191 replies to this topic

[Karr285]

TruePoindexter, on 12 April 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

So wait two weapons don't diverge now? Your initial example said that firing more than one would introduce divergence. Did you change your mind?

Anyway using your new revised setup It's clear that I should fire two weapons at a time now. So a 4 PPC/LL mech firing them in groups of two would do well. Oh your 6 LL Stalker is still viable just with grouping. Best part is the 2 AC20 mech doesn't need to be changed at all and can be used as is.

You're not fixing the supposed problem which doesn't exist.

so because they hit the same location they didn't diverge? I dont remember saying 1 weapon pinpoint. 2 weapons 2 locations.

at 270 meters with only 2 weapons I would hope that it would be scaled so that most of the time your shots hit 1 Loc, even a half meter spread maybe less. The point was the more weapons you shoot the more the Divergence happens

Edited by Karr285, 12 April 2013 - 01:05 AM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 12 April 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

So these arent boats in your mind?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Longbow

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Yeoman

http://www.sarna.net...er_%28Baboon%29

CPLT-A1 - The A1 variant of the Catapult was designed without back-up weapons. While it doubles the amount of LRM ammo carried and adds on two tons of armor, it is highly susceptible to close range attacks and has little defense if an enemy does manage to close in on it.

http://www.sarna.net..._%28OmniMech%29

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nova

Or are you one of those funny people who think the term "boat" means something other than what it does around here?

Cause all those are in books IVE owned

Which of these are in the game btw? The A1 in the books usually has something around two lrm20. That's not boating. When PGI put it into the game, they forgot something. They forgot to think this trough. Now it's too late.

Or the Stalker with 6 energy hardpoints. I bet if it's in the books, it never has 6 PPCs, but a mixed array of weapons. But mixed is too difficult for many players. Simple, effective, usable without much effort or thinking involved, THAT'S the way.

It's funny though. Every time a discussion about boats erupts, people in defense bring up the A1. Always the A1. Yes, I agree, the A1 can only run with missiles. Fact is I don't have that much of a problem with the A1. More with the ppc-Stalker.

TruePoindexter, on 12 April 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

I agree - people seem to not understand that the hard point system is what protects us from some of the MW3 League era boats. With no hard points I would immediately start going back down those roads. 20 SSRM2 boats? 14 Medium Lasers? Imagine the horrors possible.

But what is left for PGI to change for omni-mechs? Only that. By liberating the hardpoints like they did, they created a future horror scenario, even for themselves. I do NOT want to be the person or team trying to balance this mess.

Edited by GODzillaGSPB, 12 April 2013 - 01:07 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

Karr285, on 12 April 2013 - 01:04 AM, said:

so because they hit the same location they didn't diverge? I dont remember saying 1 weapon pinpoint 2 weapons 2 locations.

Just in case you have forgotten this is your system (which I understand the actual numbers are off):

Karr285 said:

however when you shoot more it starts to be less accurate example (numbers subject to balance)
1 weapon - pinpoint

2 weapon - 2 Degree deviation off center

3 weapon - 4 degree deviation off center

4 weapon - 8 degree deviation off center

5+ weapons - 10 degree deviation off center

You clearly state that two weapons would diverge but then list an example where they do not.

[Karr285]

TruePoindexter, on 12 April 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

Just in case you have forgotten this is your system (which I understand the actual numbers are off):



You clearly state that two weapons would diverge but then list an example where they do not.

So if the lasers diverge by .25meters and hit the same location they didn't diverge? is that what you think Diverge means that they will NEVER hit the same Loc? if so that is not what diverge means. if they diverged Vertically by 1 meter would they still not hit the CT of an atlas? if 2 weapons at 270 meters was .25 meters and 3 weapons at 270 was 1 meter is that still not divergence?

the 2 weapons both hit CT the 3 not all hit CT. was that hard?

again for simplicity Divergence =/= Cant hit same Location, just not same SPOT

Edited by Karr285, 12 April 2013 - 01:12 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

TruePoindexter, on 12 April 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Well - being honest. I am a fan of MechWarrior/Battletech because of the combination of intriguing game play with customization. The depth in customization is why I'm here. If MWO didn't have a mechlab I wouldn't play - this is why I never gave MW:LL more than a passing look. To me half the game is in the mechlab.

Yeah I never liked MWLL for that precise reason

[TruePoindexter]

Karr285, on 12 April 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

So if the lasers diverge by .25meters and hit the same location they didn't diverge? is that what you think Diverge means that they will NEVER hit the same Loc? if so that is not what diverge means. if they diverged Vertically by 1 meter would they still not hit the CT of an atlas? if 2 weapons at 270 meters was .25 meters and 3 weapons at 270 was 1 meter is that still not divergence?

the 2 weapons both hit CT the 3 not all hit CT. was that hard?

again for simplicity Divergence =/= Cant hit same Location, just not same SPOT

You're changing what the numbers mean now? Your initial numbers (while unrealistic) clearly imply that a second weapon is not likely to hit the same location. So now the second will "probably" hit the same location? So what I listed in my example to your revised system still stands and nothing has changed.

You don't seem to understand how random variance of even a small degree makes firing even a small number of weapons inefficient at any kind of range. If it is as you say then you have failed to even fully address the problem as this has absolutely no effect on 2 AC20 mechs which you mention.

EDIT: Updating your quote to match what you changed your post to

Edited by TruePoindexter, 12 April 2013 - 01:15 AM.

[Karr285]

TruePoindexter, on 12 April 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

You're changing what the numbers mean now? Your initial numbers (while unrealistic) clearly imply that a second weapon is not likely to hit the same location. So now the second will "probably" hit the same location? So what I listed in my example to your revised system still stands and nothing has changed.

at 270 meters yea 2 weapons would Likely hit the same location but not always. at 500m Probably not at 1000m most defiantly not, is that hard to understand how trajectories work? the closer you are the less the spread. Its pretty basic

Edited by Karr285, 12 April 2013 - 01:14 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

Karr285, on 12 April 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

at 270 meters yea 2 weapons would Likely hit the same location but not always. at 500m Probably not at 1000m most defiantly not, is that hard to understand how trajectories work? the closer you are the less the spread. Its pretty basic

So snipers would chain fire heavy weapons and the 2 AC20 mech gets a pass. You're not addressing something that you listed specifically as a goal:

Karr285 said:

No more Twin AC20/gauss to 1 location

I'm honestly not trying to bash you. I just want you to understand the implications of game design and what the rules of a system mean in practice. I don't think you are thinking through carefully enough the changes you are proposing.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

GODzillaGSPB, on 12 April 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

Which of these are in the game btw?

Which game is BATTLETECH btw?
Cause you included that in your "youre not a fan of" rant and including BATTLETECH (not directly a part of this game as it is MECHWARRIOR ONLINE not BATTLETECH ONLINE) in your argument opens up battletech being used against you in your argument.

Quote

The A1 in the books usually has something around two lrm20.

Quote

The primary weapons of the Catapult are two Holly LRM-15 launchers which allow the Catapult to give friendly units fire support at ranges of over 600 meters

Just like here

Quote

That's not boating.

erm 2 lrm 15s and nothing else isnt boating? Ok, time for you to give what YOUR definition of boating it because I think youre one of those holding a personal idea of the definition to that word that the rest of us dont hold

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 12 April 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[Karr285]

TruePoindexter, on 12 April 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

So snipers would chain fire heavy weapons and the 2 AC20 mech gets a pass. You're not addressing something that you listed specifically as a goal:

Seriosuly you are going to nit pick this into retardation. you asked for examples where multiple small weapons weren't useless than their larger weapons, Did that, complained that AC2's would be useless showed you an option where they could stay relevant

and now are picking on 1 thing, ok then make the AC20 double the deviation of other weapons. If i can come up with this many idea and minor tweaks I dont see how you couldn't have thought of it, now you are jut arguing for the sake of it.

Edited by Karr285, 12 April 2013 - 01:21 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

Karr285, on 12 April 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

Seriosuly you are going to nit pick this into retardation. you asked for examples where multiple small weapons weren't useless than their larger weapons, Did that, complained that AC2's would be useless showed you an option where they could stay relevant

and now are picking on 1 thing, ok then make the AC20 double the deviation of other weapons. If i can come up with this many idea and minor tweaks I dont see how you couldn't have thought of it, now you are jut arguing for the sake of it.

You are playing in the realm of design. It's part of what I do for a living (Software Developer). Any idea must be taken apart and analyzed carefully for its implications. That's what sets good design apart from poor design. It's why PGI is hesitant to make changes as they too carefully consider proposals to find all the flaws the odd edge cases. This is why I am tearing your idea apart. It is because you are not thinking it through carefully enough to see its inherent flaws.

I can see why some people may think that a change may be necessary. I don't think so myself but then again I didn't see a problem with some past issues people brought up but PGI agreed with them and made adjustments. Your solution though does not address the problem you laid out in your first post in any meaningful way and that's what's wrong with it.

[MustrumRidcully]

PointDexter made an important on OP's initial approach - 2 degrees of deviation is actually pretty significant.

You would be better off defining the deviation by defining the distance at the target point, probably in dependence of distance to target.

For example:
2 weapons might have a 2m divergence at a target 1000m away or 1m at a distance of 500m.
3 weapons might have a 3m divergence at a target 1000m away or 1.5m at a distance of 500m.
4 weapons might have a 4m divergence at a target 1000m away or 2m at a distance of 500m.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 12 April 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

erm 2 lrm 15s and nothing else isnt boating? Ok, time for you to give what YOUR definition of boating it because I think youre one of those holding a personal idea of the definition to that word that the rest of us dont hold

Friend of mine just encountered a group of players (4-man premade) on the opposing front just minutes ago that gives "boating" and "cheesebuild" a nice definition I guess. Let me quote him:

"Dual Ac20, Dual Gauss, 4 ErPPC Stalker, 6! LPL Stalker"

That's fun. When I play with a four man we are usually idiots. None has a cheesebuild and we all drop in different mechs / different mech classes. Those mechs are all balanced builds. It just shows how naive we are, desperately leeching on the whole BattleTech BS...


PS: A week ago I saw the biggest ***** in the game. He was using an A1 with two lrm, two srm and two streaks. Can you believe that, a mixed A1-build? Oh come on now.../sarcasm.

Edited by GODzillaGSPB, 12 April 2013 - 02:13 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 12 April 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

Yeah I never liked MWLL for that precise reason

I would say that mechlab is 75% of the game.

[Hawker]

Software developer isnt the same as a game designer, and I have helped design a couple of games, notably the Solaris ruleset for the Mechwarrior clix game. The problem is... yes you are aiming. These mechs were designed initially for a RNG hit location. If you don't see that, I can't help you.

Now for a couple of possible solutions (which I am not sure they are really viable fixes because honestly you really need to either inject a RNG table or redesign the mechs, but these are feasible stop gaps to bad design choices):

1) Liquid metal armor reserve: Yeah mech has a liquid metal armor reserve based on tonnage that is deployed automatically. Just for representation say a 100 ton mech has 100 points of armor in reserve and a 20 ton mech has 20 points. The numbers can be adjusted for better game play.

2) Impact sensitive armor: when a direct fire weapon hits a location, it only takes 50% of the damage and the other 50% is spread across adjoining locations, in regards to legs and arms, 25% is lost to difussion.

3) Hard cap on similar weapon types: no more than 2 of the same type of large weapon can be mounted and no more than 4 of the same type of small weapon can be mounted. So you could have say 2 PPCs and 2 AC10s, but not 4 PPCs. ERPPCs and PPCs count as the same type of weapon. Also medium and small lasers would be classed as small for this comparison, which would also include ER MLs and such when they come out.

These are just 3 ideas I pulled from the top of my head. They could be used in conjunction or separate. Really though I think PGI needs to redesign the mechs so that they have more longevity in matches taking into consideration the current alpha strike game or find some way to limit alphas. I figure they will do nothing.

Battletech isn't a sniper game. Sure you could get a lucky headshot that would or could determine the outcome of the match but the game had epic moments due to the randomness of it all. You still needed tactics and strategy.

Mechwarrior is a bastardization of Battletech and it isn't the same. You can aim and hit what you are pointing at, which is why the mech designs just don't really work if you want game balance.

[Vassago Rain]

GODzillaGSPB, on 12 April 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Friend of mine just encountered a group of players (4-man premade) on the opposing front just minutes ago that gives "boating" and "cheesebuild" a nice definition I guess. Let me quote him:

"Dual Ac20, Dual Gauss, 4 ErPPC Stalker, 6! LPL Stalker"

That's fun. When I play with a four man we are usually idiots. None has a cheesebuild and we all drop in different mechs / different mech classes. Those mechs are all balanced builds. It just shows how naive we are, desperately leeching on the whole BattleTech BS...


PS: A week ago I saw the biggest ***** in the game. He was using an A1 with two lrm, two srm and two streaks. Can you believe that, a mixed A1-build? Oh come on now.../sarcasm.

It's good to be fluffy. It makes you all warm inside, like when you put a full space marine company on the table. 60 tactical marines, 20 assault marines, 20 devastators.

But this isn't a fluffy, cuddly game. It's a PVP game, where everything has a binary outcome. You win, or you lose.

Hawker, on 12 April 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Words.

Battletech is a sniper game, but all the good snipers can use dead mechs as clubs. The ones you hate the most are all snipers, and the clan gameplay is based around sniping.

[Hawker]

no it isn't, and I highly doubt you understand Battletech. Mechwarrior is about sniping, not Battletech.

[Galenit]

TruePoindexter, on 12 April 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

So snipers would chain fire heavy weapons and the 2 AC20 mech gets a pass.

Chainfire will remove a lot of pressure form boating. Removing the high alphas, reducing dps and force the user to hit more often then only one time for the same damage with higher chance to not hit the same location.
-------
Using more then one weapon shoot increase your convergence time by 10% for each weapon, this way two weapons fired together will get +20% convergence speed witch is countered to by pinpoint, letting 5% malus left). Using more then two weapons together increases your convergence time a lot, let you miss more often or force you to hold your shoot longer to hit.
If you use 4 weapons the same time, your convergence speed is increased by 10+10+10+10=40, with pinpoint to 40-15=25, it takes 25% longer to get convergence with them if you have pinpoint.

Using more weapons at one time should also increase the divergence putting shoots all over the place without waiting for the convergence to kick in (This Increases convergence time too, (Maybe? Dont know if they take the divergence into account for the convergence speed formular.) and punish for not waiting for convernce.).
But this should also done when you fire weapons on the move not only for firing more then 1 weapon a time.

Another way or additional way is to increase the cooldown or heat for using more then one weapon a time. But i dont know how to implement it the right way. They have too much potential for unfunny gameplay.

Edited by Galenit, 12 April 2013 - 03:18 AM.

[neviu]

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 April 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

I usually fix them with a Dual AC20 blast to the face when they overheat.

A very fine Alpha Build!