152 replies to this topic

[Targetloc]

M4rtyr, on 15 March 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

To counter laser/PPC boating its easy. There is a MASSIVE hole in the game mechanics PGI has implemented. The only heat penalty is shutdown. If they would implement the other heat penalties then you are going to see a change. Especially ammo explostions.

Yeah yeah, energy weapon boats won't have ammo... well they might have AMS or maybe some small launcher. But even the targeting penalties would be helpful.

the other help to all direct fire weapons would be somehow spreading out the hits so that pinpoint convergence isn't being so much trouble. Thats harder to accomplish without taking the targeting out of a players hands though.

Running hot also makes a mech move slower in TT. At # of Heatsinks + 30 (where mechs currently shut down in MWO) your speed/turning is reduced by 5 movement points. Essentially, your effective engine rating is reduced by 5 * your mech weight.

6 PPC Stalkers would be immobile after 2 shots. They'd moving at about 20 KPH after just one shot. That would make them considerably easier to counter at close range. An Atlas would be able to circle them faster than they could turn.

[M4rtyr]

Targetloc, on 15 March 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Running hot also makes a mech move slower in TT. At # of Heatsinks + 30 (where mechs currently shut down in MWO) your speed/turning is reduced by 5 movement points. Essentially, your effective engine rating is reduced by 5 * your mech weight.

6 PPC Stalkers would be immobile after 2 shots. They'd moving at about 20 KPH after just one shot. That would make them considerably easier to counter at close range. An Atlas would be able to circle them faster than they could turn.

Exactly my point. Which is why i don't understand why they don't have these effects. Not to mention no movement modifiers for terrain.

There are so many missing cores to the game that its no wonder we have these problems.

[Khobai]

The only way something like that would work is if they increased the heat capacity, decreased the heat dissipation, decreased the rate of fire, and then added graduated penalties based on how much youre overheating by.

In other words, heat generation would have to be less spiky, heat dissipation would have to be more gradual, and then maybe you could have speed penalties for heat....

Because with the current heat system itd be stupid, every time a light mech fired weapons, it would slow down to like half speed.

[Kaziganthi]

Khobai, on 16 March 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

The only way something like that would work is if they increased the heat capacity, decreased the heat dissipation, decreased the rate of fire, and then added graduated penalties based on how much youre overheating by.

In other words, heat generation would have to be less spiky, heat dissipation would have to be more gradual, and then maybe you could have speed penalties for heat....

Because with the current heat system itd be stupid, every time a light mech fired weapons, it would slow down to like half speed.

Not really. I'll use a commando for example. It has medium laser and a streak SRM. Thats 3 and 2 heat for both weapons...it could fire these 3 times before it even started to see signs of any heat issues. On the other hand, a jenner would start seing heat issues it if started to alpha strike every time.

[Aim64C]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 March 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

So it's impossible for a good player to find something imbalanced? Or is there a scenario in your mind that would allow the good player to say "this build is too strong"?

What conditions make a weapon too strong?

How does one even begin to qualify a weapon in the universe of MechWarrior as being too strong?

As offering more damage/ton?

More damage/heat?

Greater range/heat? Greater range/damage?

While I see plenty of people complaining about various builds on the forums, and occasionally in-game... I simply do not see this supposedly rampant problem as manifesting itself in the games I have played.

Quote

If you think a good player cannot possibly find something imbalanced, we just have to agree to disagree.
If you think a good player can possibly find something imbalanced, why do you not concede the possibility that someone complaining about an imbalance is actually a good player?

Because a good player resorts to "the game is imbalanced" as an absolute last resort.

Kmieciu, on 12 March 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

You talk about boating (taking multiple weapons of the same type), but your problem is with weapon convergence while alpha striking.

Who uses alpha strike?

Quote

I was always against weapon convergence, because it makes weapon stacking so powerful. I was against it since the closed beta.

I think a time to adjust convergence of weapons needs to exist, and torso mounted weapons need to have a somewhat slower rate of convergence, with depreciating performance at close range (where they should kind of just converge out into infinity to do more area damage).

Quote

All I was told is that initially there was no convergence in the friends&family beta and it was to difficult to play. And I don`t buy that. My idea was that when chain firing the cross hairs should show where the next weapon will hit, and when using group fire the cross hairs should show the center of your mech. So the weapons mounted on the left hand would hit slightly to the left, and the weapons mounted on the right hand would hit slightly to the right.

That completely defeats the point of mounting weapons in the arms with actuators and other such things.

The entire point you should strive to mount weapons in the arms is because of the better accuracy and flexibility that is provided.

I mean... even from a common sense standpoint... you have a machine with fusion reactors and neuro-synaptic controls... why the hell would weapons mounted on arms with relatively full ranges of motion -not- have a system to make them converge on the same point? We've had systems that attempted to use radar to automatically adjust the convergence of machine gun fire since World War II. I should think that would not have become lostech.

Now - I think that some formula should exist that calculates the weight in each arm and gives a relative time to actually adjust the arms to give precision convergence based on the mass and how much the mech is moving... But then I could see that giving a huge advantage to LRMs that can lock and fire on the move pretty easily (though few people actually play a highly mobile LRM platform -as- a highly mobile LRM platform).

But, if we're going to change missiles - I'd have them use a ballistic intercept while having a randomly selected X-Y offset to their target point (the center mass of the target mech). Velocity would be improved, but only two missiles would fire every 0.15 - 0.2 seconds for each launcher. We could also reduce damage since light mechs would get absolutely slaughtered and heavier mechs would no longer be as safe simply standing behind a gently sloping hill.

This would instill a clustering effect, afford more damage control to the target, but make running around like a mech with its cockpit on fire a much less effective counter to missiles.

But, really, at the end of the day - I don't really see any weapon systems that are completely broken in terms of damage or mechanics.

Moving is a perfectly valid way to control and limit the amount of damage taken from missiles - just like it is in table top (though table top is a little less forgiving as it's all statistical dice rolls). I always enjoy dumb-firing into people who get carried away and overheat their laser boat (or the occasional C4 who thought he had the advantage because he was packing 20s... but ends up overheating and I've dodged about 70% of his missiles).

I get sadistic pleasure out of picking on Stalkers who try to get into an LRM war with my C1. I can only imagine how pissed they are when I, literally, solo them within their effective range after having been chewed on by their team beforehand (and they were pristine).

Just about any build that people frequently complain about... I often find completely inept and destroy (assuming I'm not being gang banged by their whole team or I've done something stupid and compromised myself - which does happen).

Perhaps that means a C1 with 2 LRM 15s+Artemis, 4 tons of ammo, and 4 medium pulse lasers is overpowered. I dunno.

Though something must be wrong if it is... because plenty of people have killed me in that thing, legitimately. A centurion with good speed and a consistent pounding with an AC10 tends to do the trick if he manages to sneak in close to me or simply has the better cover to advance under. I have enough armor to try and wipe him off on one of my friendlies - but if he's got a built like that, he's usually not fooled by those tactics, and it's rare for the team I'm on to drop what they are doing and shoot at the guy killing my dumb ***.

[M4rtyr]

Aim64C, on 16 March 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

I mean... even from a common sense standpoint... you have a machine with fusion reactors and neuro-synaptic controls... why the hell would weapons mounted on arms with relatively full ranges of motion -not- have a system to make them converge on the same point? We've had systems that attempted to use radar to automatically adjust the convergence of machine gun fire since World War II. I should think that would not have become lostech.

Well guess what it did become lost tech, its called a Targeting Computer, Clanners have them.

Actuators in the arms provide a wide field of fire for the pilot, but acuracy is purely down to the pilot so it's fair to assume convergence will be off to a small degree (ie enough to still hit the target but in different locations). Implemented right it would take some practice to relearn where your mechs 'hit' locations are so you don't miss but it would make targeting alot more skillful then currently.

[Aim64C]

M4rtyr, on 16 March 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

Well guess what it did become lost tech, its called a Targeting Computer, Clanners have them.

No, that's not what a targeting computer does.

http://www.sarna.net...geting_Computer

"Targeting Computers are sophisticated pieces of electronics that, unlike normal targeting systems, physically help MechWarriors target their opponents. Recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers are used to prevent normal weapon drift from factors such as recoil and movement while the computer accounts for atmospheric and other conditions to present an accurate "lead" on the target. This allows for more surgical precision of weapons fire, especially with naturally accurate systems, allowing for the user to hit specific parts on the target vehicle."

Basic weapon convergence is analog vacuum tube technology. Get with the 40s, already.

Hell, the targetting computer in battletech is simplistic by the standards of the first fully integrated naval fire control systems:

http://en.wikipedia....ontrol_Computer

and aircraft fire control systems:

http://en.wikipedia....-control_system

"Simple systems, known as lead computing sights also made their appearance inside aircraft late in the war. These devices used a gyroscope to measure turn rates, and moved the gunsight's aim-point to take this into account, with the aim point presented through a reflector sight. The only manual "input" to the sight was the target distance, which was typically handled by dialing in the size of the target's wing span at some known range. Small radar units were added in the post-war period to automate even this input, but it was some time before they were fast enough to make the pilots completely happy with them."

The P-51 weighed in around 4.5 tons at its maximum rated takeoff weight. The idea that a targetting computer no more complex than your smart phone weighs a ton and takes up huge volumes of space requires me to hit one hell of an "I believe" button. Sure - you've got to add some small sensors here and there and tweak the actuators a tad... but c'mon.

"You need a targeting computer to make the arms operate based off of slide-rule simplistic trigonometry" is ridiculous.

Quote

Actuators in the arms provide a wide field of fire for the pilot, but acuracy is purely down to the pilot so it's fair to assume convergence will be off to a small degree (ie enough to still hit the target but in different locations). Implemented right it would take some practice to relearn where your mechs 'hit' locations are so you don't miss but it would make targeting alot more skillful then currently.

So why am I still rolling for each weapon when I have a targetting computer?

Tabletop mechanics are not intended to be utilized in the game's actual mechanics.

I, also, do not understand what makes "skill" in a game - other than the assumption that "arbitrarily decreasing the odds of the desired result means skill is required to obtain the desired result." Nor do I understand why everything should be about "skill."

There again... I've seen quite a few of these players who cry for "more skill" in the game run straight into the open in chase of me while I'm lobbing LRMs into their face and using partial cover to block their PPCs or autocannons.

Honestly, the idea that it requires skill to shoot something is silly. Point. Click. Boom. If there's distance and speed... estimate. Point. Click. Boom. Don't alpha everything in sight like a 'tard so you can control your heat and improve your effectiveness against maneuvering targets.

What people need to practice being a little more skillful at is utilizing the legs of their 'mech, rather than trying to play turret battle online and expecting it to go well for them.

[M4rtyr]

The game already uses most of the TT mechanics, and funny enough the ones that are missing are causing problems.

But a targeting computer allows you to target a location yes? If you don't have it and you hit its a random location. So if convergence was slightly off then it more acurately depicts this randomness without missing. Now if convergence isn't thrown off then there isn't anything for the Targeting Computer to actually do in MWO since we control the aim. But if it's slightly off then the TC can lock it in as it is now.

Makes perfect sense

Who said that everything had to be about skill, I simply said it would be slightly more skillful if convergence wasn't perfect, Not to mention it would balance the game out better if a single alpha from a PPC boat didn't core a location

Oh, like to go on about skill when you use LRM's... oookkkkaaayyyy. But then most of what you're saying is meaningless. It's a game and some of the aspects like being able to aim and convergence are breaking part of what made the TT (what this game is based off of) balanced. I don't care if the targeting computer doesn't make sense to you in the lore it made sense as a game mechanic.

But for the record your trolling about 40's tech is ****... they converged MG's on fighters during WWII with manual calibration. Shoot the guns at a target at the given range and adjust them until they were right. The computers that tanks use now to keep their guns tracking on target even while traveling at speed is more what we are talking about with the TC.

Edited by M4rtyr, 16 March 2013 - 02:24 AM.

[Aim64C]

M4rtyr, on 16 March 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

The game already uses most of the TT mechanics, and funny enough the ones that are missing are causing problems.

I still have yet to be convinced these problems are anything other than people who don't know how to play.

Namely - they don't know how to utilize the legs their mech has in any kind of dynamic situation (they want to stand still and shoot, or something - I don't get it).

Quote

But a targeting computer allows you to target a location yes? If you don't have it and you hit its a random location. So if convergence was slightly off then it more acurately depicts this randomness without missing.

That's not convergence. That's a random offset to your indicated position. Convergence is the fact that the two weapons are not being fired from the same location.

Quote

Now if convergence isn't thrown off then there isn't anything for the Targeting Computer to actually do in MWO since we control the aim. But if it's slightly off then the TC can lock it in as it is now.

Or it could do what it did in MW3.

The only way for the mechanic to actually function in a reasonable way is if we reduce this to every other MMO out there. Select your target mech, hit a button, and watch the results of the invisible dice rolls of the computer. Oh - and you have to learn the optimal pattern in which to push your buttons (also known as 'learning your rotation.')

Gauss rifles and PPCs become virtually useless if they fly in any "nerfing" pattern. You have to be very careful with how you insert RNG into weapons the player personally aims. It's one thing to use it for the LB-X ACs. It's another to use it for lasers, gauss rifles (with very heavy ammunition), PPCs, etc.

Compound that on top of lag issues - and you'll find that making weapons hit anything other than where they are aiming is a horrible idea. Particularly if you require the use of equipment to 'fix' what players will consider an arbitrary gimp.

Introducing convergence time based on mass would be more reasonable - or a sort of "time-appreciated accuracy" - where it takes time for your mech to adjust. This would make lights a little more dangerous in close range against assaults (though it could be argued the raven needs no help in this regard), and make "pop" tactics a little less effective in a sniping role.

But outright making it so that you sit there, take careful aim, only to get screwed by RNG will just **** people off - especially if it requires a special piece of hardware to 'fix' that must be paid for via the grind (and then it's really going to be a PITA when it takes up a ******** amount of space when used with any meaningful hardware... if we go by TT rules).

No matter how much they nerf missiles - LRMs with Artemis will be the only thing you should ever use.

Quote

Who said that everything had to be about skill, I simply said it would be slightly more skillful if convergence wasn't perfect, Not to mention it would balance the game out better if a single alpha from a PPC boat didn't core a location

So... let me get this straight...

If you put your mouse cursor over a location... you push the button... and the projectile flies off, randomly.... using it now requires -more- skill?

All it really means is that you have to be closer to use it effectively, as any skilled player is not going to waste their time shooting at something they know they are exceptionally unlikely to hit.

Quote

Oh, like to go on about skill when you use LRM's... oookkkkaaayyyy.

The amount of skill necessary to effectively use LRMs is directly proportional to the piloting skill of the target.

Considering I regularly face down mechs with twice as many LRMs as me with a good 40% armor advantage over me... it must mean I'm doing something other than simply mashing the launch missile button.

Like I said. Mechs have legs. Most players seem to forget about that. When I do very well, it's because I've been piloting very well. When I do very poorly, it's because I've been piloting very poorly. There's a direct correlation.

I don't play your typical LRM player's game. But, considering you're in the circuit that seems to have trouble with simple PPC boats... I don't expect you to understand simple maneuver warfare.

Quote

But then most of what you're saying is meaningless. It's a game and some of the aspects like being able to aim and convergence are breaking part of what made the TT (what this game is based off of) balanced. I don't care if the targeting computer doesn't make sense to you in the lore it made sense as a game mechanic.

There's nothing fundamentally broken about this game. There are a few things that could use some tweaking, sure. But the fact that people are getting routinely destroyed by such poor builds as a 6PPC stalker does not legitimize the claim that there is a problem with the mechanics of the game (other than, perhaps, the way heat plays out in such a build).

Do you know why I do not see these boats all that often?

They are not half as effective as you think they are. "All of their weapons go to the same spot!" If that spot is you - then you need to evaluate your piloting skills (or lack thereof).

The role of the targeting computer in the TT game is to aid the pilot. The point of having the pilot roll skill checks on direct fire weapons was to account for things like target movement, own-mech movement, range (lead time and aim stability) etc. The roll of the dice was to account for things that exist in any real-time environment (though the dice roll is considerably more random than a skilled player's typical results). The targetting computer was a modifier meant to reduce the burden on the pilot's individual skill.

If you are constantly getting hit by pinpoint alphas (and what kind of player uses alpha strike regularly?) - it's because you're not being a hard enough target, or because that player is just uber 1337.

Quote

But for the record your trolling about 40's tech is ****... they converged MG's on fighters during WWII with manual calibration. Shoot the guns at a target at the given range and adjust them until they were right.

Automated radar convergence systems were prototyped during the war. The radar gunsight was first used on the P-51.

Avionics tech, buddy. You're not going to be given an inch on this one.

Quote

The computers that tanks use now to keep their guns tracking on target even while traveling at speed is more what we are talking about with the TC.

And it's 1970s ~ 80s technology.

I can, literally, build one out of what radioshack has in stock down the road. Missile guidance systems are more demanding.

[Kmieciu]

All the weapon stats in TT assumed random hit locations. For example UAC/5 has twice the fire rate for 1 extra tonne and 1 extra critical slot. BUT those two shots would probably hit two different locations, so it would not be as deadly as an AC/10.

While in MWO using UAC5 against slower targets you can reliably double-tap the same component. Perfect aim makes UAC5 better than AC10. Perfect convergence makes 2xUAC5 better than AC20. PGI tires to balance it by introducing ridiculous jam rates.

How about Large Pulse Laser? 300 meters of range 10 damage 7.3 heat. 2x Medium Laser: 270 range 10 damage 8 heat. And you can mount 5! additional DHS with the spare weight. 2xML>1LPL simply because the beams converge on the same spot. If we didn't have perfect convergence, people would use LPLs on heavier mechs, because 10 damage to a single location is better than 10 damage to 2 random locations.

The core problem is perfect aim and perfect convergence. In order to balance the weapons you would have to change the core rules: weapon weight and critical slots. For example LPL should weigh only 3-4 tonnes, because it is only slightly better than 2 medium lasers.

I realize PGI will not mess with weapon weight and critical slots, so the only way to get back to TT balance is to introduce some degree of spread while firing a group of weapons.

Edited by Kmieciu, 16 March 2013 - 04:01 AM.

[Targetloc]

Kmieciu, on 16 March 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

I realize PGI will not mess with weapon weight and critical slots, so the only way to get back to TT balance is to introduce some degree of spread while firing a group of weapons.

That would make Gauss Rifle and AC20 builds even more powerful.

I agree there should be some degree of spread that increases under conditions like when mechs are running full speed because it introduces more tactical considerations, while addressing how pin-point precision has affected mech survivability and hit-and-run high alpha builds.

I don't think it should be related to how many weapons you are firing, because that introduces weapon mechanics that only punish specific builds.

Boats aren't the problem. You don't see anyone complaining about Medium Laser boats or Large Laser boats or UAC5 boats. Even the LRM boats that lots of people whine about have very explicit weaknesses you can exploit to drop them with little effort.

The problem is specific weapons, and a couple super-heavy alpha builds that don't have to worry about their drawbacks because the target is dead before they kick in.

[Khobai]

Well the major offenders right now for convergence/aiming are PPCs. They do all their damage instantly to one location. The best solution to that IMO is to reduce their damage but make them do splash damage. So instead of doing 10 damage to one location they might do like 5 damage to two locations, or 3-4 damage to three locations, etc...

Ballistic weapons have enough flaws that I dont see allowing convergence/aiming with them as being a problem.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Khobai, on 16 March 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

Well the major offenders right now for convergence/aiming are PPCs. They do all their damage instantly to one location. The best solution to that IMO is to reduce their damage but make them do splash damage. So instead of doing 10 damage to one location they might do like 5 damage to two locations, or 3-4 damage to three locations, etc...

Ballistic weapons have enough flaws that I dont see allowing convergence/aiming with them as being a problem.

yeah you've not played and dealt with many boom cats or gauss cataphracs I see.