67 replies to this topic

[FiveDigits]

Apoc1138, on 11 December 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

instead of giving us 2.0 heatsinks they are instead going to be reducing heat on the very hottest energy weapons like the PPC, ERPPC and ERLL... I'm interested to see what these changes mean in game before drawing too many conclusions

1.4 heatsinks penalise heavy mechs... but the PPC/ERLL changes should also favour heavier mechs more than lighter mechs so we'll see what happens next

PGI - "Balancing - Turning the wrong k.nobs since 2012"

*edit: stupid filter

Edited by FiveDigits, 11 December 2012 - 02:44 AM.

[Buck Cake]

2.0 would allow for some serious boating. I'm looking at you, 6 medium laser Jenner.

[Zaptruder]

FiveDigits, on 11 December 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

PGI - "Balancing - Turning the wrong k.nobs since 2012"

*edit: stupid filter

lol. The overly sensitive filter makes this much dirtier than it should be.

Apoc1138, on 11 December 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

instead of giving us 2.0 heatsinks they are instead going to be reducing heat on the very hottest energy weapons like the PPC, ERPPC and ERLL... I'm interested to see what these changes mean in game before drawing too many conclusions

1.4 heatsinks penalise heavy mechs... but the PPC/ERLL changes should also favour heavier mechs more than lighter mechs so we'll see what happens next

Apoc1138, on 11 December 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

instead of giving us 2.0 heatsinks they are instead going to be reducing heat on the very hottest energy weapons like the PPC, ERPPC and ERLL... I'm interested to see what these changes mean in game before drawing too many conclusions

1.4 heatsinks penalise heavy mechs... but the PPC/ERLL changes should also favour heavier mechs more than lighter mechs so we'll see what happens next

This is actually the precise thing that I suggested in another thread discussing heat sink solutions where I was actually been serious.

[FiveDigits]

Buck Cake, on 11 December 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

2.0 would allow for some serious boating. I'm looking at you, 6 medium laser Jenner.

Care to elaborate? The 6 ML Jenner is using 2.0 DHS right now. (10 engine DHS @ 2.0)
What would change if all DHS became 2.0?

[DivineEvil]

Buck Cake, on 11 December 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

2.0 would allow for some serious boating. I'm looking at you, 6 medium laser Jenner.

Like they're nod doing it right now, huh.

Limiting Light critical slots by considering their relative sizes were the solution.

But now we have DHS, that are better for Lights than Assaults and better for Ballistics than Energy weapons.

So yeah, lets not abuse Laser boating and instead abuse Ballistic and Missiles boating. But Missiles are annoying, so lets include ECM, that counters everything and countered only by itself. Now we have Ballistic/ECM boating. Goal reached!

[Bounty Dogg]

THIS (IMO) is the real reason we'll never get to test true DHSs, or a lot of things.

Quote

Guys.....Im gonna post a quote that i answered in another thread about 2.0 sinks, that kinda (IMO) highlights the real reason we'll never test 2.0 sinks. My apologies if anyone takes offense to the quote, but This is the real problem, as i see it.

Quote

Mister Blastman, on 03 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:




> : (

Garth and team: Learn how to make battlemechs. Then get back to us. Obviously you guys have no idea how to do it. If you did, you'd see DHS aren't always mandatory. Sometimes, singles make more sense to use.

2.0 or bust!

See....this....this right here.....THIS is the real reason that we'll never even get to test 2.0 Heatsinks: This Beta community wouldnt be able to take having to give it up again.

Will all the of screaming and gnashing of teeth over the issue as it stands right now, what do you think this community would do if the Devs DID give it to us to TEST for a few weeks, then supply that the data supports what they first thought and that 2.0 sinks have trivialized the heat system, and so must be removed?

Would this community quietly accept the judgement and give 2.0 sinks back?

......................................No.

If you thought the level of screaming and crying was bad BEFORE, let the above scenario happen. It will feel as if the Apocalypse has descended upon these forums. The flamewars, the Trolling, the Troll baiting......it would tear this community apart......and hat highlights the real problem with this community..........we're (and I include my self as part of this community) just too immature to truly BE Beta testers. Over and over again one can find glowing examples of how rational thought is thrown out the window in favor of overreaction, dramatization, bitter arguements, and belittling behavior. So much so that a lot of positive imput/info/helpful information is buried under miles of negativity. Now if the Negativity was presented in a constructive way, that would be ok: sometimes a game needs to be poked in the right direction through negative yet productive feedback. However, 8 times out of 10 the negativity is of so toxic a nature, that any actual feedback in the post/thread would be (and SHOULD be) overlooked by any sane mind to avoid the filth that comes in a lot of posts nowadays.

Guys, we are our own worst enemies here. We complain that the Devs dont listen? Its because we've made them standoffish by what we say/how we say it. We complain content comes out too fast with bugs? Thats cus WE'RE the Beta Testers! part of the reason we're HERE is to help quickly find and report those bugs to help hte process along, NOT to scream about how said bug has ruined the game/destroyed the game. Content is not coming out quickly enough? It has to be readied. If they thought we could HANDLE 3/4ths complete content with bugs that needed stamping out, they'd pass it to us so we could shorten the process by pointing out the where the bugs are, how they occur, steps to make them REcur, and all possible info on it. Beta shouldnt be charging real money? While I partly agree, They do have to sink in funds to keep this thing running. The fact that they made it a choice for us to support to game, instead of asking for a monthly fee, is better than (IMO) the alternative: you know, this game we're all passionate about (positively or negatively) CLOSING DOWN. Cus yes.....that can still very well happen. And I get the distinct feeling that those arguing negatively still see value in this game, or at least potential, or they wouldnt be arguing.....they'd have left by now.

Forgive me for rambling, but my point is really this.......If we want them to TREAT us as Beta Testers....then we have to start ACTING like Beta testers. The more maturely and accurately we can report bugs in a timely manner with accurate information to recreate, and the more we can fight down our passions that need to hurt something because the game is not we envision it to be, the more the Devs will TRUST us with bigger issues, like the testing of 2.0 heat sinks.

you don't give Fire to a child to play with.......either they or you WILL get burned. Time to start showing PGI/IGP we're not children.....anymore.

Edited by Bounty Dogg, 11 December 2012 - 03:53 AM.

[xenoglyph]

We won't see 2.0 DHS because they're stubborn as hell.

"Oh, 95% of you don't want 3rd person? Sit tight, we know what we're doing."

Edited by xenoglyph, 11 December 2012 - 04:00 AM.

[Glythe]

We don't have 2.0 heat sinks because it puts Assaults on an even keel with lights..... and we can't have that.

No seriously...... this game favors lights and letting assaults have 2.0 DHS means they can actually use the super heavy/hot weapons and not suck with them.


DHS makes light mechs even better and makes the average Assault mech worse. Go figure.

Edited by Glythe, 11 December 2012 - 04:09 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

DivineEvil, on 11 December 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Like they're nod doing it right now, huh.

Limiting Light critical slots by considering their relative sizes were the solution.

Not really. As long as engine heat sinks are true Double Heat Sinks, there is nothing to tweak to inconvenience Medium Laser Jenners or Cicadas.

It would have helped if PGI would have thought about what the tech upgrades that would become available 3049 would do to a game. It should be obvious that double heat sinks will raise the pace of the game, allowing to field more weapons and thus more damage output for all mechs...

The would have been better off setting the game in 3025 or 3055.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 December 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zaptruder, on 10 December 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Well, it's really a game of medium lasers and ballistics right now, so...

So I should take the missiles off my Mechs????

Why doesn't anyone send me the Memos?

[BigJim]

FiveDigits, on 11 December 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Care to elaborate? The 6 ML Jenner is using 2.0 DHS right now. (10 engine DHS @ 2.0)
What would change if all DHS became 2.0?

A 6x Med Las Jenner still has at least 4x external heatsinks for a heat efficiency of 1.1, in addition to the engine ones - possibly 5x or even 6x depending on your balance of engine size and if you've taken Ferro.

Biiiig difference if you move to 2.0 across the board, but then again you'd now all about that, right?

Edited by BigJim, 11 December 2012 - 04:16 AM.

[xenoglyph]

BigJim, on 11 December 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

A 6x Med Las Jenner still has at least 4x external heatsinks for a heat efficiency of 1.1, in addition to the engine ones - possibly 5x or even 6x depending on your balance of engine size and if you've taken Ferro.

Biiiig difference if you move to 2.0 across the board, but then again you'd now all about that, right?

28 effective heatsinks vs the 25.6 they currently have isn't that huge of a difference.

[BigJim]

My Cicada 2A with 6x Meds is a danger to anyone who gets too close, it's a wee leg-taking beast.
18x DHS, 1.25 H/Eff, it's a very effective build at taking on all mechs, on all maps.

My 6x Med Jenner with 15x DHS, for a H/Eff of 1.1 is a joke, it's essentially a trolling build, not worth a damn, and more dangerous to the user than enemies on a map like caustic.


In short, sometimes it doesn't take a huge amount of difference in the figures to make a big difference in the field.

Edited by BigJim, 11 December 2012 - 04:25 AM.

[Nillavi]

ITT: Players without any idea how the current DHS system works.

[Bishop Steiner]

and yet.....

with the implementation of ECM, everyone claims that Streaks and LRMs are no longer "Usable".
What cost more to reload and boat than ALRM missiles?

I know on an average match, I run through 75,000k C-Bills in ALRMs with just TWO LRM15 racks.

And of course, your logic doesn't seem to include the current exploit where you get 75% ammo reloads free.......

(And I sure seem to notice a whole lotta Large Lasers and ER PPCs out there.)

As conspiracy theorists go, I think you need some work.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 11 December 2012 - 04:29 AM.

[xenoglyph]

BigJim, on 11 December 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

My Cicada 2A with 6x Meds is a danger to anyone who gets too close, it's a wee leg-taking beast.
18x DHS, 1.25 H/Eff, it's a very effective build at taking on all mechs, on all maps.

My 6x Med Jenner with 15x DHS, for a H/Eff of 1.1 is a joke, it's essentially a trolling build, not worth a damn, and more dangerous to the user than enemies on a map like caustic.


In short, sometimes it doesn't take a huge amount of difference in the figures to make a big difference in the field.

All that does is prove the folly of trying to balance the weapon system before the introduction of DHS.

[MustrumRidcully]

BigJim, on 11 December 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

My Cicada 2A with 6x Meds is a danger to anyone who gets too close, it's a wee leg-taking beast.
18x DHS, 1.25 H/Eff, it's a very effective build at taking on all mechs, on all maps.

Crazy that the 6 Medium Cicada is awe-inspiring, but the 3 PPC Awesome is not deserving its name, isn't it?

Maybe PGI should have quadrupled armour, made Single Heat Sinks sink 1 heat per 5 seconds, and double heat sinks 2 heat per 5 seconds... Then maybe people would have found SHS combats a bit too slow, but DHS based combats just as it's now. And trial mechs may function according to design!

[Bishop Steiner]

xenoglyph, on 11 December 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

All that does is prove the folly of trying to balance the weapon system before the introduction of DHS.

All it does is prove teh folly in trying to "balance" weapon systems like it's a FPS game.

Supposed to be a TacSim, and DHS and XLs and such are supposed to "be future tech" that is demonstrably better than existing, (the balance in an Arms Race is ALWAYS in cost and availability), not "balanced".

They should have gotten their "balance" correct on all Level 1 weapons before introducing ANY level 2 tech. And then Level 2 tech (Star League, aka UAC5, LB-10X, ER and Pulse Weapons, Gauss, DHS, XL, Endo, Ferro, etc) would be built around the inherent advantages (UAC5 has double fire weight) and disadvantages (UAC5 also jams like a mother if pushed a lot) of each "Tech Progression", rather than the yo-yo nonsense of knee jerk over-reaction we currently see. It should also be stupid expensive (especially since we are "Mercs" and the Great Houses are buying it all up for their own Armies, meaning it's a sellers market and the cost on the free market, WHEN available would be astronomical.

(Not to mention if they really want an decent Meta game, as soon as the Clan invasion really starts, ammo and tech costs should double and triple, precisely the way things like civilian ammo supplies always get scarce, and more expensive during a War. Of course, the crying would be beyond EPIC, if they did this, because "bad ol PGI won't let me run my stable of 20 max tech mechs non stop", but the QQ never ends here anyhow, so.....)

Set the CORE game first, then add features. This has never happened.

[Joseph Mallan]

BigJim, on 11 December 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

My Cicada 2A with 6x Meds is a danger to anyone who gets too close, it's a wee leg-taking beast.
18x DHS, 1.25 H/Eff, it's a very effective build at taking on all mechs, on all maps.

My 6x Med Jenner with 15x DHS, for a H/Eff of 1.1 is a joke, it's essentially a trolling build, not worth a damn, and more dangerous to the user than enemies on a map like caustic.


In short, sometimes it doesn't take a huge amount of difference in the figures to make a big difference in the field.

MustrumRidcully, on 11 December 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Crazy that the 6 Medium Cicada is awe-inspiring, but the 3 PPC Awesome is not deserving its name, isn't it?

Maybe PGI should have quadrupled armour, made Single Heat Sinks sink 1 heat per 5 seconds, and double heat sinks 2 heat per 5 seconds... Then maybe people would have found SHS combats a bit too slow, but DHS based combats just as it's now. And trial mechs may function according to design!

Must has nailed the subject perfectly!!! Why are 6 medium lasers and 15 Dubs more effective than 3 ER PPCs and 20 Dubs? Not to mention why on Earth does a mech that generates 18-24 heat need 30 points of heat disipation per turn? One TURN OF FIRE IS ONLY A SINGLE SALVO NOT 2.5 SALVOS PER TURN. Fire once and while the weapons are recycling the heat vents (or almost vents if there aren't enough sinks).

[BigJim]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 December 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Crazy that the 6 Medium Cicada is awe-inspiring, but the 3 PPC Awesome is not deserving its name, isn't it?

The trial Awesome 9M is a lot of fun to play, but I admit it's not really a terror on the battlefield.
Then again, 3x PPCs is what - 30 damage? Average-build Hunchies put out more than that, and it's exactly the same DMG as the above Cicada, only in a much less manoeuvrable, and easier to hit package.

It never was "Awesome" to begin with imho.


However this is dragging off the point - I'm not particularly interested in making bad table-top nostalgia builds work (no matter how you argue the heat system, a 30-alpha from an 80T mech is just bad, and should stay in TT where paintjobs and dice are king).


I specialise in fast, hot builds, and I don't particularly care about Awesomes, nor arguing about the heat system.
I know what works, and when you get below 1.25, maybe 1.2 at a push, a Jenner/Cicada type laser-mech isn't worth taking to the fight, because you'll get out-sustained by the mech who can keep chipping away at your legs.

The posters above were saying how a 6x Med-Las Jenner would not be made significantly more powerful by going to 2.0, my point was that it would - it would turn it from a fail-build into a highly viable, and dangerous build.

Edited by BigJim, 11 December 2012 - 04:54 AM.