovered the base of the tip of the iceberg.

Did you take the time to read the bits that I quoted, both from you, and from him?
Please read them again, and tell us if they make Indoorsman look like a PGI apologist.

As for you calling him a "shill", you essentially just did it again by calling him a PGI apologist, but I was referring to your claim that he is a "paid or unpaid PGI drone"

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and being so overly defensive that you think anyone who disagrees with you agrees with the PGI design decisions that we do not like. If you want to continue to debate the finer points of reaching weapon and heat balance, please go right on ahead but we all should try and be civil about it.

Edited by Asatruer, 08 November 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[CCC Dober]

@Asa

I'm saying it how it is, not how you like to hear it. And if you can't stomach the fact that there are indeed drones out there and apologists, as has been evidenced in this very thread, then you are welcome to keep your eyes wide shut and continue to wonder why things go downhill. Keep tolerating stupid and outright malicious people and see where that goes. Been there, done that, learned the lessons.

If the gent in question here doesn't start to make a lick of sense and presents a concept that is feasible, then he is off limits as far as I'm concerned. I seriously question his capacity and competence in this matter because other than doing it 'differently' and probably with much more effort than necessary is simply not going to cut it. For all I know, the problems and causes have been identified and a proper solution has not only been hinted at, but actually suggested: scale up the heat dissipation, deal with Mechs and weapons that break the system. And that's the end of it.

[Draco Argentum]

Asatruer, on 08 November 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and being so overly defensive that you think anyone who disagrees with you agrees with the PGI design decisions that we do not like. If you want to continue to debate the finer points of reaching weapon and heat balance, please go right on ahead but we all should try and be civil about it.

Indoorsman continuously brings up strawmen about TT not being balanced. Most of the hard maths based suggestions do not have any reliance on TT at all. He is arguing in bad faith.

[Ghost_19Hz]

I mostly used the catapult and i find the LL's to be pretty good, LPL's are so-so, and ERLL's are not worth it. PPC's have some serious heat for damage output and considering they have that min range limits them a bit too.
I want ERPPC's to be good so badly and i keep trying them out again lying to myself that maybe this time it'll be different, but it always turns out they just feel straight up inferior to Gauss. And I've felt this way ever since i've been in the beta. Even now w/ "double" heat sinks its the same. Go Gauss or go home.

[Terror Teddy]

mwhighlander, on 03 November 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Basically, actual DHS would fix this and people would consider using PPC's and ERLL since they could sustain fire with multiples of them.

The problem is that it will not fix the problem in regard to heat generated over 10 seconds.

Firing the following 2 weapons over 10 seconds:
AC20: Heat: 185 (70*2,5) DPS: 50
Gauss: Heat: 25 (10*2,5) DPS: 37,5

Double heat sinks will do NOTHING for an Atlas because it has the space for regular heatsinks and STILL cannot nullify the heat generated.

12 seconds is 3 shots from (basically) 19th century technology gunpowder weapon that apparently MELTS warmachines a thousand years later. 3 shots is 210 heat. 50 heatsinks would need 42 seconds to remove that heat.

The Gauss, a weapon with huge *** magnetic accelerators and energy banks generate in comparison NO heat. How? Even NOT using real world physics makes ones head hurt in the illogical inbalance of the weapon.

The energy needed to expel that metal ball SHOULD give off more heat than 600% LESS than the AC20.

Think about it...600% LESS heat than a millenia old technology and gunpowder cannon. And don't tell me they dont have materials that cannot handle the stress of a modern cannon.

I cant see the M1A1 self combust after firing 3 shots of its gun...

[Indoorsman]

Draco Argentum, on 09 November 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Indoorsman continuously brings up strawmen about TT not being balanced. Most of the hard maths based suggestions do not have any reliance on TT at all. He is arguing in bad faith.

You realize that it's quite the opposite? Most of the hard math suggestions DO rely on TT values. Check the very first post of this thread.

I'm not making a strawman at all. I am pointing out the MANY ways that MWO is different from a board game and how the balance mechanism in TT isn't going to be used in MWO (that would be the BV system).

Terror Teddy, on 09 November 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

Double heat sinks will do NOTHING for an Atlas because it has the space for regular heatsinks and STILL cannot nullify the heat generated.

DHS @ their current implementation work better in my 4PPC 1Gauss atlas than SHS would. You're right about it not really nullifying heat any better than SHS for an atlas though. They really need to make 1.4 DHS take 2 slots IMO.

Edited by Indoorsman, 09 November 2012 - 05:05 AM.