[Mechwarrior:Online] Weapon Rebalancing on the 21st. Oosik Sigs on P19

Kay · May 2013

CycloneRanger wrote: »

Kay wrote: »

AvalonGuard wrote: »

TheCanMan wrote: »

Spectrum wrote: »

Kay wrote: »

LB10X has its place, but will be much better with a revamped crit system and a tighter spread, it's true.

However. I ran an LB10X 2xMPL 2xSSRM2 TBT-7K with a maxed engine and speed tweak, and was very, VERY adept and just beating the shit out of lights in it. The LB10X is excellent for that.

That's honestly probably more the SSRM talking there and the fact that the TBT has a bit of an easier time shielding its CT with its arms against return SSRM...

... To clarify, SSRMS don't care one bit about intervening parts on their glorious crusade against center torsos.

Yup. It's the combination of fast pulse damage, streaks, and SPACE SHOTGUN that lights hate. LB10X is just super strong against lights. So easy to hit them with one.

And so easy to deal practically no damage when you do hit.

I still think the LBX is a poor choice in all roles, against all weight classes, and on all maps. It's a gimmick; if you're really trying to win you're always better off with something else.

I can honestly say that they chew lights up very, very well. I've been wholly successful with my TBT-7K anti-light build for running back to stop backcappers by KILLING THEM FAST.

I mean, I kill them pretty well in my JR7-F as well, but... streaks and LB10X are pretty good at taking out lights. Honestly!

TOGSolid · May 2013

VedicIntent wrote: »

TOGSolid wrote: »

It's worth noting that if you mention that you tested a bug on the training grounds, support will ask specifically if you have seen it in live games as well so the two definitely don't line up 100%.

Also, do remember that PGI has specifically said that they have a new missile system in testing along with the missile HSR. I dunno why anyone is wasting energy arguing about missiles until after the next patch.

I get home tomorrow!

Missile damage does really weird things, though, and PGI's "fixes" just make it act weirder. I think this came up before in an older thread. Case in point: They scrapped the idea of removing splash entirely (in favor of nerfing damage across the board) because splashless missiles would magically applied all damage to CT - a dev flat-out said they had no idea why. I hope the automated QA process helps get them a better grip on game mechanics.

Also, there's a known bug in which all missile damage can spontaneously apply to a single CT section for no reason. I've had back CTs blown out with a single volley hit from the front, and this was pre-LeRMaggeddon. Missiles are just kind of off right now.

Those fixes are temporary. They did what they did because just removing splash made the whole system go apeshit. They had to do something though because of how god awful the old mechanics were. In the next patch or two PGI will be replacing the current missile system entirely which should completely alleviate the current issues. Doubly so since missile HSR will be rolling out as well.

Kaboodles_The_Assassin · May 2013

That's probably 90% streaks though. I mean, I could see the shotgun being handy for finishing off already weakened sections, but as the main damage-dealing weapon, I haven't found LB10Xes to be particularly effective against lights.

Quad WUBWUBs, though. Now that's a light-killer.

BillGates · May 2013

I really wonder how LRM HSR will function, they are lock on, and not as if you can control where they go. You just maintain a lock and fire away.

I'm assuming we will see the biggest impact with HSR on SRM's, right?

Gaslight · May 2013

HUD hotfix coming tomorrow 10am PDT.

http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/117650-hud-hotfix-tomorrow-at-10-am-pdt/

VedicIntent · May 2013

BillGates wrote: »

I really wonder how LRM HSR will function, they are lock on, and not as if you can control where they go. You just maintain a lock and fire away.

I'm assuming we will see the biggest impact with HSR on SRM's, right?

You can outrun LRMs, especially in a Light. They'll "chase" you but half go into the dirt if it's a large volley - maybe this might improve accuracy? I have no idea how lag affects LRMs, so it could be more of a "hey, my missiles are - statistically but significantly - kicking more ass as a general trend" rather than the revelation of lasers/ballistics HSR.

SRMs are gonna be way awesomer without the effing fire delay. That was maddening with arm-mounted launchers.

Edit: Accidentally a whole sentence.

Ninja Snarl P · May 2013

TOGSolid wrote: »

VedicIntent wrote: »

TOGSolid wrote: »

It's worth noting that if you mention that you tested a bug on the training grounds, support will ask specifically if you have seen it in live games as well so the two definitely don't line up 100%.

Also, do remember that PGI has specifically said that they have a new missile system in testing along with the missile HSR. I dunno why anyone is wasting energy arguing about missiles until after the next patch.

I get home tomorrow!

Missile damage does really weird things, though, and PGI's "fixes" just make it act weirder. I think this came up before in an older thread. Case in point: They scrapped the idea of removing splash entirely (in favor of nerfing damage across the board) because splashless missiles would magically applied all damage to CT - a dev flat-out said they had no idea why. I hope the automated QA process helps get them a better grip on game mechanics.

Also, there's a known bug in which all missile damage can spontaneously apply to a single CT section for no reason. I've had back CTs blown out with a single volley hit from the front, and this was pre-LeRMaggeddon. Missiles are just kind of off right now.

Those fixes are temporary. They did what they did because just removing splash made the whole system go apeshit. They had to do something though because of how god awful the old mechanics were. In the next patch or two PGI will be replacing the current missile system entirely which should completely alleviate the current issues. Doubly so since missile HSR will be rolling out as well.

Ah, see, I didn't know they're overhauling missiles completely. LRMs desperately need fixing, both for making them stop making them do good or bad dumb, broken things.

Gaslight · May 2013

LRMs are still, currently, capable of making near-instantaneous 90 degree turns to hit you. I've seen it. Right now there are really only two ways to evade them:

1. Outrun them, as Vedicintent describes.

2. Take cover behind a sufficiently tall and steep building or terrain feature (never foolproof because they can find ways to go "around" obstacles rather than over them sometimes as described above).

see317 · May 2013

Gaslight wrote: »

LRMs are still, currently, capable of making near-instantaneous 90 degree turns to hit you. I've seen it. Right now there are really only two ways to evade them:
1. Outrun them, as Vedicintent describes.
2. Take cover behind a sufficiently tall and steep building or terrain feature (never foolproof because they can find ways to go "around" obstacles rather than over them sometimes as described above).

Also: jam it into reverse for a bit, then power down. The missiles lose their lock and 95% plow into the dirt right in front of you. Best used if you have some coverage from the sides, otherwise, prepare to eat gauss.
Sure, it's not the safest route, especially if you've got an anklebiter light nipping around, but it's effective.

Campy · May 2013

Is there official confirmation somewhere that missiles are being completely reworked, only it's news to me.

I can't fucking wait for missile HSR to go in. So many mechs in my collection are going to make some big comebacks.

Mvrck · May 2013

Campy wrote: »

Is there official confirmation somewhere that missiles are being completely reworked, only it's news to me.

I can't fucking wait for missile HSR to go in. So many mechs in my collection are going to make some big comebacks.

I'll try to dig the set of posts/tweets up, but they are getting a whole new grouping/flight patters, reworking the way splash works (because setting it to 0 broke them completely), HSR and damage value tweaks. All due on the 21st supposedly.

BillGates · May 2013

I have seen LRM's lose tracking and then when they enemy mech regains a lock they immediately snap back, sometimes making 90 degree turns to get back onto target. I was never sure if that was intended or not.

HydroSqueegee · May 2013

wtf is wrong with me! i own ALL the oranges now.

Mvrck · May 2013

BillGates wrote: »

I have seen LRM's lose tracking and then when they enemy mech regains a lock they immediately snap back, sometimes making 90 degree turns to get back onto target. I was never sure if that was intended or not.

I think it's intended as long as it's the same target. I don't think they do the hard turns against a different target.

HydroSqueegee · May 2013

Mvrck wrote: »

Campy wrote: »

Is there official confirmation somewhere that missiles are being completely reworked, only it's news to me.

I can't fucking wait for missile HSR to go in. So many mechs in my collection are going to make some big comebacks.

I'll try to dig the set of posts/tweets up, but they are getting a whole new grouping/flight patters, reworking the way splash works (because setting it to 0 broke them completely), HSR and damage value tweaks. All due on the 21st supposedly.

@Mvrck 190 Screenshots uploading as i type and many more to come as i can play. trying to refine my screenshot capabilities.

Mvrck · May 2013

That is insane and awesome. Thank you a ton, can't wait to get a look at them.

CarbonFire · May 2013

HydroSqueegee wrote: »

wtf is wrong with me! i own ALL the oranges now.

So do I. It's easy when Blood Orange is the only orange ;-)

Heroth · May 2013

m!ttens wrote: »

Even with the Flamer buff, the target sadly won't go over 90% heat (until it fires a weapon), so maybe 7 flamers and 2 LPLAS would be best. Or more likely 3 Flamers and 6 MLAS.

Though maybe if/when they start implementing heat damage at levels below "override and be above 100%" (because being at 90% heat and shooting 6 PPCs should flash fry the pilot) we'll start seeing internal damage, ammo cookoff and more sluggish turning/movement.

I honestly hope they never actually implement that... I run 'hot' all the time in alot of my builds and being punished for it seems pretty fucking stupid.

It also doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, Why would they have the entire 'heat scale' set up so (for example) you start becoming sluggish at %70, ammo cooking off at %80 and start taking internal damage at %90?

If they don't want people boating mass amounts of Weapons (i.e PPCs) Just make them take up more tonnage or crit slots or cause more Heat, i just can't see the point in punishing someone for having a build that sits on 80-90% heat for long periods of time.

And for that person firing six PPC's while being at %90 heat? well he will be shut-down for a very long time to burn off that extra heat, so whats the problem exactly?

Nips · May 2013

Thanks for the advice, guys. Next question!

An AC2 has a 0.5 second recycle. It stands to reason you could fire an AC2, then 0.25 seconds later fire a second AC2, then hold the button to chain fire between the two at 0.25 s intervals.

...except this doesn't work in the game. Having played with it, it looks like it's a function of chain fire switching from one weapon to the next slower than desired. Manually switching weapon groups from AC#1 to AC#2 and back achieved the desired effect. This borks up using the weapons groupings, though.

So, is there an in-game way to tweak the chain fire cycle speed? Or am I stuck, resigning to cobble up a mouse macro to make this happen?

Delphinidaes · May 2013

Nips wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, guys. Next question!

An AC2 has a 0.5 second recycle. It stands to reason you could fire an AC2, then 0.25 seconds later fire a second AC2, then hold the button to chain fire between the two at 0.25 s intervals.

...except this doesn't work in the game. Having played with it, it looks like it's a function of chain fire switching from one weapon to the next slower than desired. Manually switching weapon groups from AC#1 to AC#2 and back achieved the desired effect. This borks up using the weapons groupings, though.

So, is there an in-game way to tweak the chain fire cycle speed? Or am I stuck, resigning to cobble up a mouse macro to make this happen?

Don't use chain fire. Keep it turned off.

Set each one on a different weapon group, and then roll your button presses while holding down the final one that has all of them on it.

For example on my Jager DD with 4 AC2 I have them set as follows:

Group 1: A B C D
Group 2: B C
Group 3: D

And I press them in a 3,2,1 order very quickly and then hold down Group 1.

If you want you can split it further if you want 4 groups set up but personally I find staggering them like so is sufficient.

Of course you can always make a macro to do it for you but I'm not versed in that sort of thing.

Docshifty · May 2013

You can have then on both mouse buttons. Tap one just before the other but hold them both down. They will alternate fire the moment they come off cooldown. Use 3 for laser and you are good to go. Or you can have both set to 1 and tap the button while in chain fire. Each time you tap it you fire the next weapon in the chain.

Ninja Snarl P · May 2013

Delphinidaes wrote: »

Nips wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, guys. Next question!

An AC2 has a 0.5 second recycle. It stands to reason you could fire an AC2, then 0.25 seconds later fire a second AC2, then hold the button to chain fire between the two at 0.25 s intervals.

...except this doesn't work in the game. Having played with it, it looks like it's a function of chain fire switching from one weapon to the next slower than desired. Manually switching weapon groups from AC#1 to AC#2 and back achieved the desired effect. This borks up using the weapons groupings, though.

So, is there an in-game way to tweak the chain fire cycle speed? Or am I stuck, resigning to cobble up a mouse macro to make this happen?

Don't use chain fire. Keep it turned off.

Set each one on a different weapon group, and then roll your button presses while holding down the final one that has all of them on it.

For example on my Jager DD with 4 AC2 I have them set as follows:

Group 1: A B C D
Group 2: B C
Group 3: D

And I press them in a 3,2,1 order very quickly and then hold down Group 1.

If you want you can split it further if you want 4 groups set up but personally I find staggering them like so is sufficient.

Of course you can always make a macro to do it for you but I'm not versed in that sort of thing.

Also, make sure to revel in the dakka, because rapid-firing 3-4 AC/2s is pretty boss.

Mvrck · May 2013

Heroth wrote: »

m!ttens wrote: »

Even with the Flamer buff, the target sadly won't go over 90% heat (until it fires a weapon), so maybe 7 flamers and 2 LPLAS would be best. Or more likely 3 Flamers and 6 MLAS.

Though maybe if/when they start implementing heat damage at levels below "override and be above 100%" (because being at 90% heat and shooting 6 PPCs should flash fry the pilot) we'll start seeing internal damage, ammo cookoff and more sluggish turning/movement.

I honestly hope they never actually implement that... I run 'hot' all the time in alot of my builds and being punished for it seems pretty fucking stupid.

It also doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, Why would they have the entire 'heat scale' set up so (for example) you start becoming sluggish at %70, ammo cooking off at %80 and start taking internal damage at %90?

If they don't want people boating mass amounts of Weapons (i.e PPCs) Just make them take up more tonnage or crit slots or cause more Heat, i just can't see the point in punishing someone for having a build that sits on 80-90% heat for long periods of time.

And for that person firing six PPC's while being at %90 heat? well he will be shut-down for a very long time to burn off that extra heat, so whats the problem exactly?

You should absolutely take damage whenever you go over 100% heat. The point is that 100% is where shit starts to break; it's basically the whole reason for forced shutdowns. It's your mech telling you "Listen, just stop right there buddy before you really break something." Easy solution: For every 5% you are over 100% heat, 1 point of damage is dealt to internal structure per second. You're a dumb stalker that fired 4 PPC's at 90% heat and jumped up to 150%? You're going to eat a fair amount of damage while you cool down.

You barely tripped over the 100% threshold and shut down? You'll take maybe a point of damage.

Docshifty · May 2013

Mvrck wrote: »

Heroth wrote: »

m!ttens wrote: »

Even with the Flamer buff, the target sadly won't go over 90% heat (until it fires a weapon), so maybe 7 flamers and 2 LPLAS would be best. Or more likely 3 Flamers and 6 MLAS.

Though maybe if/when they start implementing heat damage at levels below "override and be above 100%" (because being at 90% heat and shooting 6 PPCs should flash fry the pilot) we'll start seeing internal damage, ammo cookoff and more sluggish turning/movement.

I honestly hope they never actually implement that... I run 'hot' all the time in alot of my builds and being punished for it seems pretty fucking stupid.

It also doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, Why would they have the entire 'heat scale' set up so (for example) you start becoming sluggish at %70, ammo cooking off at %80 and start taking internal damage at %90?

If they don't want people boating mass amounts of Weapons (i.e PPCs) Just make them take up more tonnage or crit slots or cause more Heat, i just can't see the point in punishing someone for having a build that sits on 80-90% heat for long periods of time.

And for that person firing six PPC's while being at %90 heat? well he will be shut-down for a very long time to burn off that extra heat, so whats the problem exactly?

You should absolutely take damage whenever you go over 100% heat. The point is that 100% is where shit starts to break; it's basically the whole reason for forced shutdowns. It's your mech telling you "Listen, just stop right there buddy before you really break something." Easy solution: For every 5% you are over 100% heat, 1 point of damage is dealt to internal structure per second. You're a dumb stalker that fired 4 PPC's at 90% heat and jumped up to 150%? You're going to eat a fair amount of damage while you cool down.

You barely tripped over the 100% threshold and shut down? You'll take maybe a point of damage.

It sounds like Mittens was suggesting taking damage at % under 100 and that is what Heroth didnt want.

Kaboodles_The_Assassin · May 2013

Instead of just damaging internal structure, I think overheats should damage internal components as well. Logically, the weapons and heatsinks should be the hottest parts of the mech during overheats, as PPCs are the ones generating the heat and the heatsinks are where that heat is being dumped to.

Mvrck · May 2013

Kaboodles_The_Assassin wrote: »

Instead of just damaging internal structure, I think overheats should damage internal components as well. Logically, the weapons and heatsinks should be the hottest parts of the mech during overheats, as PPCs are the ones generating the heat and the heatsinks are where that heat is being dumped to.

If engine destruction actually destroyed mechs, I think this would be a better solution. But the damage rate would have to be absurdly high I think to actually knock any components out. Unless you did something like make it a % chance/second to destroy a component while over 100% heat. But they said they want to stay away from random systems as much as possible, so I don't know how PGI would feel about that.

Ninja Snarl P · May 2013

Mvrck wrote: »

Heroth wrote: »

m!ttens wrote: »

Even with the Flamer buff, the target sadly won't go over 90% heat (until it fires a weapon), so maybe 7 flamers and 2 LPLAS would be best. Or more likely 3 Flamers and 6 MLAS.

Though maybe if/when they start implementing heat damage at levels below "override and be above 100%" (because being at 90% heat and shooting 6 PPCs should flash fry the pilot) we'll start seeing internal damage, ammo cookoff and more sluggish turning/movement.

I honestly hope they never actually implement that... I run 'hot' all the time in alot of my builds and being punished for it seems pretty fucking stupid.

It also doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, Why would they have the entire 'heat scale' set up so (for example) you start becoming sluggish at %70, ammo cooking off at %80 and start taking internal damage at %90?

If they don't want people boating mass amounts of Weapons (i.e PPCs) Just make them take up more tonnage or crit slots or cause more Heat, i just can't see the point in punishing someone for having a build that sits on 80-90% heat for long periods of time.

And for that person firing six PPC's while being at %90 heat? well he will be shut-down for a very long time to burn off that extra heat, so whats the problem exactly?

You should absolutely take damage whenever you go over 100% heat. The point is that 100% is where shit starts to break; it's basically the whole reason for forced shutdowns. It's your mech telling you "Listen, just stop right there buddy before you really break something." Easy solution: For every 5% you are over 100% heat, 1 point of damage is dealt to internal structure per second. You're a dumb stalker that fired 4 PPC's at 90% heat and jumped up to 150%? You're going to eat a fair amount of damage while you cool down.

You barely tripped over the 100% threshold and shut down? You'll take maybe a point of damage.

Yeah, I wouldn't at all mind seeing penalties for mechs operating at OVER 100% heat. I'd say let 105-110% have a decent chance to be okay for a few seconds so there's a slim safe zone, but after that, yeah, definitely damage, with shutdown simply REDUCING that damage. Then if you have somebody jamming heat up to 130%, they immediately start taking internal damage.

Definitely would not want penalties for under 100% heat, though. For one, heat levels in MWO are very, very fluid, so firing and cooling from a single salvo could shift your mech through several states that only last a few seconds each. Two, there are plenty of perfectly viable, balanced builds which simply run hot, and I'd really hate to see those mechs have to deal with a lot more trouble simply because people are abusing the heat system.

Kaboodles_The_Assassin · May 2013

Crits from weapons and damage from overrides are both already random. I think they were more concerned adding random weapon deviation.

In other news, The X-5 is fantastic. Sooooo much fun. Although there is nothing sadder than finding a trial Highlander and coring him from behind while he frantically looks around for what is shooting him.

I'll give you a hint, trial Highlander. It's blue and orange with white stripes, weighs 40 tons, and is right behind you. Always.

Poor guy never caught a glimpse of me.

Stabbity Style · May 2013

Man, that Cobra pattern has potential.

BKKTHWjCYAEk2Pt.jpg:large

Kaboodles_The_Assassin · May 2013

It looks like it's wearing fishnet shirt and stockings. Kind of disturbing to think about, actually. What with it's very human-like legs and all.

Heroth · May 2013

Docshifty wrote: »

Mvrck wrote: »

Heroth wrote: »

m!ttens wrote: »

Even with the Flamer buff, the target sadly won't go over 90% heat (until it fires a weapon), so maybe 7 flamers and 2 LPLAS would be best. Or more likely 3 Flamers and 6 MLAS.

Though maybe if/when they start implementing heat damage at levels below "override and be above 100%" (because being at 90% heat and shooting 6 PPCs should flash fry the pilot) we'll start seeing internal damage, ammo cookoff and more sluggish turning/movement.

I honestly hope they never actually implement that... I run 'hot' all the time in alot of my builds and being punished for it seems pretty fucking stupid.

It also doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, Why would they have the entire 'heat scale' set up so (for example) you start becoming sluggish at %70, ammo cooking off at %80 and start taking internal damage at %90?

If they don't want people boating mass amounts of Weapons (i.e PPCs) Just make them take up more tonnage or crit slots or cause more Heat, i just can't see the point in punishing someone for having a build that sits on 80-90% heat for long periods of time.

And for that person firing six PPC's while being at %90 heat? well he will be shut-down for a very long time to burn off that extra heat, so whats the problem exactly?

You should absolutely take damage whenever you go over 100% heat. The point is that 100% is where shit starts to break; it's basically the whole reason for forced shutdowns. It's your mech telling you "Listen, just stop right there buddy before you really break something." Easy solution: For every 5% you are over 100% heat, 1 point of damage is dealt to internal structure per second. You're a dumb stalker that fired 4 PPC's at 90% heat and jumped up to 150%? You're going to eat a fair amount of damage while you cool down.

You barely tripped over the 100% threshold and shut down? You'll take maybe a point of damage.

It sounds like Mittens was suggesting taking damage at % under 100 and that is what Heroth didnt want.

Basically this, yes... but not just for damage, i don't think i should move slower because i'm sitting on %80 heat... Nerf Heatsinks if its a problem, make the 'power-down' time a longer % of how much you went over the heat-limit, i mean there are plenty of ways to punish that 4/6 PPC stalker alpha'ing at %90 heat without having him instantly blow up... Say by making it take a full 30seconds (or more) to be able to safely re-start would make them think twice, since even from 500m away thats pretty much a death sentence.

Edit: to make it clear i'm not %100 against taking some damage if you go massively over your heat limit but i am against you taking damage/movement penalties for being under it or even slightly over it.

Also i was referring off-hand to the situation in-game and possibly? in canon were you would build a system that has an auto-shut down were it would damage the system before initiating said system of shutting down... i mean, think of it in computer terms, yes you can damage systems from over-heating but generally speaking the Graphics card/CPU will shut itself down before actual damage is caused.

Mvrck · May 2013

Heroth wrote: »

Docshifty wrote: »

Mvrck wrote: »

Heroth wrote: »

m!ttens wrote: »

Even with the Flamer buff, the target sadly won't go over 90% heat (until it fires a weapon), so maybe 7 flamers and 2 LPLAS would be best. Or more likely 3 Flamers and 6 MLAS.

Though maybe if/when they start implementing heat damage at levels below "override and be above 100%" (because being at 90% heat and shooting 6 PPCs should flash fry the pilot) we'll start seeing internal damage, ammo cookoff and more sluggish turning/movement.

I honestly hope they never actually implement that... I run 'hot' all the time in alot of my builds and being punished for it seems pretty fucking stupid.

It also doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, Why would they have the entire 'heat scale' set up so (for example) you start becoming sluggish at %70, ammo cooking off at %80 and start taking internal damage at %90?

If they don't want people boating mass amounts of Weapons (i.e PPCs) Just make them take up more tonnage or crit slots or cause more Heat, i just can't see the point in punishing someone for having a build that sits on 80-90% heat for long periods of time.

And for that person firing six PPC's while being at %90 heat? well he will be shut-down for a very long time to burn off that extra heat, so whats the problem exactly?

You should absolutely take damage whenever you go over 100% heat. The point is that 100% is where shit starts to break; it's basically the whole reason for forced shutdowns. It's your mech telling you "Listen, just stop right there buddy before you really break something." Easy solution: For every 5% you are over 100% heat, 1 point of damage is dealt to internal structure per second. You're a dumb stalker that fired 4 PPC's at 90% heat and jumped up to 150%? You're going to eat a fair amount of damage while you cool down.

You barely tripped over the 100% threshold and shut down? You'll take maybe a point of damage.

It sounds like Mittens was suggesting taking damage at % under 100 and that is what Heroth didnt want.

Basically this, yes... but not just for damage, i don't think i should move slower because i'm sitting on %80 heat... Nerf Heatsinks if its a problem, make the 'power-down' time a longer % of how much you went over the heat-limit, i mean there are plenty of ways to punish that 4/6 PPC stalker alpha'ing at %90 heat without having him instantly blow up... Say by making it take a full 30seconds (or more) to be able to safely re-start would make them think twice, since even from 500m away thats pretty much a death sentence.

Edit: to make it clear i'm not %100 against taking some damage if you go massively over your heat limit but i am against you taking damage/movement penalties for being under it or even slightly over it.

Also i was referring off-hand to the situation in-game and possibly? in canon were you would build a system that has an auto-shut down were it would damage the system before initiating said system of shutting down... i mean, think of it in computer terms, yes you can damage systems from over-heating but generally speaking the Graphics card/CPU will shut itself down before actual damage is caused.

Slight difference between your GPU shutting down because you are playing Crysis with the settings too high and shutting down in the middle of a firefight where stopping may well be a death sentence.

Edit: Sorry, that came off snarkier than I intended.

Heroth · May 2013

Mvrck wrote: »

Heroth wrote: »

Docshifty wrote: »

Mvrck wrote: »

Heroth wrote: »

m!ttens wrote: »

Even with the Flamer buff, the target sadly won't go over 90% heat (until it fires a weapon), so maybe 7 flamers and 2 LPLAS would be best. Or more likely 3 Flamers and 6 MLAS.

Though maybe if/when they start implementing heat damage at levels below "override and be above 100%" (because being at 90% heat and shooting 6 PPCs should flash fry the pilot) we'll start seeing internal damage, ammo cookoff and more sluggish turning/movement.

I honestly hope they never actually implement that... I run 'hot' all the time in alot of my builds and being punished for it seems pretty fucking stupid.

It also doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective, Why would they have the entire 'heat scale' set up so (for example) you start becoming sluggish at %70, ammo cooking off at %80 and start taking internal damage at %90?

If they don't want people boating mass amounts of Weapons (i.e PPCs) Just make them take up more tonnage or crit slots or cause more Heat, i just can't see the point in punishing someone for having a build that sits on 80-90% heat for long periods of time.

And for that person firing six PPC's while being at %90 heat? well he will be shut-down for a very long time to burn off that extra heat, so whats the problem exactly?

You should absolutely take damage whenever you go over 100% heat. The point is that 100% is where shit starts to break; it's basically the whole reason for forced shutdowns. It's your mech telling you "Listen, just stop right there buddy before you really break something." Easy solution: For every 5% you are over 100% heat, 1 point of damage is dealt to internal structure per second. You're a dumb stalker that fired 4 PPC's at 90% heat and jumped up to 150%? You're going to eat a fair amount of damage while you cool down.

You barely tripped over the 100% threshold and shut down? You'll take maybe a point of damage.

It sounds like Mittens was suggesting taking damage at % under 100 and that is what Heroth didnt want.

Basically this, yes... but not just for damage, i don't think i should move slower because i'm sitting on %80 heat... Nerf Heatsinks if its a problem, make the 'power-down' time a longer % of how much you went over the heat-limit, i mean there are plenty of ways to punish that 4/6 PPC stalker alpha'ing at %90 heat without having him instantly blow up... Say by making it take a full 30seconds (or more) to be able to safely re-start would make them think twice, since even from 500m away thats pretty much a death sentence.

Edit: to make it clear i'm not %100 against taking some damage if you go massively over your heat limit but i am against you taking damage/movement penalties for being under it or even slightly over it.

Also i was referring off-hand to the situation in-game and possibly? in canon were you would build a system that has an auto-shut down were it would damage the system before initiating said system of shutting down... i mean, think of it in computer terms, yes you can damage systems from over-heating but generally speaking the Graphics card/CPU will shut itself down before actual damage is caused.

Slight difference between your GPU shutting down because you are playing Crysis with the settings too high and shutting down in the middle of a firefight where stopping may well be a death sentence.

Edit: Sorry, that came off snarkier than I intended.

Yeah, good point, but why would you make the 'Holy fuck you are going to DIE' heat-level at %100? you'd make that actually %120 or %150 if that makes sense, like a buffer level or something...

all of this is from a canon perspective as more a question of 'why would you build a system like that?'

HydroSqueegee · May 2013

I'll be the first to say it. make engine heatsinks 1.4 also. no more PPC boats.

W00dst0ck · May 2013

Kaboodles_The_Assassin wrote: »

Crits from weapons and damage from overrides are both already random. I think they were more concerned adding random weapon deviation.

In other news, The X-5 is fantastic. Sooooo much fun. Although there is nothing sadder than finding a trial Highlander and coring him from behind while he frantically looks around for what is shooting him.

I'll give you a hint, trial Highlander. It's blue and orange with white stripes, weighs 40 tons, and is right behind you. Always.

Poor guy never caught a glimpse of me.

I've been on the fence all weekend and thought I made up my mind "not" to get it, but everyone I ask enjoys it a lot.

Does it play differently enough compared to the Sprinturion? I'd prefer not to have the same playstyle in mechs once I actually start to sell any of them and I know I'll never sell the Sprinturion.

HydroSqueegee · May 2013

W00dst0ck wrote: »

Kaboodles_The_Assassin wrote: »

Crits from weapons and damage from overrides are both already random. I think they were more concerned adding random weapon deviation.

In other news, The X-5 is fantastic. Sooooo much fun. Although there is nothing sadder than finding a trial Highlander and coring him from behind while he frantically looks around for what is shooting him.

I'll give you a hint, trial Highlander. It's blue and orange with white stripes, weighs 40 tons, and is right behind you. Always.

Poor guy never caught a glimpse of me.

I've been on the fence all weekend and thought I made up my mind "not" to get it, but everyone I ask enjoys it a lot.

Does it play differently enough compared to the Sprinturion? I'd prefer not to have them the same playstyle in mechs once I actually start to sell any of them and I know I'll never sell the Sprinturion.

its a little different. I enjoy it more than the sprinturion. I specifically waited for it to go on sale to pick it up. ittl be handy down the road if they get weight limits put in.

m!ttens · May 2013

Just to clarify my point from earlier: I was trying to see how keeping a mech sprayed with flamers would do anything other than prevent them from firing while bathed in jets of hot plasma (or they can fire once and shut down). This is certainly great from a damage denial point of view, but the range on flamers is really short so its usefulness is very limited. A hunter/killer team could maybe utilize this by having one guy mount a bunch of flamers and prevent a lone enemy from shooting while the flamer wielder's teammates core the enemy with little to to risk to themselves. An AWS or AS7 mounting flamers seems like a waste; just put on lasers and kill the target that much quicker.

Personally, I don't want to see damage or status effects happening below 100%, but I want you to take damage if you're over 100% heat capacity, even if you're shut down. @Mvrck's 1 pt of internal damage per second for every 5% over your capacity sounds pretty good to me.

Ninja Snarl P · May 2013

HydroSqueegee wrote: »

W00dst0ck wrote: »

Kaboodles_The_Assassin wrote: »

Crits from weapons and damage from overrides are both already random. I think they were more concerned adding random weapon deviation.

In other news, The X-5 is fantastic. Sooooo much fun. Although there is nothing sadder than finding a trial Highlander and coring him from behind while he frantically looks around for what is shooting him.

I'll give you a hint, trial Highlander. It's blue and orange with white stripes, weighs 40 tons, and is right behind you. Always.

Poor guy never caught a glimpse of me.

I've been on the fence all weekend and thought I made up my mind "not" to get it, but everyone I ask enjoys it a lot.

Does it play differently enough compared to the Sprinturion? I'd prefer not to have them the same playstyle in mechs once I actually start to sell any of them and I know I'll never sell the Sprinturion.

its a little different. I enjoy it more than the sprinturion. I specifically waited for it to go on sale to pick it up. ittl be handy down the road if they get weight limits put in.

Sprinturion will have much better durability thanks to arms the work like shields and being a 50-tonner instead of a 40-tonner, but the X-5 has a MUCH better energy hardpoint setup so would be something you can be more flexible with. You could build something with the X-5 that would have slightly more firepower than a Sprinturion but with less durability, but yeah, an X-5 with SRM6s is going to end up being pretty close to a Sprinturion in general.

BillGates · May 2013

You are already warned when you approach 100% heat level, there should be no grace period between 100% and 110% or whatever. You have that already and it's called 80% and 90%. You should get punished for pushing 100% and that is currently in the game by you shutting down or, unless you override it, then you take the damage penalty.

I don't see the problem with the current mechanics for the heat system.

I would welcome a change to getting damaged regardless of shutting down or not over 100% though. Will make the game more tactical.

CarbonFire · May 2013

BillGates wrote: »

You are already warned when you approach 100% heat level, there should be no grace period between 100% and 110% or whatever. You have that already and it's called 80% and 90%. You should get punished for pushing 100% and that is currently in the game by you shutting down or, unless you override it, then you take the damage penalty.

I don't see the problem with the current mechanics for the heat system.

I would welcome a change to getting damaged regardless of shutting down or not over 100% though. Will make the game more tactical.

It would also strongly discourage cheese builds that rely on that infinite heat grace period to boat well beyond a reasonable number of weapons.

But I do agree with Ninja that there needs to be a small window where no damage occurs, as shutting down in the middle of battle is punishment enough for just tripping 101%. Beyond 105%-110%? Hope you like roasted Myomer :twisted:

Penny Arcade

[Mechwarrior:Online] Weapon Rebalancing on the 21st. Oosik Sigs on P19

Posts