267 replies to this topic

[Crimson Fenris]

jakucha, on 20 May 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

Whatever they do, I doubt it'll be a solution that will please everyone.

You're absolutely right, but introducing instant overheating damage will undoubtely leads most players to carefully watch their heat, thus limiting their alpha frenzy, in addition to force them balancing their builds with more HS and less weaponry... or learning to use chain fire more wisely, wich IMO is the core problem actually.

[cyberFluke]

Vassago Rain, on 20 May 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

This isn't CBT. It's not related at all to CBT, and when they go for release in september, it'll have even less in common with CBT.

People need to accept that MWO works differently to tabletop.

[cyberFluke]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 May 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Doubling armor, halving damage, that achieves the same thing, ultimately. I prefer the ROF-affects-damage-per-shot method, because it would also be the ROF-affects-heat-per-shot method and our mech's heat dissipation might possibly make stock mechs somewhat sensible, if unfocused, builds, rather than overheating monster, with custom mechs exploting a vastly inflated heat capacity to launch overpowered alpha strikes...

But as long as convergence exists and you can reliably and often alpha strike, boats have a precision advantage that they didn't have in the table top game, and is impossible to balance. You either need to remove convergence, or you need to make group fire and alpha strikes more difficult. The devs want to make it with this artificial method of inflating the heat generated by alpha strikes only, but they could lower the heat capacity all together and raise heat dissipation, and they'd reduce alpha damage / precision and make many stock configurations more viable.

I agree entirely, use the systems you already have in place, with more appropriate numbers (Heat system) and fix/finish how the convergence attribute of weapons functions (deal with the game-breaking "all damage hits one section" problem we all have at the moment).

[MustrumRidcully]

Vassago Rain, on 20 May 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

This isn't CBT. It's not related at all to CBT, and when they go for release in september, it'll have even less in common with CBT.

People need to accept that MWO works differently to tabletop.

I don't want to force table top onto M:WO where it doesn't fit. But I don't think it's good for MW:O - as a "first stompy robot person shooter" - if it encouraged more chain fire and doesn't force people to run boats because that is just the most effective way to build a mech. I hope you can see that firing all guns at once at exactly the location you want and spend the 3-4 seconds between your shots torso twisting is a great advantage, an advantage you can only have if all weapons have the same firing behaviour (e.g. projectile or beam, beam duration or projectile speed)?

Also, for some reason the developers wanted to base all standard mechs in this game on stock load-outs. Why should we not try to make these at least senseful loadouts (at least within the constraints of the overall balance - SHS will not become a good choice magically, meaning that all Level 1 Tech mechs are inherently inferior. But they don't need to be overheating night mares on top of that, unless that was how the were actually designed...)
Of course, if they want to get rid of stock mechs finally, then maybe this isn't a concern. I'd be fine with that, too. Still think we'd need less capacity and more dissipation, though, simply because alpha strike warrior online seems to limit choices in mech design. (And I definitely don't want to force people to not run boats. That's just as lame.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 May 2013 - 05:05 AM.

[Pater Mors]

[Corvus Antaka]

Roland, on 19 May 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

It's always funny when people mention DPS in Mechwarrior, as though it means anything at all.

DPS does mean something. DPS is probably the greatest refinement of weapon balance in video games, and it applies to this game as it does to any other to achieve correct weapon balance.

[jeffsw6]

Crimson Fenris, on 20 May 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

or learning to use chain fire more wisely, wich IMO is the core problem actually.

The core problem is stand-off players being more powerful than brawlers. There is always going to be massive QQ when enemy mechs at 800m can pick you apart while giving you no opportunity to respond. Some players enjoy stand-off play but in MW:O there is way, way more of it than there should be because the stand-off weapon systems have been too strong.

I really don't know what you were trying to say by, people need to "learn to chain fire" or whatever, but the core problem is not that people can't find their backspace key.

A lot of posters on this thread need to learn that the game mechanics encourage boating. The PPC and ERPPC are simply more powerful than they should be, even without 4 or 6 of them.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 20 May 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

DPS does mean something. DPS is probably the greatest refinement of weapon balance in video games, and it applies to this game as it does to any other to achieve correct weapon balance.

No, it doesn't. In World of Warcraft, fighting computerized A.I. monsters, engagements may last 5 minutes and sustained DPS may help you.

MW:O engagements last seconds between opposing assault mechs; and they aren't going to become longer without a radical change to the game balance.

[MasterBLB]

I don't agree PPCs are more powered than they should be.However,they might seem to be so because all missiles are currently nerfed to the ground.There isn't neither long range missile punch to force poptarts stay in cover nor close punch provided by SRM6/4 when brawlers will finally reach snipers.
This is what has to change at the very beginning instead messing PPCs.Then heat system should be improved with serious and unevitable penalties for overheating.

[Cato Phoenix]

Bump SRM damage back to where it was.

PPC boats solved.

[AC]

cyberFluke, on 19 May 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

You're wrong. Sorry, but it's true. Boats (of any kind) are NOT a problem. The fact that all their damage hits one section of the mech is the problem.

Spread it out over an area of variable size dependant on a number of factors. There you go, problem solved, 'mechs don't die in two/three salvoes from flying (or otherwise) atrocities.

You basically said boats are a problem in your post. If you take away the ability to hit what you are aiming at, what is the point of this game? We might as well just play table top and roll dice. SKILL is what makes one player better than another. If you have shots randomly doing things, you take the skill out of the game and the game becomes pointless and boring because there is never any way you can improve and become a better player.

[jeffsw6]

I agree with AC and that is why I have never supported the cone-of-fire idea. I believe PPCs/Gauss need to be adjusted, but not by making them less accurate or fooling with weapon convergence. I simply think that PPC range is too great, heat slightly too low, and Gauss ammo/ton too high.

[cyberFluke]

AC, on 21 May 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

You basically said boats are a problem in your post. If you take away the ability to hit what you are aiming at, what is the point of this game? We might as well just play table top and roll dice. SKILL is what makes one player better than another. If you have shots randomly doing things, you take the skill out of the game and the game becomes pointless and boring because there is never any way you can improve and become a better player.

If you honestly believe that it takes skill to point a cursor at a bad guy and click, after all the explaining everyone has done. I'm sorry, but there's no hope for you, nothing I can do, you're a Tool.

Edited by cyberFluke, 22 May 2013 - 04:43 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

cyberFluke, on 22 May 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

If you honestly believe that it takes skill to point a cursor at a bad guy and click, after all the explaining everyone has done. I'm sorry, but there's no hope for you, nothing I can do, you're a Tool.

Maybe I have some undiagnosed physical or mental disability that makes me not count for this discussion, but I think the only weapon I once had a 100 % hit rate with was the UAC/5, and that was because I fired only 4 shots with it.

If you can fail a task because you personally did something wrong, then there is skill involved. You made a mistake. The more skilled you are, the less mistakes you make.

Even a trivial task can require skill to perform if you are under pressure and have limited time.

Taking apart an Assault Rifle like the M16 or G36 is not really hard. Doing it under time pressure while your superior is shouting at you to speed up is hard, you can fail, and with more training and experience you will improve.


There was a beautiful illustration of this in a recent Game of THrones episode. Arya shot with the bow at targets. A more experienced archer that had actually seen combat told her that she wasn't all t hat good. Arya disagreed, she hit with every shot where she wanted. But the archer pointed out that she spend a lot of time aiming, time she wouldn't have in a real combat.

And that is what skill with Lasers or Gauss Rifles or PPCs is all about. Still shooting under pressure. And don't believe that just because it's a game there is no pressure. You still want to win. You still have a limited amount of time, because if you take too much time for aiming, the better shooter will have shot already, the better pilot might have already changed his position and is moving back towards cover, and those dang missiles are gonna hit you if you don't get finished with your shot and move back into cover yourself.

The question isn't whether mouse aiming requires skill. It does. The question is only how much skill is required for certain activities, and how much comparitive skill do you need - if playing poptarter is X hard, but defending against poptarting is 1.5x hard, then poptarting is too effective.

[cyberFluke]

I fully understand what you're saying, I don't have 100% accuracy myself, though I'm often misrepresented by the game's inability to handle a slightly variable ping, I still have to miss on my screen to hit most lights when moving perpendicular to my FOV.

However, there isn't near enough difficulty in lining up a shot, especially when you can fire all your PPC/Laser/AC/Gauss at the same time. You're a math man, far more able than myself, run the numbers. Compare the expected average accuracy from BT, then work out the same taking into account MW:O's changes to numbers. It should be pretty clear from the difference between that and the average experienced players' accuracy that the silly accuracy we have atm is causing problems.

I'm also pretty sure that as a more thoughtful gamer you're not one of the rabid "Oh Noes, random fire is just 'cos you're a lowskill n00b!!1!" types, and you understand how changing the current aiming mechanics to something with a little more depth can only be good for the game's long term playability as well as greatly assisting in balancing high alpha gameplay currently dominating.

Edited by cyberFluke, 22 May 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Sable, on 18 May 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Clarifying one's words to provide clear insight to its original meaning does not qualify as arguing to me. Sorry to bust your apocalyptic bubble of a failing game theory.

ACK you got me! you wins the internet!

[Peter2000]

Paul Inouye, on 18 May 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

@jeffsw6: If you're going to quote me, please at least complete the quote.

"Investigation items are not locked in and are exactly that... thoughts and tests. Do NOT go flying off the handle about how this won't work or that won't work until we make an official post."

Fair enough, but surely, getting feedback (including negative feedback) is part of the reason you make these public statements? If someone feels that this is a bad idea, and explains why, that seems reasonable to me.

[MustrumRidcully]

cyberFluke, on 22 May 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

I fully understand what you're saying, I don't have 100% accuracy myself, though I'm often misrepresented by the game's inability to handle a slightly variable ping, I still have to miss on my screen to hit most lights when moving perpendicular to my FOV.

However, there isn't near enough difficulty in lining up a shot, especially when you can fire all your PPC/Laser/AC/Gauss at the same time. You're a math man, far more able than myself, run the numbers. Compare the expected average accuracy from BT, then work out the same taking into account MW:O's changes to numbers. It should be pretty clear from the difference between that and the average experienced players' accuracy that the silly accuracy we have atm is causing problems.

I'm also pretty sure that as a more thoughtful gamer you're not one of the rabid "Oh Noes, random fire is just 'cos you're a lowskill n00b!!1!" types, and you understand how changing the current aiming mechanics to something with a little more depth can only be good for the game's long term playability as well as greatly assisting in balancing high alpha gameplay currently dominating.

I agree that BT and M:WO aiming are different, fundamentally so.

But I don't think - except for very few exceptions - we absolutely need stuff like Cone of Fire or more shaking in general. (I might make an exception for poptarting, actually.)

I think the "aiming" component of the game would already be a lot more difficult if we either did have no convergence for torso weapons, or if we enforced more chain-firing. (Be it via a heat capacity too low to allow firing all that many guns, or due to mandatory, server enforced global cooldowns between shots and turning alpha strike into a special occassion ability with its own cooldown). If you couldn't always shoot 4 PPCs at once but had to shoot them with a 0.25 to 0.5 second delay between each shot, you'd put more pressure on aiming ,give the person less time to aim, and overall lower precision.

[cyberFluke]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 May 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

I agree that BT and M:WO aiming are different, fundamentally so.

But I don't think - except for very few exceptions - we absolutely need stuff like Cone of Fire or more shaking in general. (I might make an exception for poptarting, actually.)

I think the "aiming" component of the game would already be a lot more difficult if we either did have no convergence for torso weapons, or if we enforced more chain-firing. (Be it via a heat capacity too low to allow firing all that many guns, or due to mandatory, server enforced global cooldowns between shots and turning alpha strike into a special occassion ability with its own cooldown). If you couldn't always shoot 4 PPCs at once but had to shoot them with a 0.25 to 0.5 second delay between each shot, you'd put more pressure on aiming ,give the person less time to aim, and overall lower precision.

Being totally honest, I'm not mad keen on the whole randomised COF thing either, I just think it's the most likely to be implemented reasonably well, for a multitude of reasons some of which are personal opinion not fact, others more concrete but I'd still rather gloss over those.

In a totally ideal world, my torso crosshair would sway side to side a bit when moving (like the torso would) and the individual weapons would be trying their damnedest to converge on what the reticule pointed at. The arm crosshair would sway to a much reduced degree as, arms can assist in weapon stabilisation and gives more reason to not just lock arms to torso all the time. Both crosshairs could flail around somewhat when jumping/falling but be more steady when at the apex of a jump, to make jump shots possible but not to a high degree of accuracy.

Heat would cause a slowdown of weapon convergence and of the mech itself, ie. lower top speed, torso twist etc. High heat would also cause sensor disruption, HUD glitches, possibly even weapon misfires at extreme heat levels.

My tent is firmly pitched in the "Rework the heat system" camp too. Lowering the heat cap while upping dissipation could be very effectively used to prevent all this alpha bullsh!t by making it literally impossible to fire more than say 4 PPCs at the same time, personally, I'd say 3. drop the heat cap to 30 and up dissipation to make sure that stock mechs are functional. From there adjust SHS and DHS sink rate and individual weapon heat until things are where they should be. Doing it sooner than later will save so much time p!ssfarting about with convoluted systems to penalise valid and sensible builds because of a couple of obnoxious outliers that will turn into time pits.

Edited by cyberFluke, 22 May 2013 - 11:01 PM.

[jeffsw6]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 May 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

... turning alpha strike into a special occassion ability with its own cooldown). If you couldn't always shoot 4 PPCs at once but had to shoot them with a 0.25 to 0.5 second delay between each shot, you'd put more pressure on aiming ,give the person less time to aim, and overall lower precision.

That's an interesting suggestion. My knee-jerk is that I hate that idea, but who knows, it might be better than what we have now.

I am starting to "warm up" to the idea of a heat system re-work. If I got more heat dissipation in trade for less heat capacity, this would actually benefit every one of my mechs (most likely) and probably every brawler except alpha-boats. It would nerf the guys carrying a lot of PPCs. What about the 6 ML Jenners and 9 ML Hunchbacks, though? Would it break them or make their sustained DPS higher?

One thing to keep in mind is that ballistic mechs often have a lot of front-loaded damage (e.g. dual AC/20) and that a systemic change to the heat system would mostly represent a buff to ballistics and missiles, which do significantly more damage per heat and typically don't fill up your heat capacity too quickly as it is.

[MustrumRidcully]

jeffsw6, on 22 May 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

That's an interesting suggestion. My knee-jerk is that I hate that idea, but who knows, it might be better than what we have now.

I am starting to "warm up" to the idea of a heat system re-work. If I got more heat dissipation in trade for less heat capacity, this would actually benefit every one of my mechs (most likely) and probably every brawler except alpha-boats. It would nerf the guys carrying a lot of PPCs. What about the 6 ML Jenners and 9 ML Hunchbacks, though? Would it break them or make their sustained DPS higher?

Their sustained DPS wil also rise, but at the cost of needing to fire more often. Which means more time pressure on aiming and less time for torso-twisting to protect you vitals.

Quote

One thing to keep in mind is that ballistic mechs often have a lot of front-loaded damage (e.g. dual AC/20) and that a systemic change to the heat system would mostly represent a buff to ballistics and missiles, which do significantly more damage per heat and typically don't fill up your heat capacity too quickly as it is.

Yes, that is true. The limitation now is mostly tha tyou can't equip that many of them in the first place - More than 40 damage is currently impossible. If we get the Annihilator or Devestator, we might have mechs that can try to get more, and maybe we need to look more closely then again. But the worst offeners, AC/20 and Gauss, are really large and heavy. The AC/20 loses range compared to an equally heavy PPC. More heat efficient, of course, but the AC/20 will never turn into a weapon for the sniper and poptarter that can hide in cover to cool off. I think that makes a big difference. (And the tonnage the PPC Sniper invests in heat sinks the AC/20 needs to invest in ammo).

And of course, maybe we need to raise the heat on some weapons actually after a heat dissipation change.