187 replies to this topic

[Kabaluk]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Courtsey of Mr. Bradley.

snip....

I would just like to say that it is very good to see you guys come on the forum and post this details.

You should do it more often.
I would suggest that you get that info and sticky it on the general discussion forum and update/upgrade as time goes by.

This, I believe, would go a long way to raise trust levels and keep a LOT of players happy.

In response to this thread I just added 50$ to your account (and mine).

You have more coming your way just for being open and honest with us.
And I am pretty sure I am not the only one thinking this way.

Thankyou.

Edited by Kabaluk, 23 November 2012 - 01:23 AM.

[focuspark]

To be fair, as somebody who was partially responsible for insuring the release notes were complete for the software package of a well known (promise you've all know this company) Fortune 500 company, getting complete and accurate release notes compilled is a complete nightmare. Developers make changes (good changes) but generally forget they made them, forget to close the bug associated with the change, or just can't be bothered to write details up.

I'm only saying this because this is more likely a proceedural failing within PGI which is causing the relnotes to be lacking; not something intentional.

[JohnnyWayne]

DHS should make ER - weapons viable.

Currently this is not the case. ER - weapons like the ER PPC and ER large laser are high-tech weapons and something like the next equipment "tier", but currently overheat your mech way to fast.

These weapons were made viable by the original DHS, as you also can see on Clanmechs. They are, as far as I have seen, exclusivly equipped with the ER versions of the weapons.

[Omega Deity]

Rejarial Galatan, on 22 November 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

because minor though it may be, i am getting about 1-2 seconds MORE fire time over all on caustic valley for example. that, and if my full build is to be realized, i need to shed as much excess weight from the atlas as i can.

Cheese: I am upset because they are using TT values for HEAT in SOME cases, but tossing those values clear out the door in other cases. Either use them across the board, or find a new set to use because its not remotely balanced.

I agree with you to an extent, I do believe that Double Heat Sinks should be DOUBLE as in 2.0 instead of 1.4 and .2 instead of .14 HOWEVER I also think the existing system should be renamed to Advanced Heat Sinks and then Double Heat Sinks should be restricted to Clan mechs only. My reasoning for this is because those mechs NEED the boost in cooling to make them viable. I think that once the Clan invasion begins and the Clan Mechs start arriving that lost .6 Heat and .06/sink will be quite debilitating to the mechs running Clan-Tech. I think this would eliminate the complaints entirely regarding DHS and tabletop values AND not inherently create an issue for clan-mechs.

Edited by Omega Deity, 23 November 2012 - 01:41 AM.

[Dr Killinger]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 November 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

I DID promise to do it a while ago. Slipped through the cracks.

David Bradley, on 22 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Lovely words

PLEASE visit us more often! This is all great info that we're dying for.

PS I really can't wait for some sweeping balance changes to change the metagame a bit

[Hikaru Shizuka]

Laokin, on 22 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Imagine being in the MWO MLG world championship, and it's down to just you and another guy, and he's wrecked, you just legged him, you're nowhere near as hurt as he is, and he crits you and you explode and your team loses, even though your team completely out played the other team.

How would you feel losing $8,000 because some poor shmuck on his last leg [awesome pun right?] got lucky?


It's not right -- at all. And PGI has already expressed their interest in MWO competition, which will NEVER take off with RNG crits, because of the above scenario I just explained.

Just like Poker never took off either...

Quote

Repair bills didn't exist in the TT game either for obvious reason -- another reason why it just doesn't translate to MWO.

Actually, they did. Just saying...

[Reno Blade]

Oh the DHS explains a lot. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know the DHS were not 1.4 everywhere.

I was always in the impression, the internal Heatsinks were the problem with the DHS efficiency in BT!

Why not switch the two? Internal DHS become 1.4 and externals become 2.0?
That way the smaller engines that need extra HS could also benefit from the 2.0DHS and everything that realy needs DHS (like the Awesome) can make more use of the HS than smaller mechs.

[FiveDigits]

Reno Blade, on 23 November 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

[...]Why not switch the two? Internal DHS become 1.4 and externals become 2.0?
That way the smaller engines that need extra HS could also benefit from the 2.0DHS and everything that realy needs DHS (like the Awesome) can make more use of the HS than smaller mechs.

Why counter one imbalance with another?
DHS need to dissipate twice as much as SHS - no matter where they are, no matter how many there are.

[FerretGR]

David Bradley, on 22 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Shh! It looks better when we're all working straight through a holiday.

LOL! Sorry to bust you. Inside Canadian knowledge that I should have kept secret

[Slanski]

NaerahQc, on 22 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Back in close beta, Bryan (i think) said that he didn't want to bother taking 15 min of the programmers time to get detailed info about issues because thats 15 min where the guys were not fixing things. Well i completly disagree, i beleive he or someone else should take that time because we want those data.

And exactly here PGI went wrong on a managerial basis. Documenting what you do is best practice anywhere and the basis of quality management. When Bryan did not hold his programmers to industry standards we went down the road of having the same mistakes creeping in patch after patch and holes opening while others are being closed.
The beast that is MWO's code will only get more complicated each iteration and if you do not meticulously document what you do with it, it will overpower you and make you completely dependent on the programmers who have the critical knowledge.

[FerretGR]

The Cheese, on 22 November 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

I know all about why they're called DHS, and how what we have in game does not actually sink double the heat. In a nutshell, BT-definition DHS would break the game.

There have been plenty of threads in which people (myself included) have shown mathematically that true (2.0) DHS don't even match the heat dissipation for SHS in many cases, let alone "break the game." Could you perhaps provide us with an example, including numbers and not just opinions or conjecture, that demonstrates this "game breaking"?

Edited by FerretGR, 23 November 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Marzepans]

David Bradley, on 22 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Could you elaborate as to what you mean by this? The greatest benefit with regards to DHS comes from having a large engine, for both the 2x engine heat sinks as well as fitting extra 1.4x heat sinks inside.

Also, I want to reiterate what Bryan said earlier, that we'll be keeping an eye on how DHSs perform, and be ready to tune the values as needed.

Others have managed to hit the nail on the head but unlike some I don't really care if we get 1.4 DHS, 1.6 DHS, 1.8 DHS or true 2.0 DHS. My beef with them currently is that not all of them are functioning the same so Mechs relying only on the first ten engine Sinks are able to take advantage of 2.0 Heatsinks (a situation that was specifically mentioned as a reason not to implement true 2.0) while heavier Mechs don't get the same benefit. I am advocating for consistency across the board. If that is 1.4 for all DHS or 1.8 or whatever, I am sure that decision will be informed by the stats you are measuring but for the love of good even the playing field.

[TigrisMorte]

Laokin, on 22 November 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

...
In a turn based game, it makes all the sense in the world, since it's a game of strategy by weighing probability. MWO is a game of strategy by team coordination and pilot skill.

Probability has no place in this format.

Random happens. There is nothing , in Battletech, or the single pilot variant, Mechwarrior that is unaffected by probability.
Skill allows you to "hedge your bet" but the random remains. Random in human action, random in weapon interaction, random in environment, it is all greatly influenced by probability. In fact most of what you believe is your skill is in fact simply being good at the probability of specific aspects of the simulation.

Table top is sets of charts to simulate the equipment, a scaled physical map to simulate environment, miniatures to simulate people, and dice to simulate random.
Video game is sets of charts to simulate the equipment, a 3D picture map to simulate environment, more 3D pictures to simulate people, and a script to simulate dice.
Typical "form over function" failure makes you think because the display and random generator look different then they are different.
It may appear you have greater control because this is first person and "real time" (as if that has any meaning in a simulation where they could add "bullet time" if they wanted.), but you don't. You are still trying to guess the chance that if you move through the trees the opposition shall miss while you determine the best moment to take a chance you shall hit.

This game is identical in scope and intent to a table top single mech per player match.
You are simply wishing to ignore realities of what a game is.
"Don't be so proud of your technological marvel. Its is insignificant compared to the powers of probability.

[Aym]

Prosperity Park, on 22 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

OMG, can you imagine what would happen if they took Paul off from kicking the servers and put him on programming them?!

I thought kicking things was HOW Paul programmed...

[Vermaxx]

Look, anyone who has played tt knows that the MWO heat system is borked, and rounded toward the 'fk players' end. Anyone who has played an RPG should be used to the 'fk players' rounding systems.

I would LOVE true dhs, but the simple fact is that MWO DHS are still more heat dissipation for the same weight. No, they are not nearly as critical-space-efficient as they were in tabletop, but the are better than standard sinks from a pure numbers standpoint. Add to that the fact that engine default sinks ARE 2.0, and they are almost always a better deal.

Do not get hung up on 'average efficiency per unit.' I did, and I ended up buying DHS on a mech and realizing that SHS were technically higher dissipation. Do not figure out the average your sinks are pumping. Your sinks are 2.0/1.4 versus the stock 1.0/all of standards. You WILL save weight, you will probably also increase heat dissipation.

NO, they don't make the 'huge' long range weapons as viable as they do in tabletop. BUT, there is nothing stopping PGI from slowly ramping them up as they see fit. I was one of the squeakiest wheels about DHS ruining the game. I tried to get a refund. I was denied, and in time I saw they were 'better' than standards, but more importantly they were 'good enough.' With the efficiency system, and the fact that you have true dubz in the engine, they are working far higher than the 1.4 starting figure. A truedubz is running at 2.3, and a PGIdubz is running at 1.61. No, it isn't as good as 2.3 everywhere, but it IS 'good enough.'

Heck, I made up an Atlas K last night that actually benefits from them. The mech has -zero- critslots left. I'd say I built the jigsaw puzzle correctly.

As some people have said, there is no benefit to getting bent out of shape and screaming about things we can't change. Play the game that has been offered, and decide if you like THAT GAME or not. Don't play the game as offered and compare it to an ideal in your head. All it does is infuriate you, and you rage out on the forums, and people PM you and ask if you would like a good mental health counselor referral. I wouldn't know anything about that, of course. We're all doing fine now.

[Vermaxx]

I just did some math, assuming 10 engine and 10 mech (yeah, you probably won't fit 10 mech so the ratio is even better), your sinks are running at 1.95. 10 engine / 8 mech is 1.99. 8 / 8 is 1.95.

Practically every build is getting "about" 2.0 out of the sinks, which was probably the goal. People are getting "about" 2.0 without going over, AND the xp system means something. People are not getting 2.3 overall because of xp. It always tastes better when something is balanced UP instead of DOWN. PGI fed us poop up front so we get the candy later. They didn't want it the other way around.

[Viper69]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Courtsey of Mr. Bradley.

So in your example of the 5 points of internal damage to three crits slots. I would think it should be 5 points spread over the 3 crit spots. (granted this is not table top and crits are handled differently) By your example the LRM took 10 points because it took two critical hits. Just curious why 5 points is applied to each critical hit. That gives and AC5 the potential of doing 15 points of damage internally and an AC 20, 60 points of internal damage.

Edited by Viper69, 23 November 2012 - 07:41 AM.

[Vermaxx]

The hit rolled three criticals, so the damage of the gun (originally 5) applied to 3 separate components. This is a pity factor.

Tabletop breaks everything it crits, no hitpoints. THREE CRITS blows off the ENTIRE MECH SECTION. Three crits to a torso blows off the torso and the attached arm. It also conveniently kills an XL engine if applicable.

[Marzepans]

Vermaxx, on 23 November 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

I just did some math, assuming 10 engine and 10 mech (yeah, you probably won't fit 10 mech so the ratio is even better), your sinks are running at 1.95. 10 engine / 8 mech is 1.99. 8 / 8 is 1.95.

Practically every build is getting "about" 2.0 out of the sinks, which was probably the goal. People are getting "about" 2.0 without going over, AND the xp system means something. People are not getting 2.3 overall because of xp. It always tastes better when something is balanced UP instead of DOWN. PGI fed us poop up front so we get the candy later. They didn't want it the other way around.

I suggest you do your math again. 10 engine and 10 external gives 1.7 average. 10/9 gives 1.71 average. 10/8 gives 1.73 etc. on a linear progression to 10/0, which gives 2.0.

Edit: I'd like a value of 1.7 introduced for all DHS meaning that the current unfair advantage to those mechs using only the first ten in the engine was removed without removing heat management from the game.

Edited by Marzepans, 23 November 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[Jeff K Notagoon]

Rejarial Galatan, on 22 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

ROF must slow down to keep balance, because laser boats for example, or PPC boats even, cannot function at FULL power w/out spending atleast 1/3 the match in heat related shut down. HELL, even my atlas at 1.27 on the heat cannot sustain even 4 ML for long, and I run 13 DHS.

This adds strategy to the game, and you want it taken away. Learn some firing discipline perhaps?

also I use a JENNER with 4 ML and 13 DHS and it works just fine... this just tells me that you and the other "heat is broken!" people feel the need to be firing CONSTANTLY for some reason. Pro tip: stop feeling the need to be firing constantly!

Edited by Jeff K Notagoon, 23 November 2012 - 08:02 AM.