Jump to content

Forget Heat Penalties: A Comprehensive Balance Solution To Alphas, Convergence, Poptarts, Boats, And Clans


704 replies to this topic

#1 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:03 PM

View PostHaji1096, on 20 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

This is the most important thread in the forums.

UPDATE III: LET'S MEET HALF-WAY
So, it's abundantly clear that they're going to roll with heat penalties, at least for the time being. While I'm still fully in favor of this proposal, in the meantime, I'm advocating for a change to the way the heat penalties are calculated.

Currently, they're a confusing mess. My fix is essentially to take the relative alpha balance numbers (the TCS values) from my system, and just apply them to the heat scale instead. It doesn't matter if you don't like heat penalties; I don't either. If you like it better than what's currently in, you should go support it.

UPDATE II: AN ANSWER FOR PAUL

View PostmiSs, on 12 July 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Weapon convergence is a tough nut to crack. We want to keep the number of random “dice rolls” to a minimum, and network synchronization can become unpredictable when trying to determine a convergence point that may or may not be moving. It will be necessary to make the convergence point calculation server authoritive and that can cause a desync due to the fact that the simulation runs at different frequencies on the server and client.

I'm pretty sure my implementation of convergence even avoids the need to make it server-authoritative. I could be wrong about this, but hear me out:
  • Most convergence implementations assume no convergence to begin with, and gain convergence by some form of target tracking (painting the target with your reticle or whatever).
  • My proposal assumes convergence exactly as it is now - always-on and pinpoint. Convergence is only lost when you cross a certain threshold. It has nothing to do with target tracking.
UPDATE I: THE ARTICLE

I've published the full article this thread was a testbed for. You can read it here. If you want to help out, spread awareness. Tell your buddies, your clan, and the developers how awesome it is. It's not often I legitimately care about something, but if they don't fix this problem, I fear that this game will die. Though I'll give the heat penalties a chance, I think they're ultimately destined for failure.

Aaaand we're famous. Balance was discussed for about a half hour on the latest No Guts No Galaxy podcast (#80), much of which was devoted specifically to my solution. Thank you Zomboid (I think that's your name; if not, come forward and correct it please) for asking the question, and thank you everyone else for your support. I couldn't have raised this kind of awareness alone, and I'm incredibly grateful to those that have helped spread the word.

THINK IT'S TOO COMPLEX?
Spoiler

Posted Image


OP (seriously though, go read the much more organized and thorough article):
Spoiler

Edited by Homeless Bill, 20 July 2013 - 12:56 PM.
removed request to re-post/crosslink thread


#2 superteds

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 722 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:04 PM

what

#3 Dagger6T6

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,362 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Locationcockpit

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:08 PM

I support this message.

You put together a well organized post for a homeless guy.

#4 Petroshka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:11 PM

So the solution is to install Windows 98 on all mechs?

#5 keith

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:13 PM

interesting idea. pgi would have to rework their whole targeting system. ppl would just switch to chain fire, and the even more skilled pilots who can lands shots on the same panel would show. u know this system would screw laser heavy mechs, they would have to rework how laser fire with this system.

Edited by keith, 10 June 2013 - 01:13 PM.


#6 scJazz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationNew London, CT

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:13 PM

View PostHomeless Bill, on 10 June 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

PREFACE
*SNIP MANY WORDS MOST OF THEM UNDERLINED!*


Look seriously, I got a few paragraphs into it before my eyeballs spun around grabbed my Frontal Lobe by the Visual Cortex and insisted I stop. Any chance you can go back and edit this post with a SELECT ALL, UNDERLINE, UNDERLINE which should turn off the crazy?

#7 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

View PostscJazz, on 10 June 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Look seriously, I got a few paragraphs into it before my eyeballs spun around grabbed my Frontal Lobe by the Visual Cortex and insisted I stop. Any chance you can go back and edit this post with a SELECT ALL, UNDERLINE, UNDERLINE which should turn off the crazy?

If I thought it would look less like an ungodly block of text, I'd do it. But I know people are going to skim, and I'd rather them skim the parts I want than the parts they want.

This thread is not a light undertaking. If you're not in for the long haul, it's time to eject now.

View Postkeith, on 10 June 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

u know this system would screw laser heavy mechs, they would have to rework how laser fire with this system.

How so? I think up to 8 medium lasers or 4 large lasers fired simultaneously every second with no penalty is pretty reasonable. And again, these are just my rough numbers. If it turns out lasers are getting the short end of the stick, they could easily decrease the TCS value of lasers. This system is meant to go in without requiring any other balance changes or feature re-works.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 11 June 2013 - 12:14 AM.


#8 Petroshka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:20 PM

by the way. How do you see heat and TCL being balanced/interact? Would the TCL management overshadow the heat management? meaning, if you managed your TCL you would automatically manage your heat (because heat builds less fast than TCL), or vice versa (heat builds faster than TCL, so if you manage your heat your TCL is always ok), or a combined balance. where in ballistic-centric mechs you have to manage TCL more than heat, and in an energy mech you balance heat more than TCL.

It seems almost that TCL is a "ballistic heat"?

#9 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:20 PM

i think instead of adding a new targeting computer stat, with weapons having their own cost to use, we just have convergeance based on speed, range, obstructions and heat level?

#10 Chavette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:20 PM

Limited weapon convergance(taking range into account) gets my vote.

#11 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:24 PM

View PostPetroshka, on 10 June 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

by the way. How do you see heat and TCL being balanced/interact? Would the TCL management overshadow the heat management? meaning, if you managed your TCL you would automatically manage your heat (because heat builds less fast than TCL), or vice versa (heat builds faster than TCL, so if you manage your heat your TCL is always ok), or a combined balance. where in ballistic-centric mechs you have to manage TCL more than heat, and in an energy mech you balance heat more than TCL.

It seems almost that TCL is a "ballistic heat"?

This is a great and totally relevant question. Basically, TCL limits the second-by-second firing of 'mechs. It limits the accuracy of high alpha damage. It will not overshadow heat or act as a "ballistics heat" in any way.

For instance, an AC/20 has a cooldown of 4 seconds and a TCS of 100. The TCL dissipates by 100 each second, so you'd be able to put four AC/20s on chain fire indefinitely with no accuracy penalty. You just can't fire them together.

All it's meant to do is limit how much pinpoint damage can be done with a single click.

View PostDocBach, on 10 June 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

i think instead of adding a new targeting computer stat, with weapons having their own cost to use, we just have convergeance based on speed, range, obstructions and heat level?

It's better than nothing, but how does this fix a smart 6xPPC Stalker? It waits, it sees its prey, it stops, the enemy pops, and the Stalker sinks back below the ridge to cool off. It will encourage smarter play by these boats, but it won't prevent them from doing what they do best.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 10 June 2013 - 01:28 PM.


#12 Petroshka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:27 PM

What would be cool is if you could make some spreadsheet magic via google docs to demonstrate build-up and dissapation of TCL and heat in various scenarios.

#13 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:31 PM

View PostPetroshka, on 10 June 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

What would be cool is if you could make some spreadsheet magic via google docs to demonstrate build-up and dissapation of TCL and heat in various scenarios.

I'm not much of a spreadsheet warrior, but I'll see what I can do to give people a better understanding of how this should feel.

#14 Praehotec8

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 851 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:31 PM

It's an interesting idea, but it feels a bit punishing to LRM boats. If only 33 missiles overloads missile lock, 2X LRM20s would never be able to fire together, and I wouldn't call 2X LRM20s boating. Not to mention lighter mechs that are ML boats (jenner, etc). They often need to unleash an alpha and get away. Again, kind of a cool idea, but I worry that there would be too many unforseen consequences of the change. Excellent evaluation of the current balancing issues though!

#15 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:32 PM

View PostHomeless Bill, on 10 June 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:



It's better than nothing, but how does this fix a smart 6xPPC Stalker? It waits, it sees its prey, it stops, the enemy pops, and the Stalker sinks back below the ridge to cool off. It will encourage smarter play by these boats, but it won't prevent them from doing what they do best.


if there is a cap on how tight convergeance can be based on those factors, like at long range against a moving target it will hit minute of mech but not a pinpoint spot, the only way to get perfect point of aim point of impact accuracy would be to be not moving against a still 'Mech in the open at close range.

#16 xDeityx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:33 PM

This is a very large post and will take a significant time investment to read. The chances that anything will change because of this post are slim.

OP why should I read this? If you had some quick and easy way of proving to me that you possess a depth of knowledge about the game greater than the average player I would be interested in reading this. Chances are though that you are an average player and this is just another balance rant like many others before.

If only Elo was public. =)

#17 Vodrin Thales

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 869 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:34 PM

That's a really complex solution that could potentially be tougher to balance than the current system. Why not make AC5 and up auto-cannons fire a burst instead of a single projectile, delivering their damage over 1 second instead of instantly. Could even do the same with the gauss rifle (even if it would be a bit of a departure from cannon and common sense). Then have the PPC fire a larger energy burst that will deliver it's damage over several hit locations instead of just one.

Player who can hold a weapon on target for an entire second (as lasers currently do) would still get high point damage, but this would be much more difficult to pull of than it currently is.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 10 June 2013 - 01:35 PM.


#18 One Medic Army

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,985 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:34 PM

Just wondering, couldn't you get the same sort of effect by adding in accuracy for having high heat or for moving, and adding an accuracy coefficient for each weapon (based on its intended range envelope).
Of course, that would allow people to have a single free shot at the start, so long as they're standing still and at zero heat.

#19 Carrioncrows

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 2,949 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:36 PM

Mmm.....wouldn't it just be simpler to remove zoom?

it doesn't resolve the issue but makes people either get really good at shooting or using the zoom module.

Either one forces people to plant their shots careful to hit moving targets.

it won't stop someone from getting corn-cobbed in a specific location if they are standing still but then again it simulates TT.

What you'll see is people chain firing their weapons banking on each one hitting at extreme range, rather than firing the whole salvo and missing.

Serious: Play an entire match without using ZOOM, it's the greatest equalizing out there.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 10 June 2013 - 01:46 PM.


#20 AlmightyAeng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,905 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:37 PM

I'll add this thread to the folder of reasonable, thought out alternatives that PGI will never read, nor apportion money for recoding.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users