187 replies to this topic

[Khavi Vetali]

Teralitha, on 23 November 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

So basically.... your wrong,(Byran Ekman) basing matchups by tonnage is more fair (and fun/interesting)than matching mech for mech. I have played both tonnage limits(MW4 NBT, and mech for mech(MWO) And I still say tonnage matchups were better.

No, he's not wrong, you are completely misinterpreting his statement. He is stating that with just tonnage requirements, and even if you matched players up mech by mech, that skill would still be the determining factor. He is not making the case to have a matchmaker that matches people up mech to mech. He is making the case for a skill based ELO matchmaker that also takes into account tonnage. I quote....

Quote

We've looked at tonnage. However tonnage doesn't factor in player skill. It's part of the equation, but not the the whole answer.

[Onyx Rain]

3 health for the Gauss scares me...thing already dies so easily in battle. If they have to nerf it to appease the cry babies they should just up the refresh time to 4.10-4.25...and call it good. They are going to nerf that gun into oblivion at some point...I can just feel it. Are they going to make it so it blows up and destroys your XL engine too? OMG talk about a nerf....

[Dracol]

Rejarial Galatan, on 23 November 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

learn to play, thats cute. its akin to trying to learn to drive where only HALF the rules you knew about prior to getting in the car now apply. gravity now pulls UP, the brake pedal now accelerates you and the accelerator is now your brake. THAT is what is going on here. It is NOT a good meld of TT vs Real Time calculations. They tripled <basically> our heat by making weapons fire faster, but give us what is tantamount to a negative upgrade for swapping to tier 2 gear. putting on bigger, more expensive stuff should have a positive net gain, not a minimal net gain, which, is what .4 is.

you know what? I learned to play and guess what? I take top of the leader board with 3 ppcs & 10 double heat sinks in a medium mech most games. (I do have all skills maxed though)

If they boost heatsink effiency any more, those who know what they are doing will clean house even more then they already are.

Edited by Dracol, 23 November 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[Teralitha]

Onyx Rain, on 23 November 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

3 health for the Gauss scares me...thing already dies so easily in battle. If they have to nerf it to appease the cry babies they should just up the refresh time to 4.10-4.25...and call it good. They are going to nerf that gun into oblivion at some point...I can just feel it. Are they going to make it so it blows up and destroys your XL engine too? OMG talk about a nerf....

A few skilled players on 1 team all using a mech that carries dual guass can focus fire and kill anything super fast, at anything in effective range.

Mechs in MW4 also could die as quickly when focused, but generally to targets that were not agile and pilots who didnt hide their CT.

I think you will find that the more players become skilled at the game that more and more players will be dying faster to focus fire will be quite common.

Note - torso twist speed is different between MW4 and MWO. MW4 twist speed was much faster on the heavier mechs, so you actually could fire on your target, and twist your torso away quick enough that your CT was hidden when your target returned fire. Heavier mechs in MWO torso twist much slower, so its alot harder to hide your torso from targets returning fire on you while being able to bring your guns back to bear in time to shoot them again before they are ready to shoot again. This is why many players choose not to turn away from a target because it can be disadvantagious in a face to face duel, where in MW4 it was easier to do and be advantagious.

Edited by Teralitha, 23 November 2012 - 08:47 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Dracol, on 23 November 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

you know what? I learned to play and guess what? I take top of the leader board with 3 ppcs & 10 double heat sinks in a medium mech most games. (I do have all skills maxed though)

If they boost heatsink effiency any more, those who know what they are doing will clean house even more then they already are.

leader boards mean absolutely nothing more than an excuse to break out the tape measures and micrometers if you follow my meaning.

[Dracol]

Rejarial Galatan, on 23 November 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

leader boards mean absolutely nothing more than an excuse to break out the tape measures and micrometers if you follow my meaning.

Ah, spoken like a person who never sees above second to last. If you learned how to play the system as is, you'd learned the heat system is not broken, just challenging.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Dracol, I have been in this game, the TOP XP gainer, the TOP damage dealt and TOP KDR in matches, so, try again sir. Also, it should be mentioned that for a while before I stopped playing Assassin's Creed 3, I was the GLOBAL Number 1 player for sheer kill volume for 3 weeks running.

[Rejarial Galatan]

oh and Dracol: I completely expect you to not believe me, because that is what your first assumption has lead me to believe about you.

[Dracol]

Rejarial Galatan, on 23 November 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Dracol, I have been in this game, the TOP XP gainer, the TOP damage dealt and TOP KDR in matches, so, try again sir. Also, it should be mentioned that for a while before I stopped playing Assassin's Creed 3, I was the GLOBAL Number 1 player for sheer kill volume for 3 weeks running.

Good, means you actually play the game instead of just posting on the forums. But it seems you don't actually absorb what is actually being said about the game and the various components within in it. If you did, you would realize the "minimal" gain you speak of is actually 2.3 per dhs on engine supplied heatsinks and 1.61 per dhs on non-engine supplied heatsinks when you factor in chassis bonuses.

As an example, 10 dhs within the engine and 7 dhs external would net you 34.27 disipation after chassis bonus are applied. That's far from minimal.

Rejarial Galatan, on 23 November 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

. Also, it should be mentioned that for a while before I stopped playing Assassin's Creed 3, I was the GLOBAL Number 1 player for sheer kill volume for 3 weeks running.

Oh, and skill in AS3 has no bearing on skill in MWO. But, glad to hear you enjoyed the game. Been thinking of picking it up and giving it a try.

Edited by Dracol, 23 November 2012 - 10:01 PM.

[Asatruer]

Teralitha, on 23 November 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

The problem with matching mech for mech, it doesnt do for very dynamic matchups.

MWO's weight class matching is a bit more dynamic than a straight mech for mech matching, but I agree that it lacks a certain amount of interesting dynamic, and that I feel that it causes trouble because it means if a player picks a mech at the low weight end of the class' spectrum, they could be loosing their team 20 tons of mech...

Teralitha, on 23 November 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

So basically.... your wrong,(Byran Ekman) basing matchups by tonnage is more fair (and fun/interesting)than matching mech for mech. I have played both tonnage limits(MW4 NBT, and mech for mech(MWO) And I still say tonnage matchups were better.

Khavi Vetali, on 23 November 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

No, he's not wrong, you are completely misinterpreting his statement. He is stating that with just tonnage requirements, and even if you matched players up mech by mech, that skill would still be the determining factor. He is not making the case to have a matchmaker that matches people up mech to mech. He is making the case for a skill based ELO matchmaker that also takes into account tonnage.

I agree that skill is always going to be one of the strongest factors in match results, but I think tonnage is the wrong additional factor to use when trying to make matching close to even. BattleTech used to use tonnage as its primary method of getting two sides even while still having neither mirrored mechs, or mirrored weight classes, but after a while FASA (probably primarily due to the advent of Tech 2, and later Clan Tech) trying to get two sides to have roughly equal forces based solely on tonnage was no longer as good a plan as it used to be. So eventually they came up with Battle Value, which allows for many more and varied factors (including Pilot quality) than just tonnage to go into determining a value that is a better method of comparing if the two sides are roughly equal.

Comparing BVs of some stock mechs and a customized gausskat (-G2) that has dropped all the weapons for two Gauss Rifles with 5 tons of ammo, standard ten heatsinks, 10.5 tons of armor (half a ton more than the standard -K2) and a standard 195 engine.

Atlas AS7-K - BV 2,175
Atlas AS7-D - BV 1,897
Awesome AWS-8Q - BV 1,605
Awesome AWS-9M - BV 1,812
Catapult CPLT-K2 - BV 1,319
Catapult CPLT-G2 - BV 2,020
Hunchback HBK-4G - BV 1,041
Hunchback HBK-4P - BV 1,138
Jenner JR7-D - BV 875
Jenner JR7-F - BV 1,011
Raven RVN-4X - BV 820
Raven RVN-3L - BV 710

If you match make by equal tonnage per side rather than weight class matching, you can get a 65 ton Catapult that has a more potent impact on the outcome of a battle than a 100 ton Atlas and still have left over tons to add a JR7-F to the side.
We should also be able to see that match making by weight class has its issues, compare the BVs of the Atlas AS7-K to the Awesome AWS-8Q, or the RVN-4X to the JR7-F, and it should come as little surprise that we see more Altases than Awesomes (though that can also be explained by the 20 ton difference) and more Jenners than Ravens... Though even if we had BVs, Jenners might still be more popular than Ravens due to hitbox and hardpoint imbalances, or maybe Ravens having access to more of the non-weapon tech (BAP, ECM, ETC) will balance it out.

Battle Value and Player skill would likely be the much better method of going about making matches seem more balanced, and would help with weapon balance issues were some of the weapons (Gauss BC 320) that just are supposed to be better get nerfs or calls for nerfs, while other weapons that are just supposed to be not so great (AC/2 BV 37) get buffs that make little sense and make them out perform standard workhorses (AC/10 BV 123).

Not really sure how to get BV to account for Lag shield though... but hopefully we should see some netcode improvements to bring the high speed, low weight, low BV mechs that are being uncharacteristically potent down to a more reasonable level.

Edited by Asatruer, 24 November 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[Alexander 1978]

Bommer, on 23 November 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Has anyone thought of an alternative solution to the "2.0 vs. 1.4" heatsink problem, by making the external sinks only consume 2 critical slots instead of three ? Everyone would be able to incorporate enough (think legs ect.) additional sinks to eliminate the so-called 'large mech' penalty.

Just that. If the devs limit DHS to 1.4 they could also lower the needed critical slots to 2 instead of 3. That way we would be able to fit more DHS into the heavier mechs and large energy weapons would become more viable. At least it should work...I did not calculate that through in any way to be honest.

Vermaxx, on 23 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Large weapons will always require more heat management, more rate of fire management, and more heatsink tonnage. The benefit is higher single-hit or pulse damage, and longer range. Tabletop evened all that out with the turn system and limiting weapons to one shot per turn. A FPS game like this has varied rates of fire, which will inevitably lead to the small/fast weapons being slotted into optimized builds as the best option.

MWO DHS are still better than SHS by stock dissipation figures. I would be absolutely THRILLED with true 2.0 sinks, but I accept this is never going to happen. 1.7 might work for MWO DHS, because it becomes 1.955 with efficiencies. It would also force them to modify engine sinks to match the same figure. Which would mean that my builds (which are not Jenners) and benefit from a 250 engine would cease to exist. Neither system is any more or less "fair" in my opinion. Everyone has the same access to 10 x 2.0. Some people have less issue with the engine tonnage.

Yes a slight increase would make larger weapons a bit easier to manage for those players that do not have the elite and master skills unlocked.
But at the same time they should think about skills that benefit missile or ballistic builds in the same way the current skill set benefits energy weapon builds.
To be honest, before I read this thread, I never took the skills into my thought process when thinking about heat.

The fact right now is that only small to med laser boating is partly viable. Running more then two large energy weapons is too problematic compared to any ballistic or missile build if you think about the hard hitting long range weapons.
Only beeing able to fire a tripple PPC build once before you need to wait for your mech to cool down is in not what I would call balanced. (Not to think about ERPPC)
Especially if you compare a double Gauss build (30 damage) or just a single LRM20 (40 damage with spread) with it. Sure the 3x PPC build could theoretically fire the whole battle whilst Gauss / LRM will run out of ammo sooner or later...but I hope you see what I mean with that. A few more shots before you have to chain fire and or retreat for a cooldown phase would be nice.

[ParasiteX]

Does the DHS that you place inside the engine slot on 275 and higher engines, count as internal, and get the 2.0 heat efficiency?
Or are only the first 10 internals counted as 2.0?

[ParasiteX]

Thontor, on 26 December 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

only double heat sinks that come with the engine are 2x heat efficiency. With smaller engines that isn't even 10.

Any additional double heat sinks, whether placed in the engine slots or in the mech's critical slots, are 1.4x efficiency.

Thanks for the confirmation!

[Teralitha]

Why are we reviving old dead topics....

[Jetfire]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 23 November 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Oh you saw this in game did you? Oh wait no; thats just the BULL they told us.
Dont spread unsubstantiated rumors

I say they put it in the BETA TEST - thats what we're here for to TEST aint it?? And let us make up our own minds.
let the BETA TESTERS
TEST IT

I know testing 2.0 has this nice warm fuzzy feeling to it because your brain gets to see what a 2.0 Double Heat Sync does, but that doesn't mean we need to test it to have the data. Testing 2.0 gives no more useful information than testing 1.7 or 3.5 as new modifiers. If current DHS are being crammed into nearly every mech build, then it becomes self evident going to 2.0 is not going to tone down the usage a bit. If the design philosophy for DHS is that they should be generally superior, but not 100% superior, then the current 2.0/1.4 is basically on the nose. If you want to argue about the design philosophy, you can't test that anyway.

[Malevolent Twitch]

That's the thing though. DHS is supposed to be 100% more effective at the cost of crit space. That's why the're called double heat sinks, not 1.4x heat sinks...

[Indoorsman]

Malevolent Twitch, on 26 December 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

That's the thing though. DHS is supposed to be 100% more effective at the cost of crit space. That's why the're called double heat sinks, not 1.4x heat sinks...

That's the thing though. 1 month old thread is supposed to be dead cause it was forgotten. That's why they're called dead threads, not new threads...

[Malevolent Twitch]

Hmm. I was not the one to revive it. Perhaps you could go Troll them?

[Mikhalio]

These kinds of threads usually crop up in beta games.

Alot of the game mechanics are already documented, and can be back-calculated from doing simple game tests.

If the developers disclose the calculations in the game, then they are bound to update and document changes in the beta code (and how things are calculated back-side), which makes it easier to exploit.
Therefore legally, and from a craftsmanship practice it is stupid to disclose working calculations in a fluid product.

My suggestion would be to take about 30 min. find 8 friends and start testing the game play yourself. You will get a better answer, and a more accurate picture of the gameplay as it is intended. This can then enable you, or other posters with similar ideas to create general chat threads like this, the ability to properly comment about broken code (ie. gauss exploding and CASE).

Hope that help alot.

For disclosure, most of the guilds in this game have fully documented gameplay API's now. This includes EVE-mon style fitting tools and replication engines that can calculate heat, crits and dps. This was all pulled from samples and match data. No excuse why the rest of the community can not do something similar, and not waste forum space on posts like this.

[CDLord HHGD]

My maths have an issue with the bold text.... When I roll a D4, I have a 25% chance of getting a 4. If I roll a 2 first, that doesn't leave me with a 50% chance of getting a 4 on my next roll. I still only have a 25% chance. I also do not think that an AC/5 should be able to do 15 points of damage (per the example given). Should be split between the many critical hits evenly.

Maybe I am just off on my maths which could be. I'm not that much of a math nerd, but it just doesn't sound right. And he did mention that they were going to revamp the health system so it's likely I don't have the whole story....

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

2) Each time the internal structure of a Mech takes damage, there is a chance that the hit will cause at least 1 critical hit. There is a 25% chance of causing 1 critical hit, a 14% chance of causing 2 critical hits, and a 3% chance of causing 3 critical hits (for a total of a 42% chance of any sort of critical hit). Each critical hit will randomly hit a weapon or piece of equipment in that location; the chance of a particular piece of equipment being hit is proportional to how many critical slots it occupies. Each critical hit damages the weapon/equipment an amount equal to the damage that caused the critical hit.

For example, an Atlas AS7-D is hit with an AC/5, for 5 damage to its left torso’s internal structure. The attacker gets lucky and this results in 3 critical hits. Two of the crits hit the LRM 20 and 1 hits the heat sink. The heat sink will take 5 damage and the LRM 20 will take 10 (5 x 2 = 10).

Currently, all engines have 15 points of health while all other items have 10. One of the changes going through QA right now, and that will be applied to an upcoming patch, is lowering the health of the Gauss rifle to 3 points. And, sometime soon, we plan on doing a full pass on the health of all the items.

Critical damage to the side torso hit boxes of XL engines deals damage to the engine as a whole. However, it should be noted that, currently, critical damage to your engine will not disable it, but simply add to your repair bill. This is likely to change when we do the pass on the health values.

Edited by cdlord, 26 December 2012 - 12:57 PM.