16 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Balancing a tabletop game into a first person shooter brings problems. Problems need constructive solutions. If you feel the need to rant or degrade people with different opinions, please find another thread. If we can keep this positive and constructive, PGI might just consider some of our solutions.

It would be cool if we could all follow this same format with our solutions.

Problem #1 (missiles):

PGI must make missiles powerful enough to be viable. Unfortunately, making a single rack of missiles powerful makes boating those same missiles overpowered.

Solution:

Make missiles more powerful. Fast flight speed, increased damage, some splash damage, tight spread (if Artemis is equipped), etc.
Limit the number of missiles that can be fired per salvo to the number of missile tubes on the mech. (Instead of stagger-firing) This will limit boating to builds that are optimized to be missile boats, while allowing the option to mount a single rack of missiles a viable choice.

Problem #2 (snipers):

The skilled sniper is part of Battletech. There must be a way to keep snipers as viable, without breaking gameplay.

Solution: Convergence. There should never be a random number generator in a skill-based game, so ADD skill to the mechanic. Allow players to set their convergence points. (Default could be max weapon range) Allow weapons to slowly converge to the target under reticle, taking more time the farther the target is from the player-set convergence point. This would reward the sniper that carefully and deliberately lines up his shot, while making switching from targets that are close to targets that are far result in less accuracy. Jump snipers would be better used as suppressors than invincible kill-shotters.

Problem #3 (Alpha Strikes):

Alpha strikes deserve a place in the game. In lore, they are last-ditch attempts to kill an enemy before dying, or devastating surprise shots. Unfortunately, in MW:O, they are the default mode of choice, as there is no downside.

Solution(s): Convergence (see above), and heat penalties. From a thermal dynamic standpoint, firing multiple heat-generating weapons at once would create a thermal blanket, resulting in less efficient dissipation of built-up heat. Adding a scaling heat penalty based on the number of weapons fired at once would simulate this effect without removing the mechanic altogether.

Problem #4 (Heat, oh my God, the HEAT):

The threshold is too high, the dissipation is too low, there is no downside to running at 90% heat the entire match, etc.

Solution: Engine heat sinks should provide a set threshold whether or not single or double HS are installed. Double HS should dissipate twice the heat of single heat sinks. Excessive heat should have detrimental effects on the mech, including slowing down maximum speed, torso twisting, HUD effects, ammo cook-offs, damage to internal structure, and possible engine damage.

Please add your own Problem/Solution ideas. Any alternatives are welcomed.

[t9nv3]

Really think this thread has some usefull ideas.

What if the amount of missles fired per salvo was somehow tied to the Artemis system. If you wanted to benifit for a tighter grouping, and more missle hits...you mount an Artemis, but the guidance system itself places a hard limit on how many missles it can sucessfully fire at once (or how many launchers it can handle). That way, if you wanted, you could avoid Artemis and boat a whole lot of innacurate LRM's for indirect fire/supression/hail mary shots. Would give you options on how to run your LRM's.

Coming from TT Battletech, I tend to see LRM's as a way to soften up the enemy's armor before you can start to take them apart with direct fire weapons. I really think that's what LRM's should do...but that's just my opinion and personal bias.

Also, I would love to see heat mechanics implimented much better if not overhauled entiely. This would bring a LOT more depth to the game, and finally dethrone the ERPPC as the only obvious choice for energy weapons. Movement restrictions work well, and amo explosions are a given, but for something like a ERPPC boat it would be cool if you also ran the risk of destroying your own weapon system.

[Hotthedd]

I just read another good idea, and possible solution in another thread by Prezimonto.

Problem (missiles)

Solution: Keep damage relatively low, but allow guided missiles to be fire and forget. Once lock-on is achieved, the shooter can get back into cover/defend himself without the long exposure time.

(this really only applies to LRMs)

[AnnoyingCat]

so... if the DEVs didn't use your ideas doesn't that means what you listed are not solutions?

[Hotthedd]

AnnoyingCat, on 27 May 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

so... if the DEVs didn't use your ideas doesn't that means what you listed are not solutions?

If you do not have anything to add, please do not reply.

The Developers need to find solutions to these problems (and others), this thread is meant to give them some ideas from the beta testers' perspectives.

Clogging the thread with snarky comments serves no purpose.

[BlightFang]

#1(missiles)
I would re-purpose missiles to be a strategy tool that while weak in 1v1 confrontations, to something used to break enemy formations, increase the value of mobility, and increase the effectiveness of flanking formations.

To do this, I would:
a: "Increase the damage" each missile does significantly like 100%,
b: "Reduce the accuracy" so that about 1/4th of the missiles simply hit the ground against a standing still mech,
c: "Increase the missile speed" significantly by like 100%.
d: "Decrease missile turn speed" significantly so that it sucks at hitting moving targets.

The increased damage from (a) would make them absolutely fearsome that you have to avoid. (c and d) would be balanced so that a mech moving 50kph perpendicular to the volley would be able to avoid 100% of the missiles. c) would make it so that even if you are standing still, you are less likely to die outright(while gimping you significantly).

This would make charging into enemy missile lines a terrible idea unless you are a light that can zig-zag to avoid the missiles. Larger mechs(except) would need to flank and would be able to dodge missiles as long as they are moving relatively perpendicular.

So does that mean missiles are terrible? No, it would still a great tool to "force" an enemy to flank. You can focus one enemy forcing it to leave the pack making it an easy kill. You can also pincer with missile barrages from two directions making them have to take damage from at least one of the barrages.

So basically the plan for these changes is to adds more requirement on strategy and piloting skill.

#2/3(snipers and high alpha)
Instead fixing convergence to a set point, I would remove the convergence entirely. So all your attacks would shoot "straight" from the mounted point. So if you are a large mech with guns mounted on wide arms, you can only hit a similar sized mech with both weapons if you shoot directly at their center(hence your arm weapons would hit their arm weapons).

This should reduce focus damage significantly and nerf high alpha damage builds.

Snipers I don't think need that big of a nerf and even a small nerf could destroy them. But with this change, some high alpha snipers are still possible. If your sniper weapons are all in your left and right arms, you could volley with one arm, adjust your aim, and volley with the next arm to do close to equal damage to a single part.

This would increase the skill required on snipers too and mechs in general which I think is a good thing.

#3(alpha strikes in general)
I don't have an issue with alpha strikes being the default and actually prefer it that way, so I don't have a solution for that. For high burst alpha strikes, see my point #2/3.

#4(heat)
No opinion here yet.

Edited by BlightFang, 27 May 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Some good ideas, but I really think arm mounted weapons should be able to aim.

[BlightFang]

Hotthedd, on 27 May 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Some good ideas, but I really think arm mounted weapons should be able to aim.

An issue to consider with arm mounted weapons being able to aim while torso slots aren't able to is that players would all migrate to mechs that have arm mounted weapons and negate the advantage of the patch. A lot of the jump snipers already mount their weapons on their arms, so it would have no effect on those. Perhaps if you "set convergence" as you suggested it on arms only it might be okay.

I think it would be sufficient though if arms kept their vertical rotation for battle on uneven ground and just had their horizontal rotation removed.

[Hotthedd]

BlightFang, on 28 May 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

An issue to consider with arm mounted weapons being able to aim while torso slots aren't able to is that players would all migrate to mechs that have arm mounted weapons and negate the advantage of the patch. A lot of the jump snipers already mount their weapons on their arms, so it would have no effect on those. Perhaps if you "set convergence" as you suggested it on arms only it might be okay.

I think it would be sufficient though if arms kept their vertical rotation for battle on uneven ground and just had their horizontal rotation removed.

I am not disagreeing with any ideas. The more the merrier. My line of thinking is: Arm-mounted weapons get destroyed easier, so that would be the trade-off for precision aiming. (Convergence of those weapons, however, would still be set, even if adjustable)

Your solution would definitely solve the problem, I guess I am thinking more about the forum rage if it were implemented.

[StalaggtIKE]

Not bad ideas in the OP. My proposed fix for LRM, was to simply cut back on ammo count. This would allow for LRM to still be effective in smaller numbers, however boaters would need to dedicate more tonnage for ammo. My whole reasoning was the problem with LRM was not their damage, but the fact that they were so spammable. With smaller ammo count, one would have to either pick and chose their targets carefully or soften up multiple targets as a support role.

Keep in mind I made this suggestion way back when the new artemis helix flight formation was introduced and LRM have changed considerably since then. So this suggestion probably will not work without a overhaul to LRM mechanics:

• removal of splash damage
  
• buff in damage
  
• more spread, with only tight formation through direct los artemis

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 29 May 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[AnnoyingCat]

Hotthedd, on 27 May 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

If you do not have anything to add, please do not reply.

The Developers need to find solutions to these problems (and others), this thread is meant to give them some ideas from the beta testers' perspectives.

Clogging the thread with snarky comments serves no purpose.

if they don't use these ideas doesn't that means this thread served no purpose?

[Inflatable Fish]

Hotthedd, on 28 May 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Your solution would definitely solve the problem, I guess I am thinking more about the forum rage if it were implemented.

Forum rage or not, no horizontal arm movement would make shooting manoeuverable mechs a nightmare.

[Hotthedd]

AnnoyingCat, on 28 May 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

if they don't use these ideas doesn't that means this thread served no purpose?

Give them time to read the ideas first, then we will see. You do not expect a new patch every 15 minutes to implement suggestions, do you?

Either do your job as a Beta tester, and be constructive, or go away.

[Hotthedd]

Inflatable Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Forum rage or not, no horizontal arm movement would make shooting manoeuverable mechs a nightmare.

Ever drive a Cicada 3M? All the weapons are in the torsos.

(But I understand your point)

[AnnoyingCat]

Hotthedd, on 28 May 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

Give them time to read the ideas first, then we will see. You do not expect a new patch every 15 minutes to implement suggestions, do you?

Either do your job as a Beta tester, and be constructive, or go away.

have they read this yet?

Edited by AnnoyingCat, 28 May 2013 - 09:35 AM.

[BlightFang]

Hotthedd, on 28 May 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Your solution would definitely solve the problem, I guess I am thinking more about the forum rage if it were implemented.

Forum rage often has a nugget of reasoning hidden behind it. The majority of human thought is done unconsciously in something we call "gut feeling". So if that's your feeling, there is probably some deeper issue with the solution I gave somewhere even if we aren't sure what.

AnnoyingCat, on 28 May 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

if they don't use these ideas doesn't that means this thread served no purpose?

It would help if more people posted more solutions in this thread. But I suppose its too general a topic to catch on. Players are players, not game designers. Players mainly know what they hate(myself included) rather than what they want, as odd as that sounds.

Inflatable Fish, on 28 May 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Forum rage or not, no horizontal arm movement would make shooting manoeuverable mechs a nightmare.

They "can" balance by increasing torso turn speed if needed. Some mechs actually already have horizontal arm movement speed equal to torso movement speed(which somehow results in them moving synchronously instead of twice as fast which I don't even understand). So I don't think its as terrible as it sounds.

[Novakaine]

AnnoyingCat, on 27 May 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

so... if the DEVs didn't use your ideas doesn't that means what you listed are not solutions?

Just another why I guess.