Jump to content

Alternative Approach To Balance. I.e. Remove Heat-Scaling.


36 replies to this topic

#1 Cognoggin

    Rookie

  • Elite Founder
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 02:25 PM

I'll try to be as simple as I can.

Why on earth doesn't MWO make use of dynamic cones of fire? Crysis has always used a dynamic CoF for it's weapons. Just use an assault rifle on full-auto, see how big the CoF gets.

And given the tabletop game, where hitting part of a 'Mech was a complete dice-roll; WHY does this game not use dynamic Cones of Fire?

Given that pinpoint alpha and NOT damage are the reasons things are getting slapped with hilariously poorly imagined heat-nerfs (that don't match the tabletop or other MW games in any way), the smart and first solution should have simply been 'Make them less accurate, especially after firing'.

Make the torso and arm reticules scale in size to represent the average spread of the weapon. When firing, increase this size to represent recovery of firing recoil. Very small weapons like machine guns will have no real recoil, whereas large weapons like PPCs and Autocannons will quickly lose accuracy in sustained fire.

This means that not only do your PPCs not hit pinpoint any more, but if you fire six at once, your stalker will be very hot, AND you might want to wait for the CoF to close down again to insure further hits. This would have much less impact when brawling, as even 'splashy' weapons like LBX autocannon and SRMs can hit specific 'Mech components.

It can even be balanced based on 'Mech weight! A Stalker might handle two PPCs better than a Blackjack can, the trade-off being that the Stalker fits more PPCs in general in such a build.

I see no reasons why CoF cannot be implemented using Cryengine. PGI have even shown that they can influence the CoF by giving us jump-jet wobble.

In short: PGI, don't put silly, un-immersive, arbitrary rules on heat generation. Stay true to the core of the game. CoF, not Ghost-heat.

#2 DoubleEdged

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • LocationAuburn Hills, MI

Posted 10 August 2013 - 03:10 PM

I recall a different MMO using CoF before and it failed pretty miserably.

That is famously known as Planetside 1.

I believe PGI is afraid of CoF because Planetside 1 failed with it. However, this game is more like tank warfare, and it has a lot less bullet spraying compared to Planetside 1.

With the exception of MGs, and Dakka Dakka AC/2 builds, I don't see a big a big deal with this suggestion besides it hurting the sniper meta.

The CoF though would require a whole new re-program of their targetting system. Which might not be the best task to add to them.

#3 Cognoggin

    Rookie

  • Elite Founder
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 03:16 PM

View PostDoubleEdged, on 10 August 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

I recall a different MMO using CoF before and it failed pretty miserably.

That is famously known as Planetside 1.

I believe PGI is afraid of CoF because Planetside 1 failed with it. However, this game is more like tank warfare, and it has a lot less bullet spraying compared to Planetside 1.

With the exception of MGs, and Dakka Dakka AC/2 builds, I don't see a big a big deal with this suggestion besides it hurting the sniper meta.

The CoF though would require a whole new re-program of their targetting system. Which might not be the best task to add to them.


Planetside 1 remains my all-time favourite shooter. The CoF system worked perfectly in it. PS1 was, in fact, sabotaged by far more ridiculous design choices made by Sony Online Entertainment, namely the inclusion of giant stompy robots which were impossible to kill by anything else other than another giant imbalanced stompy robot. SOE Seems to have a penchant for destroying their own games.

Bullet spraying was also a very easy way to die in PS1. CoF Control was an important skill to learn. You'd never kill anyone by just full-auto-ing. (Mini-Chaingun not-quite-withstanding).

Planetside should serve as a perfect example of a game to use CoF in such a setting. Also, let me remind you that many other online games also make use of CoF, Planetside 2 and Battlefield 3 serving as examples.

#4 Troutmonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, Australia

Posted 10 August 2013 - 09:44 PM

Please see this very good and very extensive solution: http://mwomercs.com/...age__p__2439040

#5 IrrelevantFish

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 202 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 04:29 AM

I'll say it again: CoF nerfs skill, both in aiming and in tactics.

How? Well, in games like Planetside, it really doesn't matter much where you hit your enemy, just that you hit them. With the exception of sniper weapons (ie, pinpoint weapons) all you need for success is quick reflexes and a modicum of fire discipline.

In MWO, however, reflexes aren't all that important, but fire discipline is super important, as is a steady hand, a keen sense of tactics, and good situational-awareness. Do you shoot an Atlas in the legs hoping for stripped armor or take out the right torso to remove their ballistics? Are you accurate enough to shoot at that soft side-torso, or should you just aim center-mass? Should you risk crossing to that next bit of cover with your bum shoulder, or do you need to find another approach?

These questions become far less important once CoF comes into play. Focusing on a specific component is only possible at close range and hitting guys at long range is pure crap-shoot, no matter how good a shot you are. That means that guys who can keep their projectiles on target and their beams focused at range have no advantage over those that can't. Those guys patient and clever enough to close distance without exposing themselves have minimal advantage over those capable of nothing but peek-a-boo or a suicide-rush.

And BTW, even after you've nerfed skill all to hell, you still haven't entirely fixed the problem. Yeah, you've stopped well-piloted Highlanders from insta-critting assaults at 1000m, but you've still got Jagerbombs one-shotting lights at 200m.

So no. No no no. There are much better ways to solve the alpha-monster problem.

#6 IrrelevantFish

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 202 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 04:34 AM

View PostTroutmonkey, on 10 August 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Please see this very good and very extensive solution: http://mwomercs.com/...age__p__2439040

Yes, it's clever and easy to program, but it's basically like adding in a second heat scale. Players have to keep track of it, PGI has to balance it, and noobs have to figure it out. Think of how much time, effort, and frustration has gone into the heat-management mechanic. Now double it. That's this solution.

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 11 August 2013 - 04:38 AM.


#7 Ralgas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,338 posts
  • LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ

Posted 11 August 2013 - 07:02 AM

Another one of these :)

No other cof shooter has the same targeting "kill" rules of a mech and difference in target size (in multiplayer) as the spider to the awesome, you can't balance the cone without making the light op or the cone useless on bigger targets.

If made movement based it hurts the run and gun playstyles med/light mechs are designed for and would encourage even more use of sniping weapons (ie ppc/gauss or what we hate now)

Lrm's/ ssrm's ignore the mechanic and become far stronger, or if by some miracle you balance both sniping and missile weps you encourage mech humping to also ignore the mechanic

Mechs with multiple hardpoints in one location also put an extra crimp in deciding how the cof should be implemented.

Pretty sure i got em all,

TL:DR you'll add as many balance problems as you solve. Oh, and PGI has already said it'll break hit registration even further at this point, so no.

Edited by Ralgas, 11 August 2013 - 07:03 AM.


#8 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 07:09 AM

Because.... (fill in random PGI blabber)

Seriously, I don't know. Battletech's damage scale and Segmented Armor system was based around inaccuracy, and here we have not only pinpoint accuracy but also group fire convergence that allows an incredible amount of spike damage in the spot of the gunner's choice.

And they wonder why mechs died too fast when they up'd the recharge...

IMO, Group Fire OR Convergence needs to go. We can live with one OR the other with Double Armor, not both.

#9 MisterFiveSeven

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 290 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 09:34 AM

View PostRalgas, on 11 August 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

Another one of these :)

No other cof shooter has the same targeting "kill" rules of a mech and difference in target size (in multiplayer) as the spider to the awesome, you can't balance the cone without making the light op or the cone useless on bigger targets.

If made movement based it hurts the run and gun playstyles med/light mechs are designed for and would encourage even more use of sniping weapons (ie ppc/gauss or what we hate now)



I'm sure there could be some type of balancing done between the weight classes.

It could be an additional tool to buff lights and mediums...

#10 Ralgas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,338 posts
  • LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ

Posted 11 August 2013 - 12:54 PM

View PostMisterFiveSeven, on 11 August 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:


I'm sure there could be some type of balancing done between the weight classes.

It could be an additional tool to buff lights and mediums...

you could lower ther fast mechs cones, but it still doesn;t accout for a an awesomes CT +enough spread to reliably cause a % of dmg across other panels is an unacceptable % of misses on smller mechs which is essentially the same same effect as lagshield. On top of that, expecting a mech to stop to be able to reliably hit lights is only going to push the sniper meta to actually still be in range or have a target given the playstyle they use. The only conclusion some bright sparks have come up with then is resized to chassis but then you have the issue of how the system actually determins what you fired at.

Personally i dont mind if they return the system they used to have on timed arm convergence. But the team have said there's tecnical issues preventing it atm so i'm prepared to wait. Also, even then it or any of the other convergence systems proposed aren't the magic fix everyon e seems to think it is and has serious issues, but a lot of people don't see to see past "this is a shooter add it!!!"

#11 MisterFiveSeven

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 290 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 01:28 PM

View PostRalgas, on 11 August 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

you could lower ther fast mechs cones, but it still doesn;t accout for a an awesomes CT +enough spread to reliably cause a % of dmg across other panels is an unacceptable % of misses on smller mechs which is essentially the same same effect as lagshield. On top of that, expecting a mech to stop to be able to reliably hit lights is only going to push the sniper meta to actually still be in range or have a target given the playstyle they use. The only conclusion some bright sparks have come up with then is resized to chassis but then you have the issue of how the system actually determins what you fired at.

Personally i dont mind if they return the system they used to have on timed arm convergence. But the team have said there's tecnical issues preventing it atm so i'm prepared to wait. Also, even then it or any of the other convergence systems proposed aren't the magic fix everyon e seems to think it is and has serious issues, but a lot of people don't see to see past "this is a shooter add it!!!"


I know there were latency/server side communications issues with that but I think there's a pretty simple solution.

Convergence is based on the distance of your targeted mech, not just wherever your crosshair is pointing. Problem solved. Targeting and information warfare (lol) are actually relevant.

#12 Ralgas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,338 posts
  • LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ

Posted 11 August 2013 - 02:39 PM

View PostMisterFiveSeven, on 11 August 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:


I know there were latency/server side communications issues with that but I think there's a pretty simple solution.

Convergence is based on the distance of your targeted mech, not just wherever your crosshair is pointing. Problem solved. Targeting and information warfare (lol) are actually relevant.


the return of ecm overload.......

#13 MisterFiveSeven

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 290 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 02:48 PM

View PostRalgas, on 11 August 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

the return of ecm overload.......


It's not my fault PGI isn't capable of balancing ancillary support equipment.

lol.

#14 Ralgas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,338 posts
  • LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ

Posted 11 August 2013 - 02:55 PM

View PostMisterFiveSeven, on 11 August 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:


It's not my fault PGI isn't capable of balancing ancillary support equipment.

lol.


Just because i'm rather negative doesn't mean i don't see merit in the idea. But too many people are starting to scream "just do this" as if it will fix everything with no unintended negative side effects. They may suck at implementation but pgi thus far have it pretty right in the concept department.

#15 MisterFiveSeven

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 290 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 03:02 PM

View PostRalgas, on 11 August 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Just because i'm rather negative doesn't mean i don't see merit in the idea. But too many people are starting to scream "just do this" as if it will fix everything with no unintended negative side effects. They may suck at implementation but pgi thus far have it pretty right in the concept department.


I understand completely.

In addition, I think a lot of the community's ideas would have very destructive unintended consequences.

Which begs the question: when are they just gonna raise PPC heat already?

#16 StaIker

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 299 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 09:16 PM

Quote

Why on earth doesn't MWO make use of dynamic cones of fire? Crysis has always used a dynamic CoF for it's weapons. Just use an assault rifle on full-auto, see how big the CoF gets.


I know that when I play a game with aimable weapons, my first thought is how cool it would be for the game itself to make me miss my shots and negate my skills.

You know who suffers most from the firepower of converging weaponry? People who don't know how to protect themselves from damage by the use of terrain and tactics. It's folks who just walk around thinking they are on some kind of sight-seeing tour and then get blasted in the CT with PPC's. Were you around for MW4? If you were, you may remember the exact same complaints then too, and you may also remember that once people learned that cover and thinking were their friends, the ability of the enemy to smash them went down dramatically.

I never really saw ace players complaining about damage because ace players didn't put themselves in the position to get hit easily. It's always the targets of ace players that had the problems. Always was, always will be.

#17 IrrelevantFish

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 202 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 12:18 AM

View PostMisterFiveSeven, on 11 August 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

I understand completely. In addition, I think a lot of the community's ideas would have very destructive unintended consequences. Which begs the question: when are they just gonna raise PPC heat already?
They already did. On Tuesday, both standard and ER PPCs were bumped up one heat point. I think it's helped quite a bit (Gauss+2xERPPC builds are no longer able to hang with brawlers) but I think a little more might be called for, though maybe not a full point.

#18 Tombstoner

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,592 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:51 AM

Its saddens me that people want to play with magically accurate weapons. Then call it skillful play. hey i can hug a hill and pop out for an alpha shot better then you. then it (the game) turns into pop turret warrior online... game play suffers. it's like spamming grenades into a choke point. learn the maps and you start farming new players. then feel good about your score. its a false scene of "Skill"

PS1 died cause it never ended and spit the population with expansions... that's a bad move

The game doesn't use COF because the devs want hit determination controlled completely by player skill, but then allows LRM lock on's.... so its a pure skill based game for direct fire weapons only. odd that MG's seem to have a COF and jump jetting has random targeting... AKA a COF.

Not having a COF was a critical design choice i think PGI got wrong. it is the source of almost all of the weapon imbalances. every single direct fire weapons in this game has better accuracy then any sniper weapon in any other game. the only difference is in long range effectiveness. This to me is broken. it kills brawling outright when sniper weapons get better at close range, How can you call them sniper weapons at that point?

This game has lost its Identity.. is its SIM or a FPS.... hybridizing them may seem easy but its not.

Edited by Tombstoner, 12 August 2013 - 05:53 AM.


#19 crabcakes66

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 832 posts
  • LocationSweet Home Kaetetôã

Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:56 AM

Replacing a bad mechanic with a horrible mechanic is not going to make this a better game.

#20 Hillslam

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 726 posts
  • LocationWestern Hemisphere

Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:35 AM

to the OT:

one simple reason: PGI has a b0n3r for heat.

been there since day 1. they want heat to play a MAJOR role in the game and continue to push it front and center.

Edited by Hillslam, 12 August 2013 - 06:36 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users