Jump to content

Forget Heat Penalties: A Comprehensive Balance Solution To Alphas, Convergence, Poptarts, Boats, And Clans


704 replies to this topic

#121 Tincan Nightmare

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:13 PM

View PostDarren 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!!!


So what is making our weapons hit the target our crosshairs are on? Or turning the crosshairs red when our missiles achieve a lock?

Oh is it space magic!

Something is lining up those weapons to hit what you are aiming at, and that kinda sounds like a targeting computer. Plus in the Tech readouts it actually lists the targeting and tracking computer and model for each mech. So yah I guess we kinda do have targeting computers.

edit* spelling

Edited by Tincan Nightmare, 13 June 2013 - 04:14 PM.


#122 YueFei

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,184 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:12 PM

I endorse this idea, and I think it doesn't even need a "targetting computer" explanation. Just say that the recoil compensation systems cannot cope with multiple large bore guns firing simultaneously.

I would also like it if the recoil from fired weapons shoved our arms/torso (and the crosshairs) off into the direction they would move due to recoil. So if you fire a big autocannon or two, or a bunch of PPC/gauss, your crosshairs end up in the sky and you have to manually drag them back down to level again.

#123 Rhakhas

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 41 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:20 PM

Just wanted to say you have my respect for taking the time to put together such a comprehensive, well thought out proposal (especially knowing it will probably be ignored). The main issue I had with it was the ability to convey they information to the player in a straightforward manner, but I think Tombstone's suggestion would take care of that quite elegantly.

I also am concerned about the quagmire they may be creating by messing with heat. I'm all for the heat penalties for going over the cap, but other than that I think the only thing that needs addressing is the single vs double heat sink gap. And that could easily be solved by making engine heat sinks dissipate the same heat for both SHS and DHS setups. (Which as a side benefit would provide a major boost to nearly all stock mechs and generally improve the new player / trial mech experience).

#124 Phaesphoros

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:04 PM

View PostcyberFluke, 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.

AFAIK, the "elite" skill does affect something different they also labelled "convergence": the distance between your two reticles (arm/torso). The current system btw is stupid when not arm-locked, as the torso reticle does not try to catch up with the arm reticle. Rather than that, when you turn your torso at a constant rate (e.g. using a joystick), there's a constant distance between the two reticles -- even if you do not turn your torso at max speed (example).

#125 Evrik

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 20 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:18 PM

I really like this TCL solution. It makes sense and is simple for the player to understand. I back this fully.

#126 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:31 PM

View PostTombstoner, on 13 June 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

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

i would base TCL load on damage.

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.

...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.

I ******* love the idea for the HUD. Seriously, can someone with Photoshop skills do a mock-up of that?

My values for TCS is based mostly, but not solely on damage. I think that's the beauty of keeping the numbers separate. For instance, why I think it's okay to have 8 medium lasers instead of 4 is because lasers are far harder to get pinpoint damage with. Unless you and the target are still, it almost always spreads. Same for SRMs and LRMs. And I think you'll find that my TCS numbers account for all of that.

I'm personally against mixing systems. Though you could add penalties like that (potentially creating a better, less jarring counter to poptarting), I would leave the effects separate until it was tuned properly. The primary advantage of this system is how seamlessly it can drop in without affecting anything else. But it's true that another benefit of this method is that you can leave it simple or start adding to it to account for conditions.

This is why loss of convergence is so important. It's not just cone of fire. When you lose convergence, your weapons will fire directly forward - just as inaccurately at 20m as at 500m. Even brawlers won't be able to avoid the penalty.

#127 Psydotek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 745 posts
  • LocationClan 'Mechs? Everywhere? GOOD!

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:44 PM

This solution is very nice. I support it.

#128 Valder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts
  • LocationQQmercs.com

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:13 AM

Excellent idea. I've not seen anything else proposed that is a more elegant way of dealing with AlphaWarrior Online.

#129 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:23 AM

View PostHomeless Bill, on 13 June 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

My system does both. Convergence loss is necessary to make this penalty work at close range; otherwise, it will have no effect on (U)AC/40-style cheese. Cone of fire is simply not effective at spreading damage around at short range. As it's set up, between 100 and 200 on the TCL scale, the cone of fire also increases.


Honestly, I feel like this or something like it has been the missing balance component to past MechWarrior titles. There's always been a need to address this awkward part of the conversion, but it's never been done.

Definitely true.

Someone should make a new edition of the table top game that ditches random hit location determination and balance it accordingly. Quite possibly with a rule that also states you can fire only identical weapons together, and that for every seperate shot you take, the pilot takes a penalty. (So to actually "simulate" how much harder it is to fire seperate weapons and why in Mechwarrior games, boats reign supreme).
And then figure out a way to introduce balancing mechanics to make it worth equipping mixed loadouts.

#130 CaveMan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,127 posts
  • LocationIn a leather flying cap and goggles

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:07 AM

I like this idea. It isn't perfect, but it's one of the best ideas I've ever seen for balancing group fire in a MW game.

It's as good as you're going to do without people screaming that you've angered Saint Skill and divine wrath is forthcoming.

#131 Phaesphoros

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:11 AM

Maybe something like this?

Start: TCL = 0
Posted Image

some TC load, COF
Posted Image

heavy TC load, loss of convergence -- I just removed the reticle here; guess two or more reticles would be strange. The warning / error message should be enough to indicate it's not a bug.
Posted Image


There needs to be a change to the current color scheme, as red currently means "you can't fire that group right now" (e.g. no ammo left, weapon destroyed, recycling). I chose black for those cases; the default HUD yellow for "everything OK", orange for "alphaing this group will cause trouble" and red for "you don't want to alpha this group right now".

Edit: Maybe it should be a digital indicator ("no problem", "overload") in the sense that every TCL over 100 % will lead to (some) malfunctions. A good TCL btw would probably try to focus some weapons if it cannot focus all, e.g. when alphaing 4 PPCs it would try to make 3 of them hit, the 4th one would be released to a random direction inside the COF. When you have high TCL, only 1 of the 4 would be focused etc.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 14 June 2013 - 02:23 AM.


#132 Vaan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 116 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:26 AM

@ Phaesphoros Good picture but what happen if the mech is like less than 100m away?

#133 Phaesphoros

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:46 AM

@Vaan hmm you might be right, I got it backwards: this homeless guy suggests you lose convergence FIRST, and later you get a COF.

The displayed COF of course doesn't hurt brawlers very much, but the loss of convergence does. If I get another idea how to display loss of convergence (where it's still possible to visualize COF), I'll post it.

@Homeless Bill
Now that I got it backwards in the GIMP'ed screenshot, why do you suggest losing the convergence first, then COF? IMO losing convergence is much worse than some randomness.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 14 June 2013 - 02:52 AM.


#134 Cervantes88

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 239 posts
  • LocationFrance

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:19 AM

I dont see how this is complicated, he just had to make a ginormous post to say what some people have already said : add some sort of artificial inaccuracy to the weapons to balance out the easiness of killing with some configs.

His suggestion is basically : add recoil. Which makes as much sense as : add a cone of fire WoT style or : and convergence differences for weapons depending on the hardpoint location (so that they dont all hit the same point when alpha'd).

I support all of these ideas, they are needed to make weapon grouping, chain firing, and certain weapons viable in comparison with ppc/gauss/ac20.

#135 ssm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 574 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:51 AM

@OP

Appreciate the effort, it isn't bad idea per se, but in terms of gameplay balance I'm pessimist.


I think that it's (nearly?) impossible to balance Mechwarrior game.


There is just too many variables, and some of them (tonnage of mechs, weapons etc) are outside the influence of devs because of IP. And your solution, while being pretty well thought out, just introduces more.

Make a test server, invite the goons, and after a week it will occur to everyone that only legitimate way to compete is facehugging with relatively small mechs boated with MLs and SRMs (or something similar)

Every "magic wand" solution to balance has flaws, and those flaws will be always exploited.


Heat penalties? Mount ballistics.

MW4-style hardpoint size restrictions? Mothball big guns, boat small ones.

Harsher than MW4 hardpoint size restrictions? No customisation whatsoever.

Cone of fire? Recoil? Facehug with energy weapons. Or boat LRMs/ streaks.

Restricting convergence on torso-mounted weapons? Bring the mechs with arm-mounted ones (and suddenly only competitive Highlander is Heavy Metal)

And so on.


And I'm pretty sure that devs already know this.

Edited by ssm, 14 June 2013 - 03:52 AM.


#136 HighTest

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • LocationKitchener, ON

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:46 AM

This thread is great. Sadly, I just found it today, otherwise I'd have loved to be part of the discussion. It is completely in sync with my thinking that convergence is the issue with long-range boating and NOT a heat problem.

As a potentially viable alternative, I personally like this strategy -- please let me know what you think. Bill especially -- I'd love to know your thoughts. I think this "should" be easier for the devs to implement. (Not coming from a programmer.)

Reasoning:
Direct-fire weapons fire in a straight line (duh) originating from a fixed single point of origin. (Let's ignore gravity and wind, etc.)

Issue:
When drawing a line from a single point, even the slightest variation in fire angle can make a difference in where the line extends to. The further out you go from that point, the more "offline" the shot becomes as it continues along its path. So at 100m, it may be 1/2 metre off target. But at 1,000m, that becomes 5m off target. And so on.

Justification:
Mechs aren't perfect. Physical constructs aren't perfect. Sure, the mech has a targeting computer, and it can calculate where to converge all the weapons correctly. BUT, are all of the gears/synchros in place? Have the arms and weapons all been calibrated? Can the computer really tell exactly where the shot is going to go to the exact degree? Probably not.

Solution:
Involve a very slight random number generator effect when multiple weapons are fired simultaneously. Or heck, even add it to when every weapon (except homing weapons) fires.

Rebuke:
Random number generator?!?! Are you kidding me? This is a skill-based FPS-style sim! That will completely trash the game!

Not really. What it will do is make long-range sniping a little less effective. Let's take your typical 5 ERPPC Stalker. At 810m, why would this mech ever NOT shoot at you if they can see you? They have no ammo limit. Heat is an issue, but if they have enough heat sinks (which they will) and some heat-management skills (which they probably will if they're boating PPCs), they won't shutdown or overheat immediately.

The RNG doesn't even have to be huge. I'm talking like tenths or hundredths of a degree. Which means if Mr. Stalker walks up to you at 50m and fires at your CT, you get 50 damage to your CT. BUT, at 810m, it might randomly mean the difference of 50 damage spread over your CT, LT and RT. Or maybe not, it's random - just like the gears/cogs/actuators/whetever in the mech.

But, you might argue, at 50m they can still boat effectively. Sure they can! But you would be able to fight back at that range too.

What this would help to do would be to prevent those shots on Forest Colony from that Stalker that manage to core lights and mediums from a range where you can't even see it. Sure, you'll get tagged hard (still all 50 points damage at 810m), but it's less likely to all hit the same spot and kill you instantly. And it does not effect close-range brawling, as at that range any small percentage aim difference will be almost negligible.

And from 810-1,620m, it makes the damage spread even more likely. Which might force matches on Alpine Peaks to close in a little.

For all of the military snipers on the forums -- doesn't this make some sense? How good are you guys at hitting targets 1.5 km away vs 100m? I'm not saying you can't -- I'm just saying I'm betting it's quite a bit harder. :D

Thanks for reading.


Edit: typos.

Edited by HighTest, 14 June 2013 - 06:18 AM.


#137 DoubleD

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 60 posts
  • LocationDixie, Lyran Commonwealth

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:04 AM

I support the idea, but I know PGI will never do anything other than just mess with heat over and over.

#138 Haji1096

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 339 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:13 AM

I like this idea. The devil is in the details to get it to work correctly (in the sense that gamers will counter tcl mechancism by using small profile mechs boating weapons with small tcl), but the reasoning is sound.

I know the table top game bears little relevance to a computer based mech sim, but when I first play the board game someone described to me as: "War has been going on for a long time, and people forgot how to maintain advanced technology. Basically you are aiming all your weapons with a paper towel roll. Tha'ts why you have to roll dice."

#139 MourningZero

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 80 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:56 AM

Elegant. Love it.

#140 zorak ramone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:24 AM

Excellent post. You're observations about the current state of gameplay, your reasoning for why heat penalties won't work (I too was thinking ... "but gauss rifles?"), and your proposed solution are excellent.

I only have a few suggestions to make your system better:

View PostHomeless Bill, on 10 June 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:


When the load is between 0 and 100, there are no ill effects. When it goes over 100, all missile locks and Artemis functionality are lost, convergence stops working (all weapons fire straight ahead), and you begin to take a small accuracy penalty (cone of fire) to any shots fired. Locking capability, Artemis, and convergence are not restored until the load on the targeting computer reaches 100 or below.


One, I think its overkill to both kill convergence and introduce cone of fire at 100. Killing convergence is a really harsh penalty with a steep threshold (99 = everything ok, 101 = can't aim). Its too much to penalized a player for going slightly over 100. Also, it would differentially affect mechs based on their geometry. A K2 with PPCs/GRs in the torso would hardly be affected while a Jagermech with GRs in the arms wouldn't be able to hit at all.

I suggest that you don't need to kill convergence, but rather, you start getting increasing cone of fire as you go over 100. Say, at 101 it would be .2 degrees and at 200 its 20 degrees (not sure if these are good numbers, but they demonstrate the principle). This still prevents convergence of massive alphas without penalizing someone too harshly for barely going over the threshold, and without unequally penalizing mechs based on their geometry and hardpoint layout.

Two, I'm not sure that missiles need to be part of the TCL system. I think a preferable implementation would be to ensure by missile flight path that missiles tended to hit multiple sections. This would be more in line with CBT, and it would separate the missile weapons as a class from the energy and ballistic weapons. How to do this is another issue all together, but I think its possible.





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users