206 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

While this is true in my opinion, OP, I want to see the quotes.

Also I disagree with your solutions as many of them only encourage a specific style of gameplay while hurting all others.

AC, on 27 April 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

The thing that frustrates me is that if PGI thinks damage is too high, then they are not paying attention. I have said this numerous time, it is NOT the weapons.

You're right at least up to this point. It's really the pilots, accuracy, and firing rate.

After all, the contest winners? Doing the math some of the top 5 in each category either had 1,700 or more damage as well as a minimum of 3 kills EVERY single match, or in one specific case could have had several great matches of over 2,500 damage and 8 kills in a minimum of 4 of the 10 matches he or she was scored for.

Surely it's not too much damage! But in all seriousness if you're able to actually do damages like that without cheating with the current missile nerfs, something must be way off. Weapons are incredibly over-accurate as it is.

On PGI's other Battletech influenced game, it took me 10 turns of 3 mechs shooting the last enemy to kill it despite having no armor left. Why? The dice rolls kept giving me inaccurate fire.

We already have double armor because mechs were too easy to kill in closed beta.

Also, many of the weapons have incredible firing rates. To counter-balance them, stronger weapons were also given incredible firing rates. As SuomiWarder said, slowing down the firing rates is about the only option left.

That or making it so that different weapons have different convergence rates -- but that only further encourages boating.

So ultimately our two most feasible solutions are quite simple

Accuracy cones (an area that the shot may go to when fired at this target) or reduced firing rates.

Given PGI's previous statements we are clearly going the route of reduced firing rates.

AC, as for your ideas. I confess that smaller weapons should be alloted sub-hardpoints. For example it is quite possible to carry an AC/20 in an Atlas, or in a K2. The barrel size doesn't really prohibit it and the shape of the Catapult actually dictates it should have an easier time having one than an Atlas would. But in the case of the K2 you can hold 2 machine guns, or you can hold 2 AC/20. Which would you decide on? Exactly. In order to encourage you to use smaller weapons there should be a bit of leniency on smaller weapons. Say within 1 ballistic slot, you could carry up to 2 AC/2s, or 3 MGs? Then, in turn, go through and reduce the overall ballistic slots available on said mechs.

As far as energy slots go, there's plenty enough limitation. I don't agree with the 6 PPC stalker, but hey with missiles being worth something we can keep them suppressed to the point we can rush in mediums to take them out. Notice in the field there aren't as many mediums? That's why snipers are so bad right now. Lights aren't enough to take out heavy and assault snipers.


------------------

Why ballistics seemed fine before HSR. Delays and lag in ballistics made them rather unviable, although direct hits guaranteed instant damage rather than the gradual damage of lasers or the non-specific damage of missiles.



In this two Atlas lance, we had to close the distance to really get any real firepower out of our weapons so that we didn't miss so much.


Being a recipient of ballistics was like being in an Earthquake simulator, making two ballistic brawlers severely inaccurate but loads of fun while very disorienting. It also encouraged the use of smaller ballistic weapons.


Knockdowns and having to lead way ahead of a target to hit it gave us a game of chance, such as this Ode to the now missing CN9-AH Centurion. The larger number of ballistic slots but small area to place weapons encouraged attempts such as twin AC/2s and a MG.

Edited by Koniving, 29 April 2013 - 01:17 PM.

[Burakumin1979]

Here's 2 options

Option 1

1. Balance all the weapons around their 10 second TT round (example: lower damage for weapons with faster firing rates increased for fun gameplay). They did it for the MG, why not for everything else.

2. Return to TT armor values.

3. Make overheating as much as a risky nightmare as it was in TT. Give it a minimum duration of 10 seconds, make people resource manage. This isn't an fps, its a simulator.


OR

Option 2

1. Interactive reticle

Don't do either of those. When you fire make a randomized shot within a reticle that changes with motion. Someone standing still has a pretty small reticle. If you die to someone who shoots you with a tiny reticle, that means you also were not moving and they pinpointed you or you moved into the firing path of a stationary assailant...sounds reasonable.


If youre moving (jumping, running, torso turning etc - higher forms of movement open the reticle more), the movement makes it harder to pinpoint. Fast light mechs will still tear up assaults if the pilot is good and as close as they should be.

All sounds good to me.

And, both of these options are INCREDIBLY easy to code.

[Trauglodyte]

Unfortunately, Koniving, you can't alter the rate of fire because that affects heat. ER PPCs generate 11 heat every 3s of firing or 3.67 hps. If you drop the firing rate down to 3.5, it drops the hps down to 3.14 which just makes them more efficient. We NEED to keep the ROF as it is right now, with possibly some adjustments made to the poor AC5 (yikes), to keep heat efficiency where it currently is. Otherwise, you'll need to drop the cooling value of DHSs or, as others have posted, simply eliminate them.

TT damage values, 2x TT armor values, near TT heat values, TT cooling cycles, non-TT firing rates - its all messed up. If we're going to run on TT heat efficiency cycling, we need to operate on TT damage capacities. Its why MGs and Flamers are all jacked up and why, even with twice the armor, it still feels like we're doing too much damage. At least at this point you could drop armor back down to TT as everything would be easier to manage.



[edit] Burakumin1979 summed up my prior statement and my above with his option #1.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 29 April 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[Echo6]

BlackWidow, on 29 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

"Pinpoint" accuracy has been mentions a few times in this thread and MANY times in prior threads.

I haven't read through "ALL THE THREADS!" but it seems people have the "mechanical" reason but not the underlying "design" reason.

The issue is (as I've stated before) that the translation from Table Top (TT) to Computer Simulation (FPS) is borked. I have yet to see a MW game that truly respects the different mediums. TT uses RNG for both TO HIT and HIT LOCATION. No Mechwarrior SIM (FPS anyway. Not sure about Mechcommander) has successfully done this.

We all got excited when PGI said MWO would be based on TT rules and will try to stay as true to that as possible. But, as great as this sounds, it's a fools errand. At best, you can have the "pieces" of the game. Armor, similar weapons, mech build-outs and of course, the mech.

But any attempt to use the same stats as in the game is hopeless. As we have already seen when they immediately DOUBLED armor values barely into closed beta.

You CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT use the base armor and weapon values from TT where hit and location were RANDOMLY GENERATED to one in which you simply have to POINT A MOUSE and CLICK where you want.

EVERY SINGLE argument about PPCs, LRMS, crits, balance, HSR, blah blah blah, ad nauseam, tries to apply "fixes" to a system that was never right from the start.

They need to SCRAP all weapons and armor values. Come up with their own values for HEAT, DMG, WEIGHT, CRIT SLOT and RANGE. And balance from those new numbers.

Simply: Small laser<med laser<Large Laser.

Etc.

Otherwise, you start looking at solutions like having RNG in game, which NO ONE WANTS.

I for one, would LOVE either:

Limited convergence so you can't alpha strike ONE location or
True reticle "shake" if you are in any way walking, running, jumping. Want a steady hud? Stop moving. And then see where that gets you.

Anyhow......

Still love the game to pieces, but this take about weapons balance and flavor of the month, and nerf this, that etc, is just a fake veneer over the real problem. We are using Mech stats that were CREATED hand and hand with RNG implementation.

The further the game gets from TT rules, the further I get from the game. I, obviously, don't speak for anybody but myself, but I really doubt that I'm alone.

[Koniving]

Burakumin1979, on 29 April 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

Option 2

1. Interactive reticle

Don't do either of those. When you fire make a randomized shot within a reticle that changes with motion. Someone standing still has a pretty small reticle. If you die to someone who shoots you with a tiny reticle, that means you also were not moving and they pinpointed you or you moved into the firing path of a stationary assailant...sounds reasonable.


If youre moving (jumping, running, torso turning etc - higher forms of movement open the reticle more), the movement makes it harder to pinpoint. Fast light mechs will still tear up assaults if the pilot is good and as close as they should be.

All sounds good to me.

And, both of these options are INCREDIBLY easy to code.

Option 2 is along the lines of something I mentioned.

Option 1 does have some control with overheating being a huge scare, but tabletop armor values while leaving accuracy intact will keep us with the problem of being too easy to kill. Instead of too much damage we'll have... "too little armor." TT's armor values were based on the high inaccuracy and penalties involved with every dice roll.

Though I agree that option 2's accuracy punishments are quite viable. I should think that punishment should be greater for larger mechs moving fast while aiming heavy weapons, and lesser for lighter, faster mechs with smaller weapons.

Trauglodyte, on 29 April 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

Unfortunately, Koniving, you can't alter the rate of fire because that affects heat. ER PPCs generate 11 heat every 3s of firing or 3.67 hps. If you drop the firing rate down to 3.5, it drops the hps down to 3.14 which just makes them more efficient. We NEED to keep the ROF as it is right now, with possibly some adjustments made to the poor AC5 (yikes), to keep heat efficiency where it currently is. Otherwise, you'll need to drop the cooling value of DHSs or, as others have posted, simply eliminate them.

You realize how easy that is to fix right? They lowered the heat production of those weapons because they increased firing rate.

If they reduce the firing rate, they can increase the heat produced. Making PPCs that fire like machine guns is pretty damn stupid -- I already do that with my Awesome 8Q. I chainfire 4 to 6 PPCs and churn them out like a pez dispenser.

Edited by Koniving, 29 April 2013 - 01:25 PM.

[Burakumin1979]

Koniving, on 29 April 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Option 2 is along the lines of something I mentioned.

Option 1 does have some control with overheating being a huge scare, but tabletop armor values while leaving accuracy intact will keep us with the problem of being too easy to kill. Instead of too much damage we'll have... "too little armor." TT's armor values were based on the high inaccuracy and penalties involved with every dice roll.

Though I agree that option 2's accuracy punishments are quite viable. I should think that punishment should be greater for larger mechs moving fast while aiming heavy weapons, and lesser for lighter, faster mechs with smaller weapons.



You realize how easy that is to fix right? They lowered the heat production of those weapons because they increased firing rate.

If they reduce the firing rate, they can increase the heat produced. Making PPCs that fire like machine guns is pretty damn stupid -- I already do that with my Awesome 8Q. I chainfire 4 to 6 PPCs and churn them out like a pez dispenser.

Thats true and would go a long way to stop boating, 6 ppcs would take a long time to drop to a safe range).

They can always make it to where 105% of your heat is a 10% chance to destroy your engine, 110% is a 33% chance, 115% is a 50% chance, 120% is a 100% chance...make overheating a real bad thing..as it should be.

[Trauglodyte]

You're absolutely right, Koniving. Its easy but it isn't THAT easy. Quite frankly, none of the options that need to happen are going to be easy. But we all know that something needs to be done. And it isn't an easy fix because if you go convergence, how is that going to impact mechs with little to no arm movement vs those that have fully articulated arms? If we fix rate of fire, will that make the game less exciting overall? It is a big issue between trying to fix the game while reducing the fanbase backlash to a minimum.

Damage done aside, can anyone explain to me why PGI is so damned scared about making big changes? In the ATD36, someone brought up heat penalties and they rubberstamped it with a generalized, "We don't think it is necessary right now". Its crazy!

Edited by Trauglodyte, 29 April 2013 - 01:39 PM.

[BlackWidow]

http://mwomercs.com/...h?q=convergence

[Elyam]

Battletech is designed to be a reduced-technology universe where system unreliability contributes to unpredicatable fire results in the Battlemechs. You can tell a mech to fire at a point, but whether all the interacting subsystems, especially while the mech is under movement and while under increasing heat, actually give a result that hits that point is always in question. Battletech is inherently altered and a whole layer of what made it great removed when, as MWO has done, you allow simultaneous fire of all direct-fire weapons that is perfect to the aiming reticle.

Reincorporate proper action-based, environmentally-based, heat-based, and some inherent low-tech-based shot deviation to the firing solution and you will recapture that iconic 'lostech' nature of BT. With this, all of these system acrobatics - including the original doubling of armor - will mostly become unnecessary. It's assumed some rather minor alterations from original BT might need to occur to compensate for the habits of online players.

We won't get this of course since it doesn't fit the FPS religion and the unacceptable heresy inherent in words like 'deviation' or 'random', no matter that such are MechWarrior realities . A tech priesthood of far greater influence than ComStar will ensure that.

People can counter if they wish, with arguments ranging from 'that wouldn't be fun' to 'I would hate it' to 'that's ridiculous, it couldn't be that way in the 30th century'. But this is Battletech, and it matters. Also, don't pull in the bogeymen of dice and TT not belonging in the online venue, because they have nothing to do with BT's nature in this technical regard. To be precise, yes, they had much to do with why the backstory was created the way it was, but that origin explanation fades to obscurity due to the popularity and success of BT as a lowered-tech universe. It's a great story, and provides superb challenges to MechWarriors as they pilot these machines, survive and achieve victory despite the limitations they live with each moment.

Simply tuning existing MWO may end up giving us a version of BT that holds a lot of its flavor and is fun for players. But just doing that won't really make it BT in the best sense. Just something that can't quite live up to that name. And it won't occur due to our own tech limitations - but due to catering to a certain crowd and overestimating how much they matter to they financial success of the game.

Edited by Elyam, 30 April 2013 - 03:13 PM.

[Belorion]

The op was tldr but I skimmed the bullet points.

Most of these ideas are just contrary to what needs to happen. SRM damage is fine, lrms do need a buff, but weapon weight is fine. They have not, and most likely will not adjust weights, or crit slots for weapons. Those two things are the written in stone kind of thing.

Except for lrms being a tad low I think all of the weapons are about at the right spot. If they are really unhappy with the speed of combat they could always buff armor again.

[NRP]

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand the thought process of some of you here. The solution is to decrease accuracy? In a first person shooter? How does that do anything to increase the game's fun factor? All it does is dumb it down to a level that punishes those who have invested the time to learn how to aim. If this is done, we'll all just blow through our already limited ammo stores so everyone will just boat energy weapons. Then you'll cry that MLs are OP and we'll have this QQ fest all over again.

And you know what, nothing will change. The people who are killing you now with these supposedly super accurate weapons will still be killing you with less accurate weapons. All that will happen is you will run dry first, get killed just like you are now, and we will have this QQ fest all over again.

Seriously, is it really such a surprise that PGI ignores the lot of you?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

NRP, on 29 April 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand the thought process of some of you here. The solution is to decrease accuracy? In a first person shooter? How does that do anything to increase the game's fun factor? All it does is dumb it down to a level that punishes those who have invested the time to learn how to aim. If this is done, we'll all just blow through our already limited ammo stores so everyone will just boat energy weapons. Then you'll cry that MLs are OP and we'll have this QQ fest all over again.

And you know what, nothing will change. The people who are killing you now with these supposedly super accurate weapons will still be killing you with less accurate weapons. All that will happen is you will run dry first, get killed just like you are now, and we will have this QQ fest all over again.

Seriously, is it really such a surprise that PGI ignores the lot of you?

I think you are missing part of the overview of the conversation. Mechwarrior is not a normal FPS. It's suppose to be a mech sim. The whole reason we have multiple hitboxes and the ability to destroy arms and weapons is because battles are suppose to be long. There is suppose to be some thought put into not just shooting out the center torso, but perhaps disarming a foe, or causing an ammo explosion.

In the end the current MW:O can be boiled down to...shoot the center torso unless it's a light then shoot the legs.

If that's fun for you, that's fine. But it's not what this game was suppose to be about.

[Davers]

I am a bit surprised that the Devs would think the over-all damage was too high. With all these high alpha/pin point damage builds you would think mechs were being cored with LESS damage, not more. Certainly less then when we had LRM boats routinely doing massive amounts of damage.

[Belorion]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 29 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think you are missing part of the overview of the conversation. Mechwarrior is not a normal FPS. It's suppose to be a mech sim. The whole reason we have multiple hitboxes and the ability to destroy arms and weapons is because battles are suppose to be long. There is suppose to be some thought put into not just shooting out the center torso, but perhaps disarming a foe, or causing an ammo explosion.

And making it harder to aim is going to accomplish that how?

Nicholas Carlyle, on 29 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

But it's not what this game was suppose to be about.

Says who? I have played battletech since about a year after it was released, I played MechWarrior, I played MW 2 or 3 I can't remember which I didn't care for it which ever one it was, and MW 4, and I played Mech Commander II.

So far MWO feels more like BattleTech/Mechwarrior than the others imo. In no way shape or fashion would I think it is remotely ok to "nerf aiming". The whole idea of it is ludicrous. If you don't like to aim go play Tactics.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Belorion, on 29 April 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

And making it harder to aim is going to accomplish that how?



Says who? I have played battletech since about a year after it was released, I played MechWarrior, I played MW 2 or 3 I can't remember which I didn't care for it which ever one it was, and MW 4, and I played Mech Commander II.

So far MWO feels more like BattleTech/Mechwarrior than the others imo. In no way shape or fashion would I think it is remotely ok to "nerf aiming". The whole idea of it is ludicrous. If you don't like to aim go play Tactics.

I guess the question is, do you consider convergence aiming? I do not. Also did you play the 3025 version or the AOL version? Those two were the epitome of online MW.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 29 April 2013 - 03:43 PM.

[Karr285]

I still find it laughable that "Pinpoint" is still in the Elite tree as they Axed their proposed counter to pop tarting and building hugging
http://mwomercs.com/...-5-mech-warfare

[DAVID] So, if you fire at a target very far away, your lasers (or whatever else) may fire nearly parallel to each other; firing at a target up close will angle the shots inwards. However, the adjustment of these angles is not instant. For instance, if you were facing a building, while taking cover right up against it, your convergence would adjust to hit just a short distance in front of you (the distance to the building). When you step out from around that building and fire on an enemy in the distance, your convergence point would automatically begin to adjust, but not instantly. If you shoot too soon, your first shots may converge and cross a short distance in front of you and completely miss the enemy as they pass on either side of him. Or perhaps you were aiming for the centre torso and hit his arms instead, as your aim adjusts towards his centre.

boy this would have been nice to have. Guess when they redo the Mech trees Pinpoint will disappear.

[DAVID] It’s unlikely that there will be a manual override in the game upon release, but the idea is still on the table. And there will be a HUD element to indicate the current state of your convergence, but its exact form is still being worked on.

Im starting to think the Weapon balancing guy got fired for having the foresight to see a big problem comming.

David Bradley - Game Designer - Overseeing 'Mech combat and BattleTech® Rules <--- probably not there anymore or has been told to **** enough he left.

Edited by Karr285, 29 April 2013 - 04:00 PM.

[Sephlock]

Travel times are too high.

[Barghest Whelp]

I'm sorry, but first off, he said DPS was too high. That's damage per second. Nothing to do with alpha damage.

Secondly, changing the tons/slots of weapons is out of the question. There are just way too many BT neckbeards here, and they'll tell you a really nice story about stock mechs. Besides, there are many other options for weapon balancing wich don't break stock builds. And please don't alter the alpha damage on weapons with numbers on them. An AC20 is called an AC20 because it does 20 damage per shot. Anything else would just confuse newbies even more then they already are.

Thirdly, if you get shot not only once, but twice, in the face by an AC40, then you need to stop blaming the AC40. The AC40 guy didn't do anything wrong, you did. In fact, the AC40 guy did exactly the right thing, and you did exactly the wrong thing. You not only walked right in to his face, but you also pointed your face at him, wich is the equivalent of putting a massive sign with an arrow on it pointing to your face, with the words: "free headshot here" painted on it.

Fourth, massive boating of PPC's does not only stem from one thing, it a mix of things. People do it because they can, and also because it works. Now that it's so easy to hit with PPC's, it's no wonder so many people are using them. That and the fact that they do good damage for their weight. Heat isn't much of an issue, as you don't suffer apart from a few seconds of shutdown with excessive heat buildup. But it's not like AC40's and PPC's are the only efective weapons. 3xUAC5's also works really well.

It's just everything else that sucks. By buffing the other weapons systems, increasing their effective DPS, they woulld become more viable. I.E: AC5 needs a better ROF. LPL's need a lower cooldown, but range and heat is fine. As it stands, PPC's have a better cooldown than LPL's, and better range as well. That's just daft. LPL's should be better up close, because they weigh the same.

And sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, but decided to post anyways, because MY opinion matters.

[Karr285]

So he said DPS was to high and your Solution is to lower the refire rates of the other weapons effectively increasing their DPS... the hell?

[Davers]

Karr285, on 29 April 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

So he said DPS was to high and your Solution is to lower the refire rates of the other weapons effectively increasing their DPS... the hell?

Don't argue. Just go with it.