116 replies to this topic

[Stabbitha]

RG Notch, on 05 December 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Better to try to work with them to do something to fix the system than keep posting the same stuff for months and accomplish a whole lot of nothing.

So you post on ad nauseum how they aren't listening and then we're supposed to work with them... How exactly if they aren't listening? The solution is staring them in the face but they willfully ignore it.

ps. You care to add your suggestions to address the issue rather than running around p#ssing on everyone's parade?

Quote

Is it ideal? No but those seem to be your options. So good luck with your massive forum uproar that is making them rethink their entire system.

Who said anything about "massive forum uproar"? A crowd doesn't need to equal a huge number of people, but I've seen plenty of different people saying the same thing, the heat system is broken... Math says it's broken. Breaking otherwise perfectly fine weapons to accommodate it says it's broken.

Hell, if the apologists and the apathetic would just get off their ***** and add their voices, it might result in a change.

[Quazil]

"Using this knowledge, an Awesome pilot can maintain a
steady barrage of 3-3-2 shots without any loss of performance
due to overheating."

CBT handbook, page 49.
Heat-sinks are currently operating at about 1/10 of their intended amount.
If your heat exceeds about 14 (14 beyond heat-sink soak) you are suppose to start exploding and at a heat-level of 8 your aiming systems are suppose to start degrading. In MWO you can often go all the way to 30 multiple times before you have any ill-effects.
The heat system is objectively broken. Tweaking and balancing anything until it's fix is a pointless waste of resources.
All of the work done tweaking missile was a waste, tweak armor was a waste, etc...
Heat must be fixed first. It's more important than firing-rate.

Edited by Quazil, 05 December 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[Stabbitha]

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

That sounds like PGI's stance in part. Start OFF with TT values, but then just adjust where needed. Of course, they're still in the midst of balancing, so something they've already adjusted might be revisited down the line.

They've changed ROF and armour but left damage and heat. Damage and armour are fine, you can balance those so there is a logical progression, but ROF and heat create a multiplicative problem the hotter a weapon gets.

Quote

I've never been a fan off dice rolling. I'll always choose skill over luck. The former requires time and effort to acquire, and the latter is so fleeting, it's about as reliable a lotto scratch-off.

The dice rolling is weighted, your actions determine your inaccuracy.

Sprinting at 130 in a Jenner, you're less accurate, but also less likely to get hit (ignoring lagshield ; ). Sitting still lining up a shot in a gausscat, your very accurate (but also not a difficult target). Blazing away with UAC's, pretty soon your inaccurate as hell (so it wouldn't be a big issue at point blank range but at 200m you might want to take time to line up shots more carefully).

This is nothing new, it's literally in dozens if not hundreds of games already. The implications, including high heat affecting bloom and giving scouts/fast mechs a better chance of survival if/when they fix the netcode, add a whole new dimension to the game.

[Aerik Lornes]

Garth Erlam, on 05 December 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

That's a problem with the PPC, not the heat system.

When the vast majority of weapons have their damage and heat changed, it's very likely it's not the weapons that are screwed up, it's the system they are operating within that's fubared.

[Aerik Lornes]

GaussDragon, on 05 December 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I think the calls for the 1:1 TT port have finally died down now that the rest of the community has shown its collective reasoning skills by totally shi tting on the people who made that tired argument over and over. These days, anyone caught doing that gets called out and (rightfully) shamed for being such an idio t.

I too commented on the heat problem back in closed beta, but I don't recall getting shamed for it. I recall a few sycophants annoyed that I wasn't worshipping at the devs godlike feet, but I've never felt in any way shamed by people who can't do a little math.

[IIIuminaughty]

Thuzel, on 04 December 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Not speaking for him, but why shouldn't it be? If he feels the issue is important, then he is in the right to speak his mind.

Or do you mean that everyone that disagrees with the powers that be should just remain silent?

What im saying you guys making topics about the same sht every hour. Im pretty sure they know about the issues by now.
None of you guys are patient. Then we have these players that try to tell them how to do everything. If you know how, they are hiring why not apply there.

[JerryYeh712]

I could never understand the reason why they must stick to the tabletop values. This is a video game, not a tabletop. They should focus their effort on how to design it to works as a video game. I don't care if it's un-canon or not, if it doesn't work as a game, then it's not a good design. MW4 had a lot of un-canon stuff, but it's fun and it works, I think that's design principle they should apply here.

[MustrumRidcully]

Belorion, on 05 December 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Just because a hand full of people can't manage their heat, it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the way heat is implemented. It is supposed to be difficult to manage your heat.

You are confusing people that notice that certain weapons suck due to their extraordinary heat cost with people that cannot manage their heat. And until you cannot see the difference, it is pretty much pointless to argue with you.

[MustrumRidcully]

BTW, there is a patch feedback thread on game balance:

http://mwomercs.com/...60#entry1553373

Why do we not lead the discussion there?

[RG Notch]

Stabbitha, on 05 December 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

So you post on ad nauseum how they aren't listening and then we're supposed to work with them... How exactly if they aren't listening? The solution is staring them in the face but they willfully ignore it.

ps. You care to add your suggestions to address the issue rather than running around p#ssing on everyone's parade?



Who said anything about "massive forum uproar"? A crowd doesn't need to equal a huge number of people, but I've seen plenty of different people saying the same thing, the heat system is broken... Math says it's broken. Breaking otherwise perfectly fine weapons to accommodate it says it's broken.

Hell, if the apologists and the apathetic would just get off their ***** and add their voices, it might result in a change.

Why not read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. If you think so many people care or that they apathetic should get involved why not post the poll like I suggested? Scared it won't turn out as you expect or that it won't garner nearly enough votes to matter? The onus is on you to show that lots of people agree and that it's not just the same folks in the echo chamber . I didn't say they weren't listening, I said they weren't going to change the entire heat system to suit you. Perhaps people are apathetic because they don't think the entire heat system is as bad as you do. At this point do you honestly think after all this time and all the posts they are really going to suddenly change course? I see that lack of poll as admission that you don't believe people are really behind this. I personally agree that the system should have been based on heat and damage over a en second period rather than per shot if this is the way the change RoF, but PGI clearly doesn't.
So tilt at windmills and be confident you are right while PGI continues to believe they are right and balance by tweaking individual weapons. Post a poll, try to stir up the player base, try to work with PGI's tweaks, or keep posting the same stuff and smugly saying you've been right for months while PGI goes about it's business ignoring you.

[Dukov Nook]

Abrahms, on 05 December 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Graduate school publications use Hotch Potch

That's fine. Doctorate level publications use Hodge Podge.

[MustrumRidcully]

Dukov Nook, on 06 December 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

That's fine. Doctorate level publications use Hodge Podge.

Stephen Fry level publications leave it open to everyone, it doesn't really matter.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 December 2012 - 04:56 AM.

[pesco]

Aegis Kleais, on 04 December 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Balance is never a "we got it perfectly right on the first try", and you haven't even given the current implementation a full day of public testing. I know a lot of people talk as if balancing is as simple as doing a 1:1 port of Table Top rules to MWO, but it just isn't.

Right, it's as simple as doing a 1:rate of fire port of tabletop rules.

[pesco]

GaussDragon, on 05 December 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I think the calls for the 1:1 TT port have finally died down now that the rest of the community has shown its collective reasoning skills by totally shi tting on the people who made that tired argument over and over.

Because ******** on people really makes good reasoning...

I think what is really happening here is that PGI want to pull through with whatever they did because they think they have no time to go back.

And the "1:1 TT" phrase is a strawman. Nobody was ever advocating shooting every weapon with a cycle time of 10 seconds. Nor deciding hit location completely at random.

However nobody has ever made a conclusive argument against the proposition that balancing might have simply been served better by starting with every value scaled to fit the damage/heat/ammo consumption of a 10 second turn.

Edited by pesco, 06 December 2012 - 07:30 AM.

[Abrahms]

Dukov Nook, on 06 December 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

That's fine. Doctorate level publications use Hodge Podge.

*face palm* perhaps youre from another country. Graduate school and doctorates are the same thing. Post college...

edit: USA

Edited by Abrahms, 09 December 2012 - 01:57 AM.

[Abrahms]

OH, and Im not saying we have to copy table top, its just that, TT was slightly balanced, and MWO is not at all. MWO also uses the stock load outs, etc, for trial mechs.

TT balanced weapons on their tonnage and heat (each heat point required 1 ton for heat neutrality). Naturally, then, when MWO triples ROF and triples the tonnage for heatsinks, it totally breaks everything.

In TT, the 3xPPC boat and the 2xGauss was essentially, the same. Some slight differences exist for composing your mech (like the ppc is light if you choose to run it hot) but they are not much different - it makes sense, as they have similar range and damage output to match the 1:1 ratio.

In MWO the PPC weighs twice the gauss for the same damage and range. So, no one in their right mind uses it except in certain scenarios (already too cool, no ballistic hardpoints, etc).

Im not vouching for 1:1 with TT, what Im saying is that if they are basically using EVERYTHING from battletech and TT (like mech load outs, damage, etc) that completely breaking the heat system would naturally lead to seriously wonky balance. Exactly as we have now (hotch potch fixes are making it a little better though, but 1/3 of the weapons still have no place)

[MustrumRidcully]

I've also made a new analysis thread here: http://mwomercs.com/...nks-2012-12-08/