704 replies to this topic

[Homeless Bill]

JokerVictor, on 28 June 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

Bill, the second you incorporate a quarter slot into that targeting computer this sh*t will be in the game in days.

It's not hard to imagine a few modules (including consumables) that could be implemented for this system:

1. Enhanced Targeting Computer Optics - Standard module; increases targeting computer's overload threshold (15 for basic, 25 for advanced).

2. Improved Targeting Computer Circuitry - Standard module; increases the targeting computer's rate of dissipation (15/sec for basic, 25/sec for advanced).

3. Supplemental Targeting Computer Capacitor - Consumable module; temporarily increases the targeting computer's overload threshold (30 for basic, 50 for advanced and MC) for 15 seconds after use.

4. The Force - Consumable module; temporarily increases the targeting computer's overload threshold by infinity for one minute after use (MC only =P).

JokerVictor, on 28 June 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

Preach it!

It's what we do.

[Syncline]

EDIT: TL;DR -
The more damage output, per single squeeze of the trigger, a mech exceeds some threshold value, determined in a logical manner, the more inaccurate those shots become based upon how much they exceed the threshold value.

You know, the OP's method could be simplified in a huge way, and I apologize if someone else posted it before me. I was inspired by the OP and immediately hit reply:

Rather than have all of these complicated calculations using values created using some other complicated calculation for each weapon, just go by the weapon's rated damage and some fixed value we will call the "convergence threshold." Simultaneously firing a weapon or weapons whose combined damage values exceed the convergence threshold lose convergence (randomly deviate from the point of aim) based upon how far the combined damage exceeds the convergence threshold. The greater the amount of damage simultaneously fired exceeds the convergence threshold, the greater each weapon deviates from the point of aim.

For example, let's say that the convergence threshold is set to 20 damage per simultaneous shot on a mech with two PPCs and a small laser. Firing two PPCs simultaneously = 20 damage at once, thus no accuracy penalty because the convergence threshold is not exceeded. Firing two PPCs and a small laser = 23 damage at once, thus imparting a small accuracy penalty causing the three weapons to each deviate from the point of aim by some percentage.

It's basically saying that the "recoil" produced by firing all of those weapons at once gets to be too much for the mech's stabilizers and targeting system if it exceeds some value. Maybe the convergence threshold is unique to each mech chassis. For example, Hunchbacks get a value of 20 so they can use their AC/20 or big SRM packs without penalty, while Ravens get a value of 14 because the recoil of an AC/20 (or a gauss rifle) should knock a Raven on it's *** when it fires. Perhaps the convergence threshold is based upon each mech variant's stock configuration (a HBK-4SP would have a different value than the HBK-4H because each variant is designed to do different things with different weapons).

This method does not prevent someone from firing weapons over the threshold, so if you want to put a gauss rifle in a Raven, you can. If you want to mount 6 ER PPCs in a Hunchback, you can. It just makes the weapon(s) less accurate if their combined, simultaneous damage exceeds the threshold. It's a WHOLE lot simpler than the OP's method and accomplishes the same thing. BTW: I like the OP's idea.

Edited by Syncline, 28 June 2013 - 09:08 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Syncline, on 28 June 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

You know, the OP's method could be simplified in a huge way, and I apologize if someone else posted it before me. I was inspired by the OP and immediately hit reply:

Rather than have all of these complicated calculations using values created using some other complicated calculation for each weapon, just go by the weapon's rated damage and some fixed value we will call the "convergence threshold." Simultaneously firing a weapon or weapons whose combined damage values exceed the convergence threshold lose convergence (randomly deviate from the point of aim) based upon how far the combined damage exceeds the convergence threshold. The greater the amount of damage simultaneously fired exceeds the convergence threshold, the greater each weapon deviates from the point of aim.

I'm glad it inspired your creativity =]

As much as I'd like to have my system be simpler, every piece of complexity removed causes it to be less effective. I thoroughly mulled over every option and piece of my solution, and the result is what I consider to be the most perfect.

Damage Instead of TCS: The impact this has is actually the exact opposite of what is desired. Going by pure damage, SRMs (guaranteed to spread damage), LRMs (guaranteed to spread damage), and lasers (very difficult not to spread damage) will take a massive penalty compared to PPCs and large ballistics (which are guaranteed to put all of their damage on a single location).

Without their own TCS value that takes into account all weapon attributes (spread / damage over time), sniper weapons become even better than they are now. A large laser and a PPC are not equivalent in terms of pinpoint threat, and my numbers reflect that; damage does not.

Simultaneous Fire Instead of Scale with Dissipation: Unfortunately, this opens the system up to exploitation. Macros could fire each weapon individually in a very small time window, thus avoiding a group-fire penalty. I would have preferred the group-fire implementation, but because it can be circumvented, the scale must remain.

Cone of Fire Only: Because all weapons fire directly forward without convergence, it has the same impact at 20m as it does at 800m. It is for this reason that I see the loss of convergence as a necessary penalty – without it, snipers are the only builds affected. A PPC Stalker or AC/40 Jagermech at 100m will barely be affected by all but the most ridiculous cone of fire; the loss of convergence affects all roles and ranges equally.

Again, I'd love to get rid of a bunch of the more complicated implementation details, but I much prefer solvency over simplicity. Plus, to the player, most of the fine details are totally irrelevant; they need to know two things: group your weapons properly and don't spam them all at once.

[Syncline]

OK, so rather than go by the weapon's true damage per shot fired, go by the weapon's "effective" damage. Because a laser outputs damage over time, weight that weapon differently than one that inflicts damage instantaneously. Have a different weight for missiles which strike their targets (basically) all at the same time, but spread their damage over multiple locations. Example: Large lasers take a second to output their full damage. Multiply their true damage by some fraction to give them a lower "effective" damage, then determine if the combined, modified damage exceeds the convergence threshold. LRM 20s can hit several locations simultaneously, but require less "skill" to ensure they hit their target once fired, so they get a different weight applied to their damage to prevent them from getting nerfed,

It complicates calculations a little bit, but not much. It gives damage-over-time and area-of-effect weapons a little buff by allowing pilots to fire slightly more weapons at once. If you can't maintain a steady hand, no problem. Get a PPC.

Edited by Syncline, 28 June 2013 - 10:16 PM.

[zorak ramone]

That's odd. Somehow this really important thread fell off the first page. Weird.

[Tombstoner]

Vertigo 1, on 27 June 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

PGI should respond to this. Have they even ever acknowledged the problem/proposed possible solutions they are looking into?

Not true PGI does respond, but lately i think they have been feed up. replying in this thread would be like lighting a match to see how much gas you have left.

[Tombstoner]

Syncline, on 28 June 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

OK, so rather than go by the weapon's true damage per shot fired, go by the weapon's "effective" damage. Because a laser outputs damage over time, weight that weapon differently than one that inflicts damage instantaneously. Have a different weight for missiles which strike their targets (basically) all at the same time, but spread their damage over multiple locations. Example: Large lasers take a second to output their full damage. Multiply their true damage by some fraction to give them a lower "effective" damage, then determine if the combined, modified damage exceeds the convergence threshold. LRM 20s can hit several locations simultaneously, but require less "skill" to ensure they hit their target once fired, so they get a different weight applied to their damage to prevent them from getting nerfed,

It complicates calculations a little bit, but not much. It gives damage-over-time and area-of-effect weapons a little buff by allowing pilots to fire slightly more weapons at once. If you can't maintain a steady hand, no problem. Get a PPC.

The difficultly for targeting a weapon i think should be based on its mass. its hard to move around a 7 ton weapon
since damage kinda scales with mass it shouldn't completely define the TCL value, since changing TCL values for all weapons is what balances the game with this system.

The beauty of this system is that its completely separate from all other factors so it can address specific boated weapons with out harming the light mechs that would surfer from a heat or mass change. it can do what you want and more.

[LowFire]

Bumping this thread. This is probably the best and most well thought out solution to the high alpha damage problem I have come across on these forums.

Homeless, thank you so much for taking time to share your ideas with us! I really hope the devs do consider this.

[Hellcat420]

better solution is to correct heatsinks so they work properly and only increase heat dissapation, and add heat penalties like tt.

[Homeless Bill]

LowFire, on 30 June 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Bumping this thread. This is probably the best and most well thought out solution to the high alpha damage problem I have come across on these forums.

Homeless, thank you so much for taking time to share your ideas with us! I really hope the devs do consider this.

Thanks =] I always love when lurkers come out in support.

Hellcat420, on 30 June 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

better solution is to correct heatsinks so they work properly and only increase heat dissapation, and add heat penalties like tt.

Way to not read anything and just post your own idea. Let me help you out:

Spoiler

This is Canon, but I disagree with implementing it. I see no good reason to punish running hot for a couple reasons. 4xPPC Stalkers often run relatively cool until a heavy engagement, while a lot of brawlers and fire support ‘mechs run consistently hot. Gauss snipers run extremely cool, and larger ballistics in general don’t have too many heat problems. It hits random builds and energy weapons with a ridiculous penalty, while leaving a lot of cheese (and large ballistics) completely untouched. It will skew balance in a big way and will mandate weapon rebalancing.

Verdict: Ineffective with large ballistics, punishes the wrong things, will undoubtedly mandate a weapon rebalancing.

Why fixing the cheese of today (PPCs) is not enough:

Spoiler

Most of the solutions I see being thrown around are solutions to the current symptoms of our problem: PPCs. Heat and PPCs are being debated ad nauseum simply because they are the flavor of the month. PPC boats are a serious problem, but to ignore large ballistics is a dangerous mistake. I fear that the tunnel vision about the current metagame will result in PGI ignoring the impending problems that will be introduced by new ‘mechs and the arrival of the Clans.

Not many people think ballistics are a huge problem right now, but I’d argue that’s only because we don’t have a particularly scary ballistics platform in the game. The AC/40 Catapult has to sacrifice speed, and the AC/40 Jagermech is really squishy because of its profile and XL. They’re still cheesy and too good for their weight, but they have exploitable weaknesses. If, however, PGI decided to drop a Mauler, Devastator, or Thunderhawk on us, there would be untold amounts of whine.

That exact thing could be said for PPCs: if we didn’t have any assaults that could boat 4+ PPCs, they wouldn’t be nearly as reviled. Heavies have to make serious sacrifices to boat them and don’t have the armor to take serious punishment, just like the current scenario with ballistics. When an assault starts boating something unbalanced, it becomes immediately apparent.

The minute PGI releases a ‘mech that can mount 4xUAC/5s plus change and has the ability tank a good amount of damage, the community will be ******** its collective pants. Even if they add ridiculous heat penalties to the autocannons, the Gauss rifle will continue to dominate. 2xPPC + 2xGauss and 3xGauss builds are impossible to solve with heat.

Even more dangerous than new ballistic ‘mechs are the Clan ballistic weapons. The Clan UAC/20 is a mere 12 tons and 8 critical slots. The double-tap will be able to put 40 damage on a single spot. Now imagine a ‘mech with jumpjets that mounts two of them. You’re imagining a stock Hunchback IIC, and it’s absolutely terrifying. Something drastic must be done to prevent Clan assault ‘mechs from being able to kill an Atlas with a single alpha.

My suspicion is that PGI’s plan is to avoid any assault ‘mech that can boat large ballistics simply because they have no good way to balance them – which is a really ****** solution. There’s no reason that balance issues should prevent awesome ‘mechs like the Mauler from showing up.

And if ballistics weren’t bad enough, Clan missiles will bring a host of problems: half-tonnage, no-minimum-range LRMs will make previous LRMageddons look tame, and lightweight SSRM6 packs will make the Splatcats of yesterday a laughing matter. Though the arrival of the Clans is not an immediately pressing issue, it’s better to have a system in place now than to ignore the horrible balance problems for later.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 30 June 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Hellcat420, on 30 June 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

better solution is to correct heatsinks so they work properly and only increase heat dissapation, and add heat penalties like tt.

Heat scale won't work, as Homeless Bill pointed out in the OP:

Homeless Bill, on 30 June 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Way to not read anything and just post your own idea. Let me help you out:

Spoiler

This is Canon, but I disagree with implementing it. I see no good reason to punish running hot for a couple reasons. 4xPPC Stalkers often run relatively cool until a heavy engagement, while a lot of brawlers and fire support ‘mechs run consistently hot. Gauss snipers run extremely cool, and larger ballistics in general don’t have too many heat problems. It hits random builds and energy weapons with a ridiculous penalty, while leaving a lot of cheese (and large ballistics) completely untouched. It will skew balance in a big way and will mandate weapon rebalancing.

Verdict: Ineffective with large ballistics, punishes the wrong things, will undoubtedly mandate a weapon rebalancing.

Why fixing the cheese of today (PPCs) is not enough:

Spoiler

Most of the solutions I see being thrown around are solutions to the current symptoms of our problem: PPCs. Heat and PPCs are being debated ad nauseum simply because they are the flavor of the month. PPC boats are a serious problem, but to ignore large ballistics is a dangerous mistake. I fear that the tunnel vision about the current metagame will result in PGI ignoring the impending problems that will be introduced by new ‘mechs and the arrival of the Clans.

Not many people think ballistics are a huge problem right now, but I’d argue that’s only because we don’t have a particularly scary ballistics platform in the game. The AC/40 Catapult has to sacrifice speed, and the AC/40 Jagermech is really squishy because of its profile and XL. They’re still cheesy and too good for their weight, but they have exploitable weaknesses. If, however, PGI decided to drop a Mauler, Devastator, or Thunderhawk on us, there would be untold amounts of whine.

That exact thing could be said for PPCs: if we didn’t have any assaults that could boat 4+ PPCs, they wouldn’t be nearly as reviled. Heavies have to make serious sacrifices to boat them and don’t have the armor to take serious punishment, just like the current scenario with ballistics. When an assault starts boating something unbalanced, it becomes immediately apparent.

The minute PGI releases a ‘mech that can mount 4xUAC/5s plus change and has the ability tank a good amount of damage, the community will be ******** its collective pants. Even if they add ridiculous heat penalties to the autocannons, the Gauss rifle will continue to dominate. 2xPPC + 2xGauss and 3xGauss builds are impossible to solve with heat.

Even more dangerous than new ballistic ‘mechs are the Clan ballistic weapons. The Clan UAC/20 is a mere 12 tons and 8 critical slots. The double-tap will be able to put 40 damage on a single spot. Now imagine a ‘mech with jumpjets that mounts two of them. You’re imagining a stock Hunchback IIC, and it’s absolutely terrifying. Something drastic must be done to prevent Clan assault ‘mechs from being able to kill an Atlas with a single alpha.

My suspicion is that PGI’s plan is to avoid any assault ‘mech that can boat large ballistics simply because they have no good way to balance them – which is a really ****** solution. There’s no reason that balance issues should prevent awesome ‘mechs like the Mauler from showing up.

And if ballistics weren’t bad enough, Clan missiles will bring a host of problems: half-tonnage, no-minimum-range LRMs will make previous LRMageddons look tame, and lightweight SSRM6 packs will make the Splatcats of yesterday a laughing matter. Though the arrival of the Clans is not an immediately pressing issue, it’s better to have a system in place now than to ignore the horrible balance problems for later.

And some concrete examples to prove his point, from the previous page:

zorak ramone, on 28 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

The issue isn't PPCs. Its GRs. The only reason we're focusing on PPCs these days is that several mechs are capable of carrying multiple PPCs, or multiple PPCs + GR. However, very few mechs are capable of carrying 2xGR, and all of these mechs are heavies.

The moment we get a mech heavier than a CTF-3D that can pack 2 or more GRs and at least 1 PPC, this mech will dominate, and no heat balancing mechanism in the world (at least any one that allows SINGLE PPCs to be useable) will be able to stop it.

The stock victor VTR-9A1 carries several machine guns, IIRC in the legs. If PGI moves these to the torsos (as is likely), then this mech will be a jumping 80 tonner that can carry 2xGR/PPC. That's a 40 point alpha that never stops due to heat.

If you think mechs like this are rare, they are not. There are several mechs, which if added to MWO, would completely break the game, and would be invulnerable to any heat based mechanism for regulating alpha strikes (because GRs) consider the following subset:

Annihilator
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Annihilator
Capable of 4xGR or 3xGR/PPC. Its 100 tons, so its got the tonnage to carry it. Never mind the slow stock speed since engines can be upgraded. EDIT: this one is also capable of 4xUAC5/4xML. Lol?

Thunderhawk
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder_Hawk
Carries 3xGR in stock and potentially capable of 3xGR/2xPPC. Another 100 tonner as well

King Crab
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/King_Crab
Another 100 tonner. Carries 2xAC20 in stock, with tonnage to spare. Depending on where they put the stock LL, this thing could also do 2xGR/PPC. The big advantage this guy has would be his very low profile.

Gunslinger
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gunslinger
An 85 tonner that can carry 2xGR/2xPPC based on stock hardpoints. Other than looking ridiculous, what's special about it. Well, it JUMPS and has ECM!

Mauler
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mauler
Another 2xGR/2xPPC mech in a 90 ton package. This one would also be capable of 4xUAC5.

Devastator
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Devastator
Another 2xGR/2xPPC (in stock!) mech in a 100 ton package.


Two of these mechs are fan favorites that have appeared in prior games (Annihilator and Mauler). One has popped up several times in polls for mechs we'd like to see (King Crab). The others are not obscure mechs and could end up being added to the game. These are not the only mechs capable of multi-GR configurations.

[Phelan Boots]

This is still my favorite solution for the current state of the game.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

The entire premise of your solution--that there must be a bridging solution between tabletop and sim--is flawed. Mechwarrior (and don't you dare bring up the RPG of the same name) has always been a sim that has paid the barest of lip service to tabletop. PGI's first priority is to create a fun, skill-based, real-time battletech-themed mech combat game.

Boating is a non-issue. People will always boat because it's easier to manage 1-3 different weapon systems (remember that a standard mouse only has 3 buttons). The issue is that there is only one class of weapon that can be competitively boated--direct-fire, single shot, long range weapons. What PGI needs to figure out is how to make boating every other weapon in the game viable. Serious players will boat against other serious players in the high Elo brackets and casual/roleplayers will play mixed loadouts against mixed loadouts in the lower Elo brackets.

[pencilboom]

Let's see..MWO Last played 6/6/2013.. Yep I haven't touch this game ever since.. High alpha / ppc / ac/20 boats are so boring..

With that being said, anything to improve the quality of gameplay by reducing high alpha capability is welcomed.

I support this

[Homeless Bill]

Narcisoldier, on 30 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

The entire premise of your solution--that there must be a bridging solution between tabletop and sim--is flawed. Mechwarrior (and don't you dare bring up the RPG of the same name) has always been a sim that has paid the barest of lip service to tabletop. PGI's first priority is to create a fun, skill-based, real-time battletech-themed mech combat game.

The issue is that there is only one class of weapon that can be competitively boated--direct-fire, single shot, long range weapons. What PGI needs to figure out is how to make boating every other weapon in the game viable.

I fail to understand how you don't see the missing link. All of the numbers for the weapons came from tabletop; those numbers were balanced assuming random hit locations - not pinpoint damage. If you really don't think two clicks to kill people in a game of this pace is a problem, you're crazy.

I realize that realtime is a vastly different environment, and the people who think tabletop is the perfect set of numbers don't know what they're talking about. That said, something is needed to limit pinpoint damage "per-turn," if you will. My system makes it impossible to vaporize people in one or two clicks, increases the value of aiming skill by increasing shot frequency, and improves the pacing of the game overall - for newbies and top players alike.

No. PGI does not need to figure out how to make every weapon a two-click death sentence. You're on your own island if you really think that should be the pace of the game. Even if you do, my solution's TCS values account for weapon spread and range, making the boating of all weapon types equally viable (you can fire 4xLL at once vs 2xPPCs at once).

pencilboom, on 30 June 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

Let's see..MWO Last played 6/6/2013.. Yep I haven't touch this game ever since.. High alpha / ppc / ac/20 boats are so boring..

If it wasn't for my clan, I would definitely be on a break.

[Demuder]

Vertigo 1, on 27 June 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

PGI should respond to this. Have they even ever acknowledged the problem/proposed possible solutions they are looking into?

They have stated in the last (or the one before ?) Ask The Devs that high alphas are being looked into. Nothing more specific.

Homeless Bill, on 30 June 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

My suspicion is that PGI’s plan is to avoid any assault ‘mech that can boat large ballistics simply because they have no good way to balance them – which is a really ****** solution. There’s no reason that balance issues should prevent awesome ‘mechs like the Mauler from showing up.

My suspicion is that they have chosen to prioritize into making the game "feature complete" (12v12, Community Warfare, 3PV, lots of maps, lots of mechs to play with, decent UI, etc, etc) so they can release. Balancing of already in-place-features will be due in a second development cycle/pass.

It is a sound strategy, but it is a very slippery slope as well, since the more features are put into place, the more the "critical" bug and balancing list is bloated and no matter how many features there are, no game can survive a tired and bleeding fan base.

[Ladehemmung]

I like it!

[Schrottfrosch]

While I like this system I think it is overly complicated and fiddles with the aiming system too much. This would probably require quite an amount of programming effort.

Why not grab the problem of having too big alpha strikes with one mouseclick by the balls?

High Alpha strikes are the result of high damage weapons - the first and easiest way would be to reduce the damage per pellet and up the RoF, to keep the DPS. This can be easily done with the AC/20, the PPC and the Gaussrifle.

Now add recoil and see how much work you have to do to keep on target, especially if your arms go into opposite directions due to recoil...

I know this isnt perfect, I described a nicer system of how to do this in the suggestion part of the forums - you need to find it yourselves as crossposting is not allowed.

Edited by Schrottfrosch, 01 July 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[EchoMike]

PanzerMagier, on 11 June 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

This guy.., This homeless bill, whoever he is. I'd take him over whoever now has his cheetos stained fingers on MWO's balancing systems. I've seen a lot of posts about "a solution to XYZ". And they all kind go in my head "yea that'll be nice but it'll never happen" or "pff this is stupid thank goodness this guy isn't on the team responsible for gameplay balance".

However this one... I'd vote for this guy. Homeless bill, you have my approval. And my respect.

As with other issues, I agree with Mr. Panzer. I've been playing this game for over a year now (early CB), and this is probably the most comprehensive and articulate thread I've read IMHO.
MWO needs this mechanic. Paul has to swallow his pride, realize he's not the smartest guy in the room and beginning implementing this TCL/S system.
DocBach has a great idea too. Personally I dont' care which direction PGI goes, but it's ideas such as these that will (I believe) ultimately save this game and ensure a long lucrative future.

PS> LISTEN TO YOU'RE FEKK'N COMMUNITY PGI! THIS, IS SOMETHING WE'RE RIGHT ON THE MONEY ABOUT!

[Tombstoner]

dimstog, on 30 June 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

They have stated in the last (or the one before ?) Ask The Devs that high alphas are being looked into. Nothing more specific.



My suspicion is that they have chosen to prioritize into making the game "feature complete" (12v12, Community Warfare, 3PV, lots of maps, lots of mechs to play with, decent UI, etc, etc) so they can release. Balancing of already in-place-features will be due in a second development cycle/pass.

It is a sound strategy, but it is a very slippery slope as well, since the more features are put into place, the more the "critical" bug and balancing list is bloated and no matter how many features there are, no game can survive a tired and bleeding fan base.

I must agree with you. Releasing a game with an incomplete list of features can be deadlier then an OP alpha strike system.
Not including a "fix" for the high alpha damage issue until after release is effectively pulling the rug out from under all the new players. So a fix needs to happen 3 patches before release, to allow for fixes to the system and two rounds of balancing and more bug fixes. so we will see something in the next 3 months or a last minute hail mary pass.

In PGIs defense it does take resources to build out an idea and then test it with some degree of rigor with clan tech/ full omni.
so three or more ideas take a lot of resources. still this issue of pinpoint high damage alphas was brought up in the first round of closed beta 1.5+ years ago by people very well acquainted with TT and how to min max game systems.

The similarity's between mw3 and 4 are striking and thus your gona get a game that plays very similar. PGI was warned and seems ok with it. except that PGI is now trying to break specific problematic behaviors that can break a game when you have pin point damage.
pop tarting and boating.... go figure.

Edited by Tombstoner, 01 July 2013 - 06:32 AM.