704 replies to this topic

[Homeless Bill]

Phaesphoros, on 11 June 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

If I understand you correctly...

This still does not affect the Splatcat, but in the current meta she's not a problem (SRMs too weak), except if the ROF of SRMs would be huge (remember the hugging cats? maybe reintroduction of knock-down? dunno).

Why not free yourself from the problems and restrictions of an explanation? You could add any kind of mechanic with any kind of effect to introduce some balance and add an explanation with hindsight. There could even be multiple subsystems of the mech involved, as long as the penalties are easy to understand, intuitive. (e.g. High peak damage output set various of the 'Mech's subsystems under stress. Don't alpha or bad things will happen. yadda-fluxcompensator-yadda)

I'm curious what you think of the following possible negative effects (some of them you might already have mentioned in the follow-up posts):

• mech shutdown (planned like emergency heat shutdown, unplanned like during power outage <- with longer power-up period i.e. full start-up sequence)
  
• JJ failure / outage while jumping
  
• heavily increased fall damage if shutdown during impact on ground
  
• mech speed (stupid, doesn't help against snipers)
  
• torso/arm movement limitations (slower, less acceleration, ..), up to the point where you cannot move your torso (temporarily) and therefore cannot aim
  
• HUD / sensor failures, vision mode availability / malfunction; also: ECM-like communications interrupts
  
• immediate damage to internals (e.g. shoot 6 PPCs at once and explode) or to weapons / items (**) only
  
• inability to fire some (amount) of weapons during the short period covered by this alternate scale; also: weapon jamming (temporarily, permanent)
  
• reduction of armor effectiveness (like: "hot armor is less durable")

Effects you incorporated AFAIK:

• COF / aiming accuracy
  
• convergence (i.e. adjustment of direction of weapons to all hit the same spot at different distances)
  
• missile locks (duration until acquisition of lock, loss of lock)
  
• (forgot something?)

(**)

Spoiler

This leads to the interesting idea of exploding / malfunctioning heat sinks if there's a peak in the heat; this has already been mentioned either in this thread or the official feedback thread to the Command Chair.

Sounds like you see exactly what I'm going for.

You say this won't affect Splatcats, but think about what will happen when convergence turns off. Those two ears are extremely far apart, and since they're out to the sides, they'd probably hit the arms of their target more than anything else. Loss of convergence is the key player that affects every build and weapon.

Basically, that's what I did to come up with this system - I had balance in mind, not lore. Once I decided this penalty needed to be carried across the board to missiles as well, I decided that the targeting computer was the best explanation.

I definitely think that shutting down while jumpjetting should cause horrible things to happen (leg damage and knockdown), but that would be totally independent of this system. Basically, what you're talking about is penalizing players for doing things I don't want. We've tried that balancing strategy, PGI is continuing to try it, and I think it's ultimately an unsuccessful approach.

Prevention is the key - not punishment. The TCL essentially just doesn't let you do the thing I don't want you to be able to do. I don't want spammy players to suffer; new players in particular will lack fire discipline. And again, I'm totally down with overloading the computer. If you want to max it out, lose your convergence, and just keep pouring on the pain, I think you should be able to. In my mind, heat penalties, damage, shutdown, and loss of functionality are unnecessary. I'd rather give the player a choice than a punishment.

[Death Mallet]

I like this idea, and here is why:

I honestly don't know whether this will work or not. But it represents some creative, out of the box thinking, and a desire to try something new to fix the major problems with this game.

That's exactly what needs to happen if this game is going to get its feet under it at some point.

Naturally, this suggestion will most likely be ignored.

[cyberFluke]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Again, real rebuttal coming. In brief, that solution is really not much less complicated, and it will have a much larger and far-reaching impact on players. Accuracy penalties for heat will fundamentally alter a lot of combat, and I'm not sure how it will pan out; it could be good and it could be bad - but why risk it when you don't have to? Movement penalties will straight-up encourage camping, and I'm 100% against it.

Cone of fire alone can't work because it either doesn't have enough of an effect at close range or too much of an effect at long range. If it doesn't solve an AC/40 build, it doesn't solve anything. Convergence loss is necessary to make sure close-range combat is also balanced.

An additional set of numbers is better because it separates this very specific problem from the rest of the game's balance. The developers get a nice set of numbers to play with that shouldn't have any unintended consequences, and the players get an intuitive system that they can easily adjust to.

Now I've had some sleep and things make sense again, I see what this is to accomplish. It's not about heat, or anything else, it's purely about accuracy, and finding a working system to give an analog of the dice roll for hit location of TT, taking player skill into account, while using the carrot rather than the stick where possible.

Fella, you may have just made my "Impressed me with intelligence" list. It's a short list, let me tell you. You have a new supporter, for what it's worth. Though I don't think the devs will like the amount of work they'd have to in order to implement your proposal.

[cyberFluke]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

I may be missing something vitally obvious here, but you may be able to enlighten me...

What do you think the Devs' reasoning behind nullifying convergence at the minute is?

I'm asking this because I figured that their convergence system should have helped deal with this issue to a degree, but I'm unsure "What went wrong" with it.

[dak irakoz]

I think this idea definitely has merit. If only there was some way to test all these ideas people have in game.

[Homeless Bill]

cyberFluke, on 13 June 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

You have a new supporter, for what it's worth.

I may be missing something vitally obvious here, but you may be able to enlighten me...

What do you think the Devs' reasoning behind nullifying convergence at the minute is?

I'm asking this because I figured that their convergence system should have helped deal with this issue to a degree, but I'm unsure "What went wrong" with it.

I appreciate it =D

I'm no tabletop guy, so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by nullifying convergence, since there's no situation where convergence stops working right now...

Basically, convergence was not a thing when the game was originally balanced. You rolled a die (or dice or whatever) to determine hit location. PGI (and every other MechWarrior developer) decided to implement convergence instead of random hit locations. It's a necessary system for a realtime shooter (not necessary, but many of us would not play this game if our aim was largely irrelevant), but it has negative consequences on balance.

PGI has never recognized convergence as a problem, so they have not tweaked it in any way. And while I think that's fine for up to 20 damage or so, it gets to be an issue when 4xPPCs or 2xAC/20s are landing on a pinhead. Convergence is a messy issue. Getting rid of it is too harsh, heat and movement penalties will have unintended consequences, and I haven't seen a lot of other thoughts on how to balance it out.

This system is meant to address the real issues while avoiding the pitfalls of all the alternatives. It's not perfect, but I'd like to think this would work pretty damn well. I don't think they'll even read it, but I'm going to do everything in my power to try.

[Monky]

Homeless Bill, I like you. I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

As far as the dev-annointed heat solution, they'd basically have to add steep heat penalties to any possible weapons combination that dealt out more than 30 damage on one location.

A few of those combos;
2x AC20, 4PPC, 2PPC+Gauss, 2PPC+AC20, 2PPC+3 MedLas, 1xAC20+3 MedLas, 1 Gauss+4 MedLas

etc.

I agree about 30 points is the maximum pinpoint alpha that should be applicable to one spot at the same time w/o penalty (equates to roughly a tabletop Gauss rifle/clan ERPPC worth of damage to one location, which is ironically about right given double armor).

Edited by Monky, 13 June 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[cyberFluke]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

I appreciate it =D

I'm no tabletop guy, so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by nullifying convergence, since there's no situation where convergence stops working right now...

Basically, convergence was not a thing when the game was originally balanced. You rolled a die (or dice or whatever) to determine hit location. PGI (and every other MechWarrior developer) decided to implement convergence instead of random hit locations. It's a necessary system for a realtime shooter (not necessary, but many of us would not play this game if our aim was largely irrelevant), but it has negative consequences on balance.

PGI has never recognized convergence as a problem, so they have not tweaked it in any way. And while I think that's fine for up to 20 damage or so, it gets to be an issue when 4xPPCs or 2xAC/20s are landing on a pinhead. Convergence is a messy issue. Getting rid of it is too harsh, heat and movement penalties will have unintended consequences, and I haven't seen a lot of other thoughts on how to balance it out.

This system is meant to address the real issues while avoiding the pitfalls of all the alternatives. It's not perfect, but I'd like to think this would work pretty damn well. I don't think they'll even read it, but I'm going to do everything in my power to try.

At the minute all values for convergence on weapons are set to instant. ie. The convergence system, to my knowledge is inactive, meaning the "pinpoint" skill in the pilot lab "elite" skills does nothing.

As I understood it, weapon convergence to the aimpoint was to be slower for the heavier hitting weapons like the PPC and higher damage ACs. I've heard rumors that it didn't work correctly, but I more suspect that it was removed due to people constantly reporting "bugs" with weapons not hitting where they aimed, ie. The problem was in relaying the information about what the weapons were doing to the player, a game interface design problem.

[Homeless Bill]

HRR Insanity, on 12 June 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

*snip*

PS: Your post is well timed. I was planning a complete article/re-post of my original 'Dooooomed' post that was going to go up on June 17th (one year anniversary of my first post on this topic during Closed Beta). Hopefully we can determine if the two ideas are different or if we can come up with a combined proposal and get it out there for the Devs to use. They need someone helping them... and I already have a full-time job.

Two things:
1. As a matter of clarification, does your system only implement cone of fire, or is there also loss of convergence?
2. Good to see I have another ForumWarrior in the trenches with me. When I give you a real rebuttal, you can see what you think. I think we're pretty damn close, but you prefer stricter limitations (and the implementation of a couple things I don't like). Whether or not we can reconcile them into a single proposal, I think they're both valid fixes to a huge range of current and future problems. If you're interested in getting more exposure, I'd be happy to put your editorial up on qqmercs.com when it's ready.

[Daneiel]

Homeless Bill i really like your idea , but i have few questions !!!!
The first one is coming from your post - > the Clans are behind the corner - what about advance targeting computer -> do you think about it how it will function - increasing the targeting stress level or like in the lore ?
2nd. What about of the equipments ??? - > do you give a taught about them adding some TSL weight ?
3th. What about some bonuses at the TSL for using close to the stock weapon configs ? -> example Stalker 3F you keep your LL at the side torso , so their TSL will be 20 points instead 25 ?

P.S. I doubt that PGI will even give a thaught on that idea !!!

Edited by daneiel varna, 13 June 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

cyberFluke, on 13 June 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

At the minute all values for convergence on weapons are set to instant. ie. The convergence system, to my knowledge is inactive, meaning the "pinpoint" skill in the pilot lab "elite" skills does nothing.

As I understood it, weapon convergence to the aimpoint was to be slower for the heavier hitting weapons like the PPC and higher damage ACs. I've heard rumors that it didn't work correctly, but I more suspect that it was removed due to people constantly reporting "bugs" with weapons not hitting where they aimed, ie. The problem was in relaying the information about what the weapons were doing to the player, a game interface design problem.

I'd believe that. Even if there was a good way to represent it (check out Traigus's post at the bottom of page 2), I'm still not in favor of that solution. Waiting for convergence would work for a lot of situations, but it would leave snipers largely untouched. Most of the time, they have a couple seconds to line up their shots. I don't care how long you wait - in my mind, you just shouldn't be able to put out 40 damage to a single place with a single click.

Think about this 'mech: http://www.sarna.net...i/Hunchback_IIC

That's 90 points of damage in an instant. Whether he had to wait for his weapons to converge or not is irrelevant - he can two-shot almost any 'mech in the game.

A lot of people (PGI included) favor avoiding 'mechs that come stock with cheese. I vote we fix the cheese instead of tiptoeing around it. One of the big reasons I thought my solution was worth posting is because it solves Clans to a large extent (they'll still clearly be superior and need some other counter-balance, but it won't be so hilariously demoralizing).

[Homeless Bill]

daneiel varna, on 13 June 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Homeless Bill i really like your idea , but i have few questions !!!!
The first one is coming from your post - > the Clans are behind the corner - what about advance targeting computer -> do you think about it how it will function - increasing the targeting stress level or like in the lore ?
2nd. What about of the equipments ??? - > do you give a taught about them adding some TSL weight ?
3th. What about some bonuses at the TSL for using close to the stock weapon configs ? -> example Stalker 3F you keep your LL at the side torso , so their TSL will be 20 points instead 25 ?

P.S. I doubt that PGI will even give a thaught on that idea !!!

1. Honestly, I haven't put any thought into what the actual "Targeting Computer" would do lol. I'd be okay with it slightly raising the cap, but only very slightly. Maybe a module could do that, and the Targeting Computer could do something else. I'm really not very picky on that sort of stuff. The only thing I'd say is that anything that raises the cap should only be able to do so by 25 points or fewer.

2. I don't know quite what you mean by equipment. If you mean modules, I would prefer a module raises the TCL cap, but again only by a small amount. If that wasn't your question, clarify for me and I'll do better.

3. I think doing anything on a per-'mech basis means your balancing system is a failure. At the point where you start making exceptions all over the place, the rule is broken and needs to be replaced.

In my opinion, some basic (meaningful, but not stringent) hardpoint restrictions are what we need to promote chassis diversity. I do not favor doing something like making it okay for the Awesome to fire 3xPPCs at once when nothing else can; I just think that not a lot of 'mechs should be able to boat PPCs in the first place. Though that's a discussion for a separate thread (that's totally coming soon to a forum near you).

[General Taskeen]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

That's 90 points of damage in an instant. Whether he had to wait for his weapons to converge or not is irrelevant - he can two-shot almost any 'mech in the game.

Once they allow clan tech on all things. You'll see K2's or Jagermechs with 80 Alpha UAC/20's, since Ultra implementation at its core functionality is just baaaad.

Edited by General Taskeen, 13 June 2013 - 11:25 AM.

[Daneiel]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

2. I don't know quite what you mean by equipment. If you mean modules, I would prefer a module raises the TCL cap, but again only by a small amount. If that wasn't your question, clarify for me and I'll do better.

3. I think doing anything on a per-'mech basis means your balancing system is a failure. At the point where you start making exceptions all over the place, the rule is broken and needs to be replaced.

In my opinion, some basic (meaningful, but not stringent) hardpoint restrictions are what we need to promote chassis diversity. I do not favor doing something like making it okay for the Awesome to fire 3xPPCs at once when nothing else can; I just think that not a lot of 'mechs should be able to boat PPCs in the first place. Though that's a discussion for a separate thread (that's totally coming soon to a forum near you).

What i mean euipment !!! - Yes i needed to be more precise on that , but you put another thing in the same bag - i meaned BAP, ECM , Artemis , MASC , Command Console (when they are done ).

On the 3th no i don't mean that i just taught something for stimulating the people to use weapons close to the stock vatiants without forcing them to play in that way (even that i would be happy to see stock mechs mode ) .

The point for the modules which you brough - i am agree with you they also need to have some weight not significant but they need to be calculated in that system , also DHS ,ES and FF, XL .

P.S. Here something which deserve to be taken on acount - if your mech is tech level 1 based ES , FF , XL and DHS add some weight , but if your mech is tech level 2 they don't - example CN9-A tech lvl 1 , CN9-D is tech lvl 2.

Edited by daneiel varna, 13 June 2013 - 11:35 AM.

[cyberFluke]

Homeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I'd believe that. Even if there was a good way to represent it (check out Traigus's post at the bottom of page 2), I'm still not in favor of that solution. Waiting for convergence would work for a lot of situations, but it would leave snipers largely untouched. Most of the time, they have a couple seconds to line up their shots. I don't care how long you wait - in my mind, you just shouldn't be able to put out 40 damage to a single place with a single click.

Think about this 'mech: http://www.sarna.net...i/Hunchback_IIC

That's 90 points of damage in an instant. Whether he had to wait for his weapons to converge or not is irrelevant - he can two-shot almost any 'mech in the game.

A lot of people (PGI included) favor avoiding 'mechs that come stock with cheese. I vote we fix the cheese instead of tiptoeing around it. One of the big reasons I thought my solution was worth posting is because it solves Clans to a large extent (they'll still clearly be superior and need some other counter-balance, but it won't be so hilariously demoralizing).

Well, I can safely say we're on the same page with the current aiming and damage model. I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion that pinpoint damage is MW:O's biggest problem right now. The HTAL structure is completely at odds with such pinpoint high damage.

So far yours is the best proposed solution I've seen. As much work as implementation would be, I feel it would outweigh wasted man hours trying to add arbitrary heat penalties, especially as these arbitrary limits will be abused just as badly.

[MasterErrant]

no

[ExtremeA79]

I don't think any one notices this yet but...

WE DON'T HAVE TARGETING COMPUTERS YET!!!

[Sir Wulfrick]

I started reading the OP very suspiciously. Having read through it & given the proposed system some consideration, I'll throw in my support. Perhaps not perfect but it's the single best solution I've read.

It would also have some additional forward-facing game elements, e.g. saving up XP to gain "advanced targeting computer" or similar. You get the picture.

[Homeless Bill]

daneiel varna, on 13 June 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

What i mean euipment !!! - Yes i needed to be more precise on that , but you put another thing in the same bag - i meaned BAP, ECM , Artemis , MASC , Command Console (when they are done).

On the 3th no i don't mean that i just taught something for stimulating the people to use weapons close to the stock vatiants without forcing them to play in that way (even that i would be happy to see stock mechs mode ) .

The point for the modules which you brough - i am agree with you they also need to have some weight not significant but they need to be calculated in that system , also DHS ,ES and FF, XL .

P.S. Here something which deserve to be taken on acount - if your mech is tech level 1 based ES , FF , XL and DHS add some weight , but if your mech is tech level 2 they don't - example CN9-A tech lvl 1 , CN9-D is tech lvl 2.

2. Honestly, the thing I like most about my method is keeping this set of numbers separate from everything else. I can see some interesting interplay where the equipment or upgrades you mentioned have an effect on the TCL, but I think it would ultimately be contrary to my purpose.

I want this system to be a precision nerf. I don't want to see the value of certain weapons or equipment change because of this new system. I don't even really think people will change their builds. The 4xPPC Stalker will still be around and deadly - just not in such a cheesy way.

Though I'm not necessarily opposed to adding that sort of stuff later, for the initial run of the system, I'd like to keep it as clean and de-coupled as possible. I think there are a lot of things you could layer on top of this system to make it more interesting.

3. I don't think making stock 'mechs better is the solution, but I'm in total agreement: we need a stock 'mechs mode. Or even a 3025 tech mode.

MasterErrant, on 13 June 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

no

This was supposed to be the first reply of the first page. For maximum effect, it should have had a timestamp no more than three minutes after the OP.

I assume your dislike is because this is a totally new system coming out of nowhere that seems like a lot of work and a big adjustment. But it's really a system born from the need to translate tabletop balance into realtime gameplay, it's no more work than any other solution, and it's intuitive and friendly enough that it will be a minor adjustment for players.

Darren Tyler, on 13 June 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

I don't think any one notices this yet but...

WE DON'T HAVE TARGETING COMPUTERS YET!!!

I designed this system with balance in mind - not lore or realism. It was only after most of it was constructed that I decided the targeting computer was the best explanation. The Targeting Computer as a piece of equipment should do something else (like show how much to lead targets).

If anyone has a better way to explain the scale I want to implement, feel free to throw your ideas out there.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 13 June 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[Tombstoner]

I'll take a crack at a new description.
example three weapon groups each with a colored light above it. the color represents targeting computer load( TCL). as you add weapons to the group it changes from green to yellow and then red. green is good accuracy, yellow and you have a modest COF, red and you get full blown COF error as the TCL load is to high.

group A is 2 ppc's green light
group B is 4 pp'cs yellow light
group C is all the above alpha Red light

now you could remove 1 ppc from group b and add it to group A and both A & B are now green.

Now you can assign different loads to each weapon. i would base TCL load on damage. that would balance the number vs. damage value for the group. one ac-20 is green as would be 4 ml's, if you add a 2nd ac-20 to the group it goes red. if you add 1 ML to the ac-20 group it goes yellow. 2x-ac 20 and it's red. this thresh hold can be adjusted.again based on total damage of the group. that way high damage alphas can be conducted as long as its understood your going to loose accuracy, in fact you can add a penalty for weapons not of the same type if you wish.

Each mech would have a base level of TCL. so boat all you want. that makes light mechs harder to over load then assaults. but i think movement/ jumping/ presence of upper and lower arm actuators should modify the base COF/TCL either pushing it into green or more yellow and eventually red. particularly as heat increases..... accuracy should decrease.... the TCL light should change dynamically as conditions change.

Heat affects the TCL performance just like your pc. It makes heat very very important to manages correctly, far more important then simply avoiding the shut down. too much heat and your accuracy is crap. in brawler mode that would be meaning less since your at short to point blank range a Hugh COF is meaningless when you face in is someones CT.

so a green TCL light is good and you get good accuracy. RED if the alpha damage in the group is too high accuracy is lowered. thus damage spreads if a cool down is added to compensate for macros.

This Red, green, yellow indicator i think should be intuitively easy to pick up by new players and it rewards single fire. the play style for most new players as they are trying to figure out the controls. Whats group fire?

Edited by Tombstoner, 13 June 2013 - 02:19 PM.