532 replies to this topic

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Valid counter point.

But I also must protest, because that was not my notion that I wanted to promote. What I did want to promote however is this:

People, usually old MW or TT crowd, seem to complain about value not being as they "should" be. Thats my problem right there, the "should". How do you know it "should" be? Dont you mean, how you you are used to it being? Or rather how you want it to be?

My personal experience shows alot of working energy builds, high heat weapons or not, both used by me and against me.

Now I understand personal experience is a shaky argument at best, but still.

I dont want to discredit someone point of view because they think something should be different from what I think. Iam protesting because it works quite good and I never had problems with it and do not understand the problems others have, or at least seem to have.

To the point were some of the statements are just silly all together, like: 2 Medium Lasers overheat my Centurion... really?

As for 2 ML's overheating a centurion, they won't by themselves unless for instance you have a high tonnage, high heat weapon that takes up space and tonnage that more heatsinks would take up in order to dissipate that heat.

For instance a Centurion with 2 ML's an AC/20 or Gauss + ammo and maybe a SL. Of course that could also be a question of the build itself, but it's also a question of heat efficency. I would probably only be able to fit maybe 4 extra heatsinks in that build + engine sinks. rough estimate is like 12-14 heatsinks. Can I overheat just firing 2 ML's with 12-14 heatsinks? The answer is yes. For all intents and purposes this looks like a very well rounded Cent build on paper. Yet in practice it's not because of heat generation and heat dissipation.

You can see issue's like this playing out in trial mechs, stock mech designs that should function reasonably well, yet they do not because of heat dissipation.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

As for 2 ML's overheating a centurion, they won't by themselves unless for instance you have a high tonnage, high heat weapon that takes up space and tonnage that more heatsinks would take up in order to dissipate that heat.

For instance a Centurion with 2 ML's an AC/20 or Gauss + ammo and maybe a SL. Of course that could also be a question of the build itself, but it's also a question of heat efficency. I would probably only be able to fit maybe 4 extra heatsinks in that build + engine sinks. rough estimate is like 12-14 heatsinks. Can I overheat just firing 2 ML's with 12-14 heatsinks? The answer is yes. For all intents and purposes this looks like a very well rounded Cent build on paper. Yet in practice it's not because of heat generation and heat dissipation.

You can see issue's like this playing out in trial mechs, stock mech designs that should function reasonably well, yet they do not because of heat dissipation.

Ok NOW we are talking, so what you are aiming for is to fire the 2 Medium Lasers WITHOUT being able to overheat, ever?

Edited by Alexa Steel, 20 November 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Ok NOW we are talking, so what you are aiming for is to fire the 2 Medium Lasers WITHOUT being able to overheat, ever?

No, I'm providing an example of where someone could say that 2 ML's could overheat their Cent.


What I am aiming for is bringing higher heat weapons more in line with lower heat weapons in terms of viability.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

No, I'm providing an example of where someone could say that 2 ML's could overheat their Cent.


What I am aiming for is bringing higher heat weapons more in line with lower heat weapons in terms of viability.

Ok Iam just trying to create even ground here, so we know what the other is aiming for or what they are talking about.

If you keep firing the MLs you would overheat at one point, without enought heatsinks. We agree on that right?

But here is the thing, I can fire TWO Large Lasers in my Raven and before I can fire again my heat was cooled down. The Raven uses DHS, now firing the TWO Medium Lasers also on that Raven poses little to no problem, since I already dissipiate enough heat.

UNLESS I fire all of them (Alpha) I will not overheat. Thats what you mean right? I could swap both Large Lasers for ER Large Lasers, yes it would produce more heat and every subsequent salvo would increase my heat, but not that much, enough to overheat if I hold the trigger yes. But I also gained a considerable range upgrade, there has to be a drawback, dont you agree?

Edited by Alexa Steel, 20 November 2012 - 08:40 AM.

[Zakhodit]

Some of you kids are arguing points you don't understand.
Mostly because you didn't play the 80's Table Top game.

Quote

Weapon A ) Fires every 3.33 seconds for 10 damage and 10 heat. It weighs 5 tons.
Weapon B ) fires every 3.33 seconds for 10 damage and 1 heat. It weighs 14 tons.

Under what assumption would you consider them balanced?

Here's the first kid that never had a Gauss Rifle critical hit that caused two points of damage to his pilot and killed him.

Ammo explosions, son, ammo explosions. Before one of you smart *** kids tells me that a Gauss Rifle ammo doesn't explode, I'll point out that a critical hit on a Gauss causes the same effect. Ballistic weapons do more damage for more heat. The balance is that they weigh more and, can cause ammo explosions. In a tier one game, an ammo explosion ruined you. Game over. Tier two made it better with CASE, but even so, your laser doesn't explode and potentially kill your mech or your pilot.

Oh and that kid that said Battletech and Mechwarrior aren't the same thing? Yes they are. Battletech was first launced in 1984. Mechwarrior was the RPG that allowed you to play in the Battletech universe. That's Pencil and dice RPG, kiddo. Oh and when it came time in Mechwarrior to fight in your mechs, surprise, you pulled out the Battletech rules and fought it out.

Where was I? Oh yes, the horrible imbalance of the weapons in this game.

Right now Lasers are king. SHS or DHS, lasers are the only way to go.

Take the Hunchback 4G.

That big AC/20 is useless in this game. It should be a monster that needs to be dealt with quickly. Instead, just run to his left side and he can't do much but waste ammo, then die.

The only way to get my HBK-4G to be a force on the battlefield was to strip off the AC/20. Load on two Large Pulse Lasers, plus one medium. With all that extra weight I stuffed in a 255 engine and now I stomp around at 88.8 KMH and slice arms off with ease.

The Devs have made Gauss Rifles and Auto Cannons a joke. They don't work right, and there is no incentive to use them.

Jump jets? I can put one jump jet in the left leg of my Jenner and jump like it had 4, and not go spinning off into space like a 4th of July firework.

It's not just heat sinks. It's all of it.

I don't expect this to be exactly like the table top game. (That's what Mechwarrior Tactics is for)

But I do expect things to work in a way that makes sense. Double Heat Sinks, Jump Jets, and Ballistic Weapons don't make sense right now. And you can't tell me it's because this is a computer game. Mechwarrior 2, 3 and 4 made sense and represented the spirit of the Battletech universe.

So far, MWO does not.

Now I yield the floor to the snot nosed brats who will undoubtedly sneer “Too long, didn't read” or “Wall of text!” then rebut my statements. Which is funny because how can you rebut what you didn't comprehend? Actually, this game is perfect for you. Neither of you make sense. I'm sure glad I didn't throw any money into this game. I'd be very disappointed.

[FEK315]

Valder, on 05 November 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Sounds like you should play battletech tabletop instead of MWO.

YEAH!!!!!!

[Sayyid]

Cleverbird, on 20 November 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

I wonder... does the 40K community go through this as well, every single time a new Warhammer 40K titles is released?

Instead of whining about this not being an exact copy of the TT (how would turn based combat even translate to a FPS/SIM?), be happy there's a new Mechwarrior game

Back when Gamesworkshop used to have a forum, they dealt with a lot of gripes, crying and whinning. So they instead of dealing with increased moderation just closed the forums. I quit playing 40K about two or three years ago, only because I dont have a store in the area thats worth a frakk to play in, and I got tired of the min-maxed armies that show up every week.

[Teralitha]

Sigh........ just bring back MW4 with nicer graphics already....

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Ok Iam just trying to create even ground here, so we know what the other is aiming for or what they are talking about.

If you keep firing the MLs you would overheat at one point, without enought heatsinks. We agree on that right?

But here is the thing, I can fire TWO Large Lasers in my Raven and before I can fire again my heat was cooled down. The Raven uses DHS, now firing the TWO Medium Lasers also on that Raven poses little to no problem, since I already dissipiate enough heat.

UNLESS I fire all of them (Alpha) I will not overheat. Thats what you mean right?

Yea we do agree, and I don't want heat neutral mechs unless you literally build for it and take the penalty for it.

Small mechs with big engines get the most out of DHS so while your example is somewhat valid, it is also skewed because it makes use of a bug or intended feature in that engine DHS are more effective than external DHS.

I honestly can't remember if LL are 5 or 7 tons or if I'm think ER LL. I'll go with 5 tons, so you have 12 tons of weaponry + engine weight, I'm going to assume an XL engine here as otherwise I don't see the tonnage working, and possibly endo to save tonnage. You could also be dropping armor, again I really don't know without knowing your complete mech design.

If that example is true though, you're using pretty much the most expensive tech available in order to simply make your mech viable under a system that actually gives your tonnage class an advantage versus a heavy or assault class mech.

Edited by Windies, 20 November 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Yea we do agree, and I don't want heat neutral mechs unless you literally build for it and take the penalty for it.

Small mechs with big engines get the most out of DHS so while your example is somewhat valid, it is also skewed because it makes use of a bug or intended feature in that engine DHS are more effective than external DHS.

I honestly can't remember if LL are 5 or 7 tons or if I'm think ER LL. I'll go with 5 tons, so you have 12 tons of weaponry + engine weight, I'm going to assume an XL engine here as otherwise I don't see the tonnage working, and possibly endo to save tonnage.

If that example is true, you're using pretty much the most expensive tech available in order to simply make your mech viable under a system that actually gives your tonnage class an advantage versus a heavy or assault class mech.

Yes you are correct and I believe both LLs are 5 tons and the LPL is 7 tons. So, why does that matter? I still win about 20k-40k even if the machine is destroyed. Also isnt that the current tech level? If so why is that bad?

Iam asking this because there would be no sense of progression, other than maybe changing weight classes. I start out with a hunk of junk that works passable at best and upgrade it until it becomes an efficient machine.

I believe you are looking at the mechs in the context of lore too much and please dont take that as an offensive statement. Kinda like looking at the BV of a mech and deciding against it because it would cost to much to repair in a campaign. Its hard to explain, but I will try my best after I collected my thoughts on this.

Edited by Alexa Steel, 20 November 2012 - 08:56 AM.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Yes you are correct and I believe both LLs are 5 tons and the LPL is 7 tons. So, why does that matter? I still win about 20k-40k even if the machine is destroyed. Also isnt that the current tech level? If so why is that bad?

Iam asking this because there would be no sense of progression, other than maybe changing weight classes. I start out with a hunk of junk that works passable at best and upgrade it until it becomes an efficient machine.

I believe you are looking at the mechs in the context of lore too much and please dont take that as an offensive statement. Kinda like looking at the BV of a mech and deciding against it because it would cost to much to repair in a campaign. Its hard to explain, but I will try my best after I collected my thoughts on this.

Even if I move up to a Cent or Hunchie, using your example that it doesn't matter that I'm using all expensive high tech upgrades, I'm easily in the negative in order to simply be viable. The issue is that these things should not be required in order to run a viable mech. Mind you I'm talking viable, I'm not talking highly optimized to kick *** or anything.

I'm not sure this game needs an equipment progression. It already has pilot and mech experience progression as well as mech tonnage class progression. I want the game to be fun not some sort of ultra grind fest.

I'm not really looking at them in context to the lore, because while I've read the books and such, I'm more interested in a fun game that provides me with options and content.

[MustrumRidcully]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Yea we do agree, and I don't want heat neutral mechs unless you literally build for it and take the penalty for it.

Unless your weapon doesn't produce heat in the first place, there is always a penalty for being heat neutral. Because not being heat neutral would mean you would have spend less tonnage on heat sinks and more on guns, which means you'll deal more damage in the short term. if T_ShortTerm >= T_{EnemyMechDestroyed} Then the heat neutral build is likely to be inferior. You don't need to shoot at dead mechs, but if you need longer to kill an enemy mech, that means the enemy will inflict more damage to you or your comrades. That's bad.

The question isn't if there is a trade-off - the question is if the trade-off is reasonable.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 November 2012 - 09:11 AM.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Even if I move up to a Cent or Hunchie, using your example that it doesn't matter that I'm using all expensive high tech upgrades, I'm easily in the negative in order to simply be viable. The issue is that these things should not be required in order to run a viable mech. Mind you I'm talking viable, I'm not talking highly optimized to kick *** or anything.

I'm not sure this game needs an equipment progression. It already has pilot and mech experience progression as well as mech tonnage class progression. I want the game to be fun not some sort of ultra grind fest.

I'm not really looking at them in context to the lore, because while I've read the books and such, I'm more interested in a fun game that provides me with options and content.

Strange I never lost CBills if my expensive Mechs got blown to pieces. And I dont say this to mute your argument, it makes sense and I would agree if my personal experience wouldnt be that much different. I also run a DHS, Endo Centurion and never lost money with that either.

To clearify: Iam talking about actually losing money after the payout.

Quote

I'm not sure this game needs an equipment progression.

Ok I think this is our main problem here. I see this as natural part of the progression and Iam ok with equipment progression.

Quote

The issue is that these things should not be required in order to run a viable mech. Mind you I'm talking viable,

Lets define viable for this argument. Is a stock Raven viable when facing ONLY other stock variants? I would say yes.
Is a stock Raven viable against optimized Hi-Tech Machines? I would say no, but isnt that how its supposed to be?

Edited by Alexa Steel, 20 November 2012 - 09:13 AM.

[Windies]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 November 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Unless your weapon doesn't produce heat in the first place, there is always a penalty for being heat neutral. Because not being heat neutral would mean you would have spend less tonnage on heat sinks and more on guns, which means you'll deal more damage in the short term.

The question isn't if there is a trade-off - the question is if the trade-off is reasonable.

That was my point. I feel the same way you do.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Strange I never lost CBills if my expensive Mechs got blown to pieces. And I dont say this to mute your argument, it makes sense and I would agree if my personal experience wouldnt be that much different. I also run a DHS, Endo Centurion and never lost money with that either.

You have premium. Just saying that it's a factor.

Ok I think this is our main problem here. I see this as natural part of the progression and Iam ok with equipment progression.

Maybe so but the bigger question is, is the majority of the playerbase happy with that. You will find your answer in the number of active users.

Lets define viable for this argument. Is a stock Raven viable when facing ONLY other stock variants? I would say yes.
Is a stock Raven viable against optimized Hi-Tech Machines? I would say no, but isnt that how its supposed to be?

If it was taken into account to some degree, I would agree with you. Instead you have new players in trial mechs pitted against people with experience and highly optimized mechs.

Viable - having a reasonable chance of succeeding.

I answered your points in bold in the quote.

Edited by Windies, 20 November 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Alexa Steel]

Quote

You have premium. Just saying that it's a factor.

True and valid counterpoint.

Quote

Maybe so but the bigger question is, is the majority of the playerbase happy with that. You will find your answer in the number of active users.

Something I cant answer, but I would believe many if not most people favor "tangible" progression over the somewhat more "hidden" XP progression, even if some of the abilities are good. But that is my opinion, however I think that PGI follows that path too.

Quote

If it was taken into account to some degree, I would agree with you. Instead you have new players in trial mechs pitted against people with experience and highly optimized mechs.

I agree the matchmaker should take this into account to offer a fair chance. However isnt it supposed to be like this? The old barely functioning machines destroyed by the new generation of Mechs? Its unfair, but isnt that the purpose of tech progression in BTU?

Wich would also be the driving force behind the player striving to upgrade his machine. I mean if the trial mechs were viable from the beginning, why ever change that? Sure you could have a more optimized build, but it would cost you. If the stock variant would be viable, meaning standing a chance against optimized builds, there would be no need for optimized builds, right?

Teralitha, on 20 November 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Sigh........ just bring back MW4 with nicer graphics already....

U mad? Third Person View? Poptarting meaning anything to you? Blah blah

Edited by Alexa Steel, 20 November 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I don't think this thread has anything to do with the OP anymore...

... if it did, then we'd have people saying things like "Where did PGI get the idea for a PPC?" and "Why are all the weapons named after MW weapons?"

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

True and valid counterpoint.


Something I cant answer, but I would believe many if not most people favor "tangible" progression over the somewhat more "hidden" XP progression, even if some of the abilities are good. But that is my opinion, however I think that PGI follows that path too.



I agree the matchmaker should take this into account to offer a fair chance. However isnt it supposed to be like this? The old barely functioning machines destroyed by the new generation of Mechs? Its unfair, but isnt that the purpose of tech progression on BT?

Playerbase is anectdotal at best unless PGI offers up numbers. That doesn't mean that you can't look at key factors and derive some sort of conclusion from them. I just can't say either way you look at it, that the conclusion is concrete or sound. It could be thriving or it could be stalling, key factors tell me that it is stalling and from my perspective I think some of the tech grind and weapon balance is to blame. That's my opinion and again we both can argue it but neither one of us has concrete facts to prove our opinions so we will have to agree to disagree.

It's supposed to be fun and semi balanced, anything that takes it out of that perspective would be a detriment. I don't find it fun or balanced to be stuck in a trial mech against people who have bought their way or ground their way to a higher tier of tech.

Look at it from the perspective of putting a loltractor up against a Maus in World of Tanks. What you are suggesting is creating a semi tiered system like WoT has yet there is no balancing or matching mechanism in place to allow or balance it. We don't have progression tier's where My Maus is matched against other similarly tiered and balanced tanks. Instead, everything is put with everything, so there has to be some sort of balance between everything to make it work.

So my point still stands that if you have to use all kinds of expensive and high tiered, high upkeep tech, in order to make a mech viable, it's not balanced.

If you ever look in WoT, every piece of equipment you put on your tank is also tier ranked, which means it is balanced within that tier. I would hate to see that come into MW:O because personally, I think it would ruin the feel of what makes MW:O at least slightly different from WoT.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

Playerbase is anectdotal at best unless PGI offers up numbers. That doesn't mean that you can't look at key factors and derive some sort of conclusion from them. I just can't say either way you look at it, that the conclusion is concrete or sound. It could be thriving or it could be stalling, key factors tell me that it is stalling and from my perspective I think some of the tech grind and weapon balance is to blame. That's my opinion and again we both can argue it but neither one of us has concrete facts to prove our opinions so we will have to agree to disagree.

Agreed.

Quote

It's supposed to be fun and semi balanced, anything that takes it out of that perspective would be a detriment. I don't find it fun or balanced to be stuck in a trial mech against people who have bought their way or ground their way to a higher tier of tech. Look at it from the perspective of putting a loltractor up against a Maus in World of Tanks. What you are suggesting is creating a semi tiered system like WoT has yet there is no balancing or matching mechanism in place to allow or balance it. We don't have progression tier's where My Maus is matched against other similarly tiered and balanced tanks. Instead, everything is put with everything, so there has to be some sort of balance between everything to make it work.

So my point still stands that if you have to use all kinds of expensive and high tiered, high upkeep tech, in order to make a mech viable, it's not balanced. If you ever look in WoT, every piece of equipment you put on your tank is also tier ranked, which means it is balanced within that tier. I would hate to see that come into MW:O because personally, I think it would ruin the feel of what makes MW:O at least slightly different from WoT.

You would also have no progression that is tangible, why I agree that model is really hard on new users, it also one of the only options to have tangible progression at all in a MW game that is played online and is not just MW4 but online. And progression needs to be part of the game, otherwise many players wont play it.

I certainly wouldn´t login as much as I do atm, I can tell that I already do not login as much as before, because I have all the tech. Sure I enjoy blasting other players mechs, but I want to have some sort of goal. For many that is an upgrade for their favourite machine.

We could argue if that is the right way to play it, but that argument wouldnt bring us anywhere.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Ok Iam just trying to create even ground here, so we know what the other is aiming for or what they are talking about.

If you keep firing the MLs you would overheat at one point, without enought heatsinks. We agree on that right?

But here is the thing, I can fire TWO Large Lasers in my Raven and before I can fire again my heat was cooled down. The Raven uses DHS, now firing the TWO Medium Lasers also on that Raven poses little to no problem, since I already dissipiate enough heat.

UNLESS I fire all of them (Alpha) I will not overheat. Thats what you mean right? I could swap both Large Lasers for ER Large Lasers, yes it would produce more heat and every subsequent salvo would increase my heat, but not that much, enough to overheat if I hold the trigger yes. But I also gained a considerable range upgrade, there has to be a drawback, dont you agree?

TT One can fire both Medium lasers in an Alpha strike style to the end of the game unless said Centurion has Engine Crits. Cause 2 Meds generate 6 heat per turn and has more than enough sinks to handle the heat load indefinitely. If Mediums fired every 3.5 Seconds and Sinks vented every 4 seconds the heat load would be more managable yet still build heat over time. A better example is the Panther. It has a PPC and 14 sinks. It can run and fire the PPC non stop in BattleTech. I tried this in the MMO...
...
...
The results were the same. I over heated to quickly. Again a Cyclic of 3.5 seconds with a disipation rate at 4 seconds would eventually build heat if I fire the PPC AND SRM4. The Canon does not have Minobu Tetsuhara overheating and shutting down every 3rd shot of Katana Cats PPC. He does sweat, and he does have a warning but he can keep fighting.