108 replies to this topic

[Shroomicide]

Brandeis, on 08 December 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Well, actually it's not. It's 40% more efficient.

I'm referring to SHS in Assault mechs. You can put about 30 SHS in a well-equipped Atlas, but only 14-16 DHS because of critical slots.

[Marineballer]

If you get 14-16 DHS in an Atlas, then it is nearly comparable to SHS wich means that an upgrade is pointless.
Just in this case but there's the point.
3050 most of mechs have DHS.

And if you are concern about an unbalance between trial mechs with SHS (new player will left the game shortly, can't play with them well bla bla bla) then give DHS to the variant wich has DHS in canon, too. (sarna)

[DivineEvil]

I hope that everyone here will agree, that the best and balanced solution, is to increase the relative critical volume, that internal elements occupy on the lighter mechs. That will:
- Limit the size of weapons lighter mechs can stuff into their small mech's locations (AC20 into Raven's arm? uhhh... right...).
- Allow the justified return of 2.0 rating for DHS, so that Energy focused variants can stand on a level with Ballistic and Missile focused variants, especially the Heavy and Assault mechs.
- Balance the real 2.0 DHS so that ligher mechs cannot abuse them out of control.
- Make internal elements easier to damage and break compared to smaller installed items like heatsinks.
- Make PPC's a viable weapon.
- Add up an easy way to balance and personalize future mechs aside from weapon/equipment hardpoints.
- Not require to revamp the crit slot system to reduce actual critical slots mounts individually.
- Not require any other significant changes to existent mechanics.

Who's in?

Edited by DivineEvil, 09 December 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[JimTheRat]

Okay. Here's the deal as far as I'm concerned about DHS.

I run a Cataphract 3D. I am a maniac who likes running things relatively stock. Same weapon loadout as stock. Difference? DHS. With DHS I can drop 3 heatsinks, gain three tons of usable weight, and have a better heat efficiency profile than the stock Cataphract 3D.

How would it be fair to other 3D pilots if I could drop another 3 tons on top of that, stick on even more weapons, and go rampant? Why should my 'stock' Cataphract outlcass another CTF by the massive amount DHS 2.0 would provide?

How is it fair that I, or any player, gets an 'I win' button based on spending 1.5 million C-bills, or however many C-bills?

Yeah, yeah, you want your DHS 2.0 so you can run your quad PPC build without worrying one bit about overheating. I get it. You think that 'balance' means giving everyone the opportunity to make the same ludicrous builds. I get that too.

What you don't get is that this isn't a game of 'Level up your mech to get the best one and BEAT EVERYONE'. This is a game where everyone on the field should have a reasonable chance against everyone else on the field. Yes, previous mechwarriors were built around massive disparities that allowed you to ROFLstomp hordes of AI. This is a multiplayer game, and ultimately, something more in tone to an FPS than something like World of Tanks. What's the key factor in the upcoming matchmaking system we've heard about? Your mech build? No, your skill level.

Being able to pay 50 000 000 c-bills, or 300 dollars in MC, to buy a mech that lets you waste the opposition? That's Pay 2 Win. And that's the basis behind DHS on table-top. DHS cost a ton to deploy, and they increase the BattleValue (BV) to the point where one highly upgraded DHS mech has to face two lower tech 'mechs, or however the balance goes.

Unless the matchmaking system takes into account DHS, so heavily teched up 'mechs have to face large numbers of less teched up 'mechs, I don't think I can reasonably support DHS at 2.0. And while that's a neat idea, that's a much, much larger game design change to make than increasing the DHS variable to two.

[DivineEvil]

Levesque, on 09 December 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Okay. Here's the deal as far as I'm concerned about DHS.

I run a Cataphract 3D. I am a maniac who likes running things relatively stock. Same weapon loadout as stock. Difference? DHS. With DHS I can drop 3 heatsinks, gain three tons of usable weight, and have a better heat efficiency profile than the stock Cataphract 3D.

How would it be fair to other 3D pilots if I could drop another 3 tons on top of that, stick on even more weapons, and go rampant? Why should my 'stock' Cataphract outlcass another CTF by the massive amount DHS 2.0 would provide?

How is it fair that I, or any player, gets an 'I win' button based on spending 1.5 million C-bills, or however many C-bills?

Yeah, yeah, you want your DHS 2.0 so you can run your quad PPC build without worrying one bit about overheating. I get it. You think that 'balance' means giving everyone the opportunity to make the same ludicrous builds. I get that too.

What you don't get is that this isn't a game of 'Level up your mech to get the best one and BEAT EVERYONE'. This is a game where everyone on the field should have a reasonable chance against everyone else on the field. Yes, previous mechwarriors were built around massive disparities that allowed you to ROFLstomp hordes of AI. This is a multiplayer game, and ultimately, something more in tone to an FPS than something like World of Tanks. What's the key factor in the upcoming matchmaking system we've heard about? Your mech build? No, your skill level.

Being able to pay 50 000 000 c-bills, or 300 dollars in MC, to buy a mech that lets you waste the opposition? That's Pay 2 Win. And that's the basis behind DHS on table-top. DHS cost a ton to deploy, and they increase the BattleValue (BV) to the point where one highly upgraded DHS mech has to face two lower tech 'mechs, or however the balance goes.

Unless the matchmaking system takes into account DHS, so heavily teched up 'mechs have to face large numbers of less teched up 'mechs, I don't think I can reasonably support DHS at 2.0. And while that's a neat idea, that's a much, much larger game design change to make than increasing the DHS variable to two.

1,5 Cbills is about the 30-50% the price of your stock mech. Fair enough if you ask me.

Making DHS into pile of crap is not a solution to anything, it does disbalanced the game even further towards stacking Ballistics, that dominate both the brawl and sniping ranges. Making better matchmaking is.

And no, I just want to be able to run Awesome with at least 3x PPC without getting myself on negative CBill rates each game. While you can try to run ANY energy-powered mech variants, you will ultimately found yourself pounded by Ballistics and Missiles, which doesn't rely on heatsinks much while deal more DPS without breaks.

Edited by DivineEvil, 09 December 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[Dyson Ring]

Levesque, on 09 December 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Okay. Here's the deal as far as I'm concerned about DHS.

I run a Cataphract 3D. I am a maniac who likes running things relatively stock. Same weapon loadout as stock. Difference? DHS. With DHS I can drop 3 heatsinks, gain three tons of usable weight, and have a better heat efficiency profile than the stock Cataphract 3D.

How would it be fair to other 3D pilots if I could drop another 3 tons on top of that, stick on even more weapons, and go rampant? Why should my 'stock' Cataphract outlcass another CTF by the massive amount DHS 2.0 would provide?

How is it fair that I, or any player, gets an 'I win' button based on spending 1.5 million C-bills, or however many C-bills?

Yeah, yeah, you want your DHS 2.0 so you can run your quad PPC build without worrying one bit about overheating. I get it. You think that 'balance' means giving everyone the opportunity to make the same ludicrous builds. I get that too.

What you don't get is that this isn't a game of 'Level up your mech to get the best one and BEAT EVERYONE'. This is a game where everyone on the field should have a reasonable chance against everyone else on the field. Yes, previous mechwarriors were built around massive disparities that allowed you to ROFLstomp hordes of AI. This is a multiplayer game, and ultimately, something more in tone to an FPS than something like World of Tanks. What's the key factor in the upcoming matchmaking system we've heard about? Your mech build? No, your skill level.

Being able to pay 50 000 000 c-bills, or 300 dollars in MC, to buy a mech that lets you waste the opposition? That's Pay 2 Win. And that's the basis behind DHS on table-top. DHS cost a ton to deploy, and they increase the BattleValue (BV) to the point where one highly upgraded DHS mech has to face two lower tech 'mechs, or however the balance goes.

Unless the matchmaking system takes into account DHS, so heavily teched up 'mechs have to face large numbers of less teched up 'mechs, I don't think I can reasonably support DHS at 2.0. And while that's a neat idea, that's a much, much larger game design change to make than increasing the DHS variable to two.

Here's the thing, ALL intrinsic engine Heat Sinks are running at 2.0 if you have DHS enabled on your 'Mech.

Edited by Dyson Ring, 09 December 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Apparently some people have trouble with the definitions of "Double" and/or "Upgrade"....

[Stingz]

DivineEvil, on 09 December 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

- Limit the size of weapons lighter mechs can stuff into their small mech's locations (AC20 into Raven's arm? uhhh... right...).
- Allow the justified return of 2.0 rating for DHS, so that Energy focused variants can stand on a level with Ballistic and Missile focused variants, especially the Heavy and Assault mechs.
- Balance the real 2.0 DHS so that ligher mechs cannot abuse them out of control.

Tonnage itself limits what a light mech can use. The most common builds of MWO light mechs use a max XL engine, and some medium lasers. They always use 10-12 HS total (The 10 Built-In Engine DHS is running 2.0).

A better reason to put in real DHS is to make heavier mechs more effective. Heavy-Assault mechs rely much more on external DHS (past DHS 10, and its 1.4).

The Awesome is a good example of why DHS at 2.0 should happen, heavy-energy weapons (PPC, Pulse, ER weapons) burn too hard for SHS or DHS to handle (and the Awesome runs three of them).

Edited by Stingz, 09 December 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[BigMooingCow]

Marineballer, on 08 December 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

I've just finished reading the Q&A from Garth involving one question about the implementation of DHS with an overall 2.0 heat dissipation capacity, whereby Garth just said "No". It has come to my understanding that PGI hs the false impression that DHS have to be actually balanced against SHS. This is technically and canonically false. DHS have no drawbacks compared to SHS over the fact that they take up 3 crit slots and are expensive (make them expensive as hell if you like). They were intended not as an alternative to SHS but as a complete replacement, making SHS nearly obsolete. The SHS of 3055 are just remains of the lostech age, used by units without the supplies or enough funds to actually afford them.

This is very true when you look at Battletech, but we aren't playing a computerized version of Battletech. We're playing a Battletech-inspired action game, and PGI's goal is to balance everything, so people use all the weapons, not just the ones that are good in BT.

They're trying to balance the AC/20 and Gauss by adding more screen shake to the AC/20. (Why there's also no minimum range on the Gauss I can't fathom.)

They've balanced the AC/5 and UAC/5 by ammo weight and the inability to switch the UAC/5 into a single shot mode.

They've balanced the AC/10 and LBX-10 by preventing us from loading slugs into the LBX-10.

They've made the small LRM's more valuable by increasing their firing rate, eating into the simple damage multiplier of larger LRM's.

And of course, have you seen the AC/2? Four AC/2's turns any mech into a Kraken! My Cataphract 4X is a better fire support mech than any Awesome. Insane.


I don't like the weakness of DHS either, mostly because heat for large energy weapons is way too high right now, and DHS could completely solve this problem. But I don't see PGI changing anytime soon. They've put their foot down and stuffed their fingers in their ears on DHS.

[JimTheRat]

DivineEvil, on 09 December 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

1,5 Cbills is about the 30-50% the price of your stock mech. Fair enough if you ask me.

Making DHS into pile of crap is not a solution to anything, it does disbalanced the game even further towards stacking Ballistics, that dominate both the brawl and sniping ranges. Making better matchmaking is.

And no, I just want to be able to run Awesome with at least 3x PPC without getting myself on negative CBill rates each game. While you can try to run ANY energy-powered mech variants, you will ultimately found yourself pounded by Ballistics and Missiles, which doesn't rely on heatsinks much while deal more DPS without breaks.

1.5 million c-bills, 5 million, twenty c-bills, it is effectively creating a pay to win mechanic. It will create haves and have nots. Maybe making DHS a 'pile of scrap' isn't a solution, but having a situation where two players of equal skill become radically mismatched in otherwise similar builds because one guy could afford to spend more on his, is, to my thinking, unfair and the ultimate definition of unbalanced. One of the 'advanced' variants of the Cataphract costs close to five million c-bills more than the default variants. Are you saying that the other variants should, automatically, be at a disadvantage to the advanced 3D variant?

As for running an Awesome on 3 PPCs, I did it quite successfully with a stock 8Q in closed beta, on single heat sinks. All I had to do was keep an eye on my heat levels and lay off the alpha fire now and then. It didn't break the bank. (Granted, though, match results paid out a lot more back then...) But, seriously. PPCs are some of the most expensive weapons in the game. If you're having money problems, it's probably them being crazy expensive.

Also, missiles and ballistics? They rely on ammo. Which means ammo explosions, running out of ammo, and a host of other problems energy users don't suffer. And PPCs? PPCs are, apparently (can't confirm myself) particularly good at causing ammo bin critical hits and detonations.

[Rocket2Uranus]

focuspark, on 08 December 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Good lord another thread on this topic. get over it people DHS *need* to be comparable to SHS for there to be balance. They are *not* a straight upgrade. Get over it.

Devs, do ever regret using the existing IP of BT/MW? I know I would.

try again. DHS *needs* to be as is, because of the Trial Mechs that new players use.
if all owned mechs had 2.0 DHS, Trial mechs would be plowed down even faster than they get plowed right now.

[sC4r]

Quote

Tonnage itself limits what a light mech can use. The most common builds of MWO light mechs use a max XL engine, and some medium lasers. They always use 10-12 HS total (The 10 Built-In Engine DHS is running 2.0).

dont know where you get this from but i can assure you that every DHS has 1.4 heat dissipitation... go ahead test it in mech lab or in the field

as for the lore stuff... i dont say i dont care about lore BUT if i had to choose a between fairly balanced game and lore in any multiplayer game then i choose the former
why? ok do you tell yourselves in this game: "but but acording to lore this should do this more and do that and there should be also this aviable"... yeah right

i think that if the dhs would indeed be 2.0 then:
-lights would be able to spam weapons constanly with just engine heat sinks
-energy variants again capable to chain fire everything they got
-low heat builds wouldnt require any additional heat sinks to dissipitate their heat
rise of the swaybacks, catapults, and awesomes...
like catapults needs any more QQ threads

the suggestion about balancing it with money? it will not do... there will be always these guys that are rich on MCs so its gonna be pay to win which i dont approve off... and if you are playing some tournaments (and i believe pgi wants this game to have som pro competitiveness) the players will always bring WHAT IS EFFECTIVE and totaly ignore how much it will cost

so i say if the 80% of the game stays as it should according to lore it will remain a mechwarrior... leave the remaining the rest the developers to decide how it should look ingame and stop bitching(unless its broken that is )

[DivineEvil]

Quote

The Awesome is a good example of why DHS at 2.0 should happen, heavy-energy weapons (PPC, Pulse, ER weapons) burn too hard for SHS or DHS to handle (and the Awesome runs three of them).

Same is true for any Energy-specific mech variants present. K-2 is screwed up into Gauss boats and AC20 boats, since PPC/ER PPC are basically impossible to handle - 3/2 barrages and you practically useless for about 2-3 minutes until you will disperse all the heat. 1X Cataphract is used only as a heavy Ballistic platform for single AC20 or LB-X10 with an array of Medium Lasers, because anything heavier also renders him useless, and 4X ballistic boat is dominating the battlefield. Energy commandos are forgotten in favor for SSRM runners. All Hunchbacks are working fine, but Razorback Laser-Battery cannot brawl continuously and works as mediocre fire support on medium distances. Et cetera.

Quote

This is very true when you look at Battletech, but we aren't playing a computerized version of Battletech. We're playing a Battletech-inspired action game, and PGI's goal is to balance everything, so people use all the weapons, not just the ones that are good in BT

Yeah, that why they make all heavy Energy weapons useless. Right.

Quote

They've balanced the AC/5 and UAC/5 by ammo weight and the inability to switch the UAC/5 into a single shot mode.

Ammo weight is not changed and equal to TT parameters. Inability to switch modes is something that simply not introduced, not the balance decision. To balance something out, you need first to make it disbalanced. First PGI implemented UAC as it is, and it was OP. Then they implemented jam with manual unjamming mechanic, which made it obsolete. Then they made unjamming automatic, and it made UAC completely balanced. Now they made it jamming 25% of the time, which is boundary to making it obsolete again. Nice balancing, nuff said.

Quote

They've balanced the AC/10 and LBX-10 by preventing us from loading slugs into the LBX-10

They disbalanced it by doing that. LBX-10 worth an extreme amount of CBills just because it can fire both munitions. Right now in MWO, the only reason to pick LBX-10 against AC10 is slight weight difference and easier hits on Light mechs, for a price of unfocused damage. It is in fact not balanced.

Quote

They've made the small LRM's more valuable by increasing their firing rate, eating into the simple damage multiplier of larger LRM's.

Smaller LRMs are not better than bigger ones in any way. They have lower weight-damage ratio, they're easier to counter with AMS and they produce more heat per missile fired. Faster firin rate doesnt really change their balance in any significant way.

Quote

1.5 million c-bills, 5 million, twenty c-bills, it is effectively creating a pay to win mechanic.

Pay to win mechanic refers to real money. You can't use MC to buy heat-sinks, you cant make upgrades with MC or exchange them for CBills. Thus, your point is entirely invalid. If I can play the game, earn the CBills and be stronger than Trial mechs, that are absolutely free to play, there's nothing wrong with that. It works the same way right now, Trials are stomped hard just like they're supposed to. The difference is, Ballistic and Missile mechs are doing that freely, and Energy mechs even with all the possible buffs still standing in-between those. You should really start to notice, that stocky Trial mechs are always underpowered and will be that way regardless of DHS.

Edited by DivineEvil, 09 December 2012 - 03:00 PM.

[DivineEvil]

Quote

having a situation where two players of equal skill become radically mismatched in otherwise similar builds because one guy could afford to spend more on his, is, to my thinking, unfair and the ultimate definition of unbalanced.

So yeah, if I've spent 12 hours of playing the game on my OWN mech and earned my CBills, that I've spent to make my mech better, that should not give me an advantage over the newbie, who runs tha Trial? Are you out of your mind?

Speaking of "similar builds", that what happens: we have two guys of equal skill, both of which spent their CBills to manage their own mechs. One guy spend tons of money to get a 10 DHS ballistic monster, another spend his money to get 16-18 DHS energy mech. When they meeting each-other, Ballistic user can scold Energy user like stealing candy from a kid, since Energy mech cannot handle equally expensive heavy energy build, and either have to hide for extended periods of time to dissipate heat, or overheat himself and die in a matter of seconds. Is that what you call balanced?

Quote

One of the 'advanced' variants of the Cataphract costs close to five million c-bills more than the default variants. Are you saying that the other variants should, automatically, be at a disadvantage to the advanced 3D variant?

They ARE at an disadvantage. This very variant possess a built-in XL engine, which makes for the price difference and allows it to carry two high-tier Ballistic weapons with sufficient ammo, 4 medium lasers and 4 jumpjets, compared to other variants. That what makes it initially stronger than all other variants.

Quote

As for running an Awesome on 3 PPCs, I did it quite successfully with a stock 8Q in closed beta, on single heat sinks.

In Closed Beta DHS were giving 2.0 HDR. Try it now. We'll see how you fail to provide any significant DPS with those, not even speaking about ER PPC's.

Quote

But, seriously. PPCs are some of the most expensive weapons in the game.

Price is not the problem. Problem is that they doesnt do anything that might worth it.

Quote

Also, missiles and ballistics? They rely on ammo. Which means ammo explosions, running out of ammo, and a host of other problems energy users don't suffer. And PPCs? PPCs are, apparently (can't confirm myself) particularly good at causing ammo bin critical hits and detonations.

And they doesnt rely on Heat sinks and have higher DPS than energy weapons. And PPC are not better at causing critical hits than any other weapon out there. Except for the... LB-X 10 that have 10x more chance. Difference is that you can slice enemy armor with ballistics much, much faster than using Energy weapons. And since all we have is Assault on ~2 km*sq maps for 10-12 minute combat, Energy weapons not relying on ammo doesn't much affects their efficiency, since usually you run out of ammo when one of the teams are already decimated by those. So heavy Energy weapons are completely impossible to use as a primary armament in a matter of current experience, which is proved by the mechs players current prefer - Gaussboats, AC boats, missile boats, ECM carriers and Streak Scouts. Even as fire-support weapons, ER Lasers and PPC's are pathetic.

[JimTheRat]

DivineEvil, on 09 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

So yeah, if I've spent 12 hours of playing the game on my OWN mech and earned my CBills, that I've spent to make my mech better, that should not give me an advantage over the newbie, who runs tha Trial? Are you out of your mind?

No, I'm not. Do you think in Star Craft 2 you should get an advantage over the newbie because you spent twelve hours longer playing the game than him?

If this is a game of unlocking the baddest mech, sure, but this is a multiplayer game, not something with 'YOU ARE LEVEL 50 YOU NOW CURBSTOMP LEVEL FIVE NOOBIES.'

Quote

Speaking of "similar builds", that what happens: we have two guys of equal skill, both of which spent their CBills to manage their own mechs. One guy spend tons of money to get a 10 DHS ballistic monster, another spend his money to get 16-18 DHS energy mech. When they meeting each-other, Ballistic user can scold Energy user like stealing candy from a kid, since Energy mech cannot handle equally expensive heavy energy build, and either have to hide for extended periods of time to dissipate heat, or overheat himself and die in a matter of seconds. Is that what you call balanced?

'Buying' stuff isn't skill related. Skill is positioning, timing, movement. If you think putting together an efficient build qualifies as 'skill' in this context, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote

They ARE at an disadvantage. This very variant possess a built-in XL engine, which makes for the price difference and allows it to carry two high-tier Ballistic weapons with sufficient ammo, 4 medium lasers and 4 jumpjets, compared to other variants. That what makes it initially stronger than all other variants.

The XL engine comes with two major disadvantages. First, the crit sinks it eats up. Second, the XL engine gets you killed stone dead on the loss of side torsos. Which happens far, far more often than usual. I pilot both a 3D and a 1X, and the 1X will come out of toe to toe 'stand and deliver' firefights the 3D simply can't. The 3D might swap the PPC for an autocannon, but if anything that's made it even more fragile because of the additional ammo I have to squirrel away.

My personal experience says the two variants are very comparable in performance, stock, but in two different directions. The 3D becomes a machine you have to baby and think about very hard, the 1X is something you can get stuck into a brawl with and survive, but if piloted in a way similar to the 3D (minus the jumpjets) is something I regularly find myself limping along with at the end of a round, holes in armour, still going where the 3D would've gone down halfway through.

Quote

In Closed Beta DHS were giving 2.0 HDR. Try it now. We'll see how you fail to provide any significant DPS with those, not even speaking about ER PPC's.

I was running it on _single_ heat sinks. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. _Single_ heat sinks. And I recently gave the Awesome in trial a go, and, y'know what? It's still an effective machine. You just use it to engage at PPC range. Which is 500-600 metres, boosted up a tad thanks to the ER PPCs.

Quote

Price is not the problem. Problem is that they doesnt do anything that might worth it.


And they doesnt rely on Heat sinks and have higher DPS than energy weapons. And PPC are not better at causing critical hits than any other weapon out there. Except for the... LB-X 10 that have 10x more chance. Difference is that you can slice enemy armor with ballistics much, much faster than using Energy weapons. And since all we have is Assault on ~2 km*sq maps for 10-12 minute combat, Energy weapons not relying on ammo doesn't much affects their efficiency, since usually you run out of ammo when one of the teams are already decimated by those. So heavy Energy weapons are completely impossible to use as a primary armament in a matter of current experience, which is proved by the mechs players current prefer - Gaussboats, AC boats, missile boats, ECM carriers and Streak Scouts. Even as fire-support weapons, ER Lasers and PPC's are pathetic.

Okay, crits are apparently currently based on a system where all damage applied to a section without armour gets a seperate chance of causing a crit. If it does, it applies its hitpoint damage (PPC gets ten) to the item, and when the item's hitpoints total (currently ten for anything but a gauss, which is 3) is exceeded, the part is broken. There's a chance to get a damage multiplier, but it's slim. As such, while the LBX-10 is good for critseeking, the PPC is better since it's going to deal its damage to a single internal item - the LBX-10 is going to spread each impact to a different item, and, as such, break all of them for 1 damage, rather than 1 of them for 10 damage and knock out the item entirely.

The way it's been explained to me, the PPC is, in fact, a great critter, and a great armour-piercer in much the same use profile as an AC-10. And that's exactly how I use the PPC on my CTF-1x.

But you know what? My next buy's going to be that 8Q again. I'll give it a shot, and maybe I'll agree with you. But my previous adventures with the Awesome tell me that DHS isn't the problem, and that the current preference for ballistics, as far as I'm concerned, has more to do with the fact that it's actually possible to hit stuff with them now.



Edit: Re spending C-bills to be Pay2Win? You convert MC into C-bills very, very rapdily by buying a mech with MC and selling it for C-bills. We used to do this in closed beta after a reset with the 'free' MC they gave us so we could customize mechs.

Edited by Levesque, 10 December 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Quote

No, I'm not. Do you think in Star Craft 2 you should get an advantage over the newbie because you spent twelve hours longer playing the game than him?

Starcraft is the game, that have no in-game currency whatsoever. You buy the game and play it to your heart's content. Your skill is only bet you're placing on, and your rank is the only depiction of your experience. How can you even compare it to the MWO?

Quote

If this is a game of unlocking the baddest mech, sure, but this is a multiplayer game, not something with 'YOU ARE LEVEL 50 YOU NOW CURBSTOMP LEVEL FIVE NOOBIES.'

It is a game where you progress by playing. Playing better and playing more allows you to progress further from your initial point. This works the same way as many, many MMORPGs out there. So yeah, you're leveling up, you getting custom mechs with expensive advanced equipment and you optimizing it for your playstyle and the role you want to play in a given match. And, as I've already mentioned, it still works the same way in MWO - Trials are stomped, stumped hard, and DHS play no role in that concern. Many people can keep their mechs on SHS, and they will still tear newbies apart, since they have an optimized mech with ES upgrade and using their hardpoints to decide it's range specialization, while Trials are given as is, with currently useless weapons like Small Lasers, Flamers and Machinegus, and unsufficient ammo, weak armor or flawed engine, that requires thorough analisys to use them in somehow considerable efficiency.

What DHS are changing in that concern, I can't see no matter how long I look trough it. All that DHS nerf has affected is the balance between Energy and Ballistic weapons. There's no justice in relation between newbies and veterans, until there's a matchmaking that divide them. So DHS nerf is not the solution to anything in fact. It just goes against the very idea of DHS being the upgrade, that help mechs to handle their heavy Energy weapons layout, not less, not more. It supposed to work for Heavy/Assault mechs, but due to nerf, it work the opposite way in all given situations.

Quote

'Buying' stuff isn't skill related. Skill is positioning, timing, movement. If you think putting together an efficient build qualifies as 'skill' in this context, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're seeing what you want to see here. Skill is skill. Buying is buying.

Quote

My personal experience says the two variants are very comparable in performance, stock, but in two different directions. The 3D becomes a machine you have to baby and think about very hard, the 1X is something you can get stuck into a brawl with and survive, but if piloted in a way similar to the 3D (minus the jumpjets) is something I regularly find myself limping along with at the end of a round, holes in armour, still going where the 3D would've gone down halfway through.

Difference between 1X and 3D is one Energy/Ballistic exchange + jumpjets. Now compare 1X to 4X. 4X can be loaded with devastating array of weapos for universal ranges and sufficient ammo for an entire match. 1X can barely handle 2 Large Lasers together with MLs and single Ballistic of choice, and will never ever reach the potential of 4X unless he fight is short bursts for long brakes. Same goes for all mechs. 4X does not require much maintenance beyond accuracy of fire, that why everyone prefer them over 1X, aside from personal principles like me, and rare individuals like you would prefer 3D just for the jumpjets. Just as everyone would prefer ballistic/missile capable Atlas above any Awesome variants, that are Energy/Missile based.

Quote

I was running it on _single_ heat sinks. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. _Single_ heat sinks. And I recently gave the Awesome in trial a go, and, y'know what? It's still an effective machine. You just use it to engage at PPC range. Which is 500-600 metres, boosted up a tad thanks to the ER PPCs[color=#959595].[/color]

All machines are "effective" when it comes to veterans playing. But your concern about meqbies comes contradictory to how new players are going to run mechs, that overheats ater two volleys. And funny thing is, that goes the same way even if yo buy that mech and try to upgrade it, and run it and unlock efficiencies. For the whole time you'll be running negative economy, unlike Atlases and lighter CTF-4X, who barely care about heat whatsoever and can both brawl or snipe to the max potential.

Quote

The way it's been explained to me, the PPC is, in fact, a great critter, and a great armour-piercer in much the same use profile as an AC-10. And that's exactly how I use the PPC on my CTF-1x.

Unlike AC-10, you can't spam PPC. LB-X are granted 10 chances to deal a crit instead of 1, and can be spammed just the same way.

Quote

But you know what? My next buy's going to be that 8Q again. I'll give it a shot, and maybe I'll agree with you. But my previous adventures with the Awesome tell me that DHS isn't the problem, and that the current preference for ballistics, as far as I'm concerned, has more to do with the fact that it's actually possible to hit stuff with them now.

We shall see.

Quote

Edit: Re spending C-bills to be Pay2Win? You convert MC into C-bills very, very rapdily by buying a mech with MC and selling it for C-bills. We used to do this in closed beta after a reset with the 'free' MC they gave us so we could customize mechs.

That made my day... spending MC's to earn C-Bills like that. It's hilarious. It's like the most ******** way to spend in-game currency I can remember or imagine, considering how expensive (on MC/$ basis) standard mechs are, and how much you are loosing by selling them for CBills. It is fast, but totaly nuts. Especially when you have at least one Founder's mech.

If that not a joke, I seriously has nothing to tell you, or talk about any further, if you can't really evaluate your decisions even slightly. Only mindless zombie would waste all those MC's to recieve CBills that can be earned by playing so easily. No really, I'm shocked. It's like sseing a guys, who can't stand up from a chair without external assistance and think that it's ok to be like that.

I've spent my MCs on some Mechs that I'm certain I'll keep permanently with no doubt, I've bought mechbay slots, I've bought Ilya Muromec, since it's like a national hero of Russian myths, and of course I've made paintjobs for all of my mechs. Buying Premium time os ok, buying Hero mechs is ok, but... uh... selling MCs for CBills is selling gold for rocks on 1:1 weight ratio...

Edited by DivineEvil, 10 December 2012 - 06:24 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Real double heat sinks will affect the pace of the game. The current implementation seesm to be designed to ensure that medium lasers do not become overpowered compared to other weapons of their range class. Unfortunately, it leaves plenty of weapons underpowere,d and it ruins stock mechs that were build for double heat sinks. An Awesome 9M only works in the table top because it has double heat sinks that allow it to use its 3 ER PPCs pretty well.

PGI could have looked more closely - why are certain builds problematic with double heat sinks? It boils down down IMO to the medium laser being too strong, an artifact inherited from the original battletech game, where mediuml lasers were extremely efficient weapons - low weight, low heat, good damage. But in the table top game, they had a drawback - random hit location generation meant that your mediuml asers would deal a lot of damage, but spread all over the enemy mech. This is gone from MW:O. The logical consequence isn't necessarily to nerf double heat sinks, or to add cone of fires- it can just be ot rebalance the affected weapons so they work reasonably well with real DHS.

Of course, that is all not talking about the fundamental problem that makes even single heat sinks underpowered and stock mechs terrible builds for MW:O, despite many of them being solid builds for the original game (or at least not having "heat" as their primary problem.)

Real double heat sinks will affect the pace of the game. The current implementation seesm to be designed to ensure that medium lasers do not become overpowered compared to other weapons of their range class. Unfortunately, it leaves plenty of weapons underpowere,d and it ruins stock mechs that were build for double heat sinks. An Awesome 9M only works in the table top because it has double heat sinks that allow it to use its 3 ER PPCs pretty well.

PGI could have looked more closely - why are certain builds problematic with double heat sinks? It boils down down IMO to the medium laser being too strong, an artifact inherited from the original battletech game, where mediuml lasers were extremely efficient weapons - low weight, low heat, good damage. But in the table top game, they had a drawback - random hit location generation meant that your mediuml asers would deal a lot of damage, but spread all over the enemy mech. This is gone from MW:O. The logical consequence isn't necessarily to nerf double heat sinks, or to add cone of fires- it can just be ot rebalance the affected weapons so they work reasonably well with real DHS.

Of course, that is all not talking about the fundamental problem that makes even single heat sinks underpowered and stock mechs terrible builds for MW:O, despite many of them being solid builds for the original game (or at least not having "heat" as their primary problem.)


Cryptic could have avoided the upgrade problem if they didn't have selected the transitionary time period in Battletech. In 3025, all tech was rougly balanced without even the battle value system. In 3055, they probably wouldn't have needed to give us any single heat sink mechs at all.



And anyone wanting to discuss the effects of the current double heat sink implementation of balance, feel free to check here: http://mwomercs.com/...nks-2012-12-08/

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 December 2012 - 06:56 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

The current DHS's negatives outweigh the positives:

• Takes up 3 slots (lose out on mounting other components/weapons)
  
• Can not take advantage of standing in water (can not fit in legs)
  
• More expensive (higher repair bill)

Taking up 3 slots can be really detrimental since you are required to reach a heatsink quota, despite the fact you may not need it. Perhaps bringing the slot cost to 2 would help make DHS worth the investment.

[Syllogy]

Marineballer, on 08 December 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Hey dear staff,

I've just finished reading the Q&A from Garth involving one question about the implementation of DHS with an overall 2.0 heat dissipation capacity, whereby Garth just said "No".

Actually, what Garth said was that after extensive internal testing, it was found that the Laser-Boated Hunchback could chain alpha strikes for 2 minutes straight without overheating by simply upgrading to DHS, and that was unbalanced.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 10 December 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Actually, what Garth said was that after extensive internal testing, it was found that the Laser-Boated Hunchback could chain alpha strikes for 2 minutes straight without overheating by simply upgrading to DHS, and that was unbalanced.

But was that a problem of the Medium Laser, or was it a problem of DHS?

Because I can tell you, you couldn't alpha strike 3 PPCs with real Double Heat Sinks, and they deliver less damage than 8 medium lasers. And you can already alpha strike 2 Gauss Rifles with single heat sinks for 5 minutes without ever overheating.