704 replies to this topic

[Lockon StratosII]

Came out of the lurker cave to post here. Very, very good solution Bill, let's hope they take a note of it.

Schrottfrosch, on 01 July 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

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.

Actually, "aim fiddling" wouldn't require that much programming, in fact almost any at all, just use existing convergence code and when TCL is >100, just make it put a distance value of infinity or any other ridiculously large number so the weapons will converge at that point and not on the targeted mech (thus making shots fire almost parallel to each other) . If you want to tone down targeting penalties for whatever reason (balance) his "fix" can even be used for high TCL penalties by scaling the forced convergence point (for example: 101-150 TCL -> 3km forced convergence point, 151-200 -> 4km, 201-250 -> 5km etc) but that should be only temporarily because at that case the worst targeting penalty would be all weapon firing parallel to each other

[EchoMike]

In reality I fear PGI not even considering such a change to the convergence mechanic to long after 'Launch'. Based on what we know about PGI and the size of their dev. team their hands are full with UI 2.0, CW, Clans etc. I expect ridiculous Paul Innoye Band-Aid patches until November. <<Bumping thread>>

Edited by EchoMike, 01 July 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

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

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.

That's my guess as well. As a game developer, I get it: you've got to pick your priorities and get **** done. I just think ignoring such a huge, newbie-killing balance problem is a mistake.

But they're going ahead with heat penalties, which means they've dedicated some time to it. And as I've already stated, I don't think it would be any more work to implement my system. It will just take less time to balance and fiddle with.

Schrottfrosch, on 01 July 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

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.

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.

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.

It's overly-complicated in all the ways that don't matter; to the player, it's simple and intuitive. Again, if you read "The Work Required" section in my article, you'll see there really isn't any more work than they're already going to do with heat penalties.

To me, reducing damage or making everything behave like a laser is just a lazy way to balance. It would work, but only because it effectively makes all weapons the same. It would work, but I detest the idea of sacrificing diversity for balance.

Always link. I've never seen someone warned for crossposting.

EchoMike, on 01 July 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

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!

I appreciate the support. I also like Doc's solution a lot. PGI can go for a Battletech simulator with Doc's solution or an FPS skinned with Battletech using my system. I don't care which direction the game goes; either one is more interesting than the current state of the game.

Lockon StratosII, on 01 July 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Came out of the lurker cave to post here. Very, very good solution Bill, let's hope they take a note of it.

=D

EchoMike, on 01 July 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

In reality I fear PGI not even considering such a change to the convergence mechanic to long after 'Launch'. Based on what we know about PGI and the size of their dev. team their hands are full with UI 2.0, CW, Clans etc. I expect ridiculous Paul Innoye Band-Aid patches until November. <<Bumping thread>>

That's what I'm thinking, and I really hope it isn't true. Plus, as I've said before, heat penalties just aren't that much less work.

[Phaesphoros]

Homeless Bill, on 01 July 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

That's what I'm thinking, and I really hope it isn't true. Plus, as I've said before, heat penalties just aren't that much less work.

After listening to NGNG's podcast #79 (the most recent), I think PGI is worried about the FOTM more than about actual "OPness" (sounds like nothing is OP in Russ' eyes). If the ridge humping nerf isn't enough to shift the FOTM, they'll probably add splash damage to PPCs in one of the next patches (not on July 2nd) and leave it at that. This will help the average pugger, since only CTF-4X (slow) and CTF-IM (hero) currently can effectively mount 2 Gauss AFAIK(*), we'll see about the Victor.

(*)

Spoiler

The CTPLT-K2 and the CTF-3D can mount 2 Gauss, too; as well as the BJ and the JM6. Of those, the sub 70-tonners are too lightweight IMO, and the CTF-3D mounts one in the torso, one in the arm.

This kind of balancing according to a certain interpretation of the statistics unfortunately cannot balance the game, it'll only shift the FOTM to keep the game in a playable, enjoyable state for the average pugger. Although IMO it is desirable NOT to have such a one-sided FOTM, a FOTM where I can chose weapons that are effective against it is something I'd like much better (that's what I would call a true meta-game!).

Edited by Phaesphoros, 01 July 2013 - 04:08 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Phaesphoros, on 01 July 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

...
This balancing according to statistics unfortunately cannot balance the game ...
(snipped for brevity)

What would you use to shape balance, if not statistics?

If one weapon / equipment combination wins more than others, then something about that combination is probably OP ... prior to jump jet shake, it appeared to have been JJ+Gauss+PPC ... for the past month or so, it seems to be either Gauss+PPC, or multiple PPCs.

The statistics collected from each game should show how much more often the current FOTM combo wins compared to other types of mechs ... and should give the developers an idea about how much an aspect of the build needs to be nerfed.

A simple solution, that could be implemented in a hotfix, would be to slightly increase heat for PPCs (effectively reducing rate of fire) and/or slightly reducing projectile speed for both PPC and Gauss (reducing accuracy).

For a long term solution to maintain DPS at a desired level, I think Homeless Bill's solution is probably the most elegant.

[Phaesphoros]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 July 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

What would you use to shape balance, if not statistics?

Ok, I've not been clear enough, and updated my post.

What I meant was a certain interpretation and a balancing only based on statistics.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 July 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

If one weapon / equipment combination wins more than others, then something about that combination is probably OP ...

I don't think that can easily be checked in a team vs team environment. Even if, that's not yet a proof of OPness; imagine most highly skilled players used a certain combination just because of their own version of FOTM (based on rumors, superstitions, whatever). In this case, the combination would win more often against a similar powerful combination.

Again: A FOTM does not qualify some combination of equipment as being too powerful. But a FOTM that cannot be countered by a different combination of equipment as far as I can see is a good indicator for OPness. It certainly is a sufficient condition to nerf this combination of equipment because it most probably leads to the game getting boring.
In the case of the PPC, we see a FOTM, but also a lot of so-called "high-elo" players agreeing AT THE SAME TIME that the PPC needs a viable counter (a lot of them say buff SRMs AFAIK). But if the most experienced and skilled players cannot find a viable counter, the second condition for OPness is fulfilled (the first of it being a FOTM), and we can say the PPC is OP.

It might well be the case that PPC isn't that OP as many currently feel/think it is, but because of the exponentiation as a FOTM, brawling is suppressed by the high amount of snipers. If a critical amount of snipers is reached, brawling becomes highly risky, especially if you only have few brawlers (and both the PPC and Gauss being excellent brawler weapons due to DPS and low "min" range). But that doesn't invalidate what I said earlier; if it's not extremely OP, it might as well be somewhat OP.

To successfully remove an OPed item, one must remove both conditions (assuming these conditions are sufficient): Force a shift in the FOTM AND nerf the combination of equipment. If you only shift the FOTM, it might very well come back; if you only nerf the combination of equipment, the FOTM stays and in this case, brawling might still not be viable in pugs.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 01 July 2013 - 04:25 PM.

[Wildgrin]

I have seen more an more ideas about balancing out high alphas, to the point where it seems like the community as a whole has realized this is a problem. To me if the community has realized this without any statistics it is well past time to figure something out to address the issue.

Really just bumping this thread back to the front page.

(jumps back into my lurker lair)

[Homeless Bill]

Updated the title of the OP since the removal of screen shake has brought some poptarts back out to play. My solution addresses their pinpoint capability, but it would also be extremely easy to decrease the targeting computer overload threshold when in the air if more punishment is deemed necessary.

You simply will not find cheese that can exist under the rules of my system.

Phaesphoros, on 01 July 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

After listening to NGNG's podcast #79 (the most recent), I think PGI is worried about the FOTM more than about actual "OPness" (sounds like nothing is OP in Russ' eyes).

This kind of balancing according to a certain interpretation of the statistics unfortunately cannot balance the game, it'll only shift the FOTM to keep the game in a playable, enjoyable state for the average pugger.

This is one of the big reasons my solution has such a small chance of being considered. They like to chase the FOTM instead of addressing the underlying problems. It's a shame, but I fully expect their tail-chasing balancing strategy to continue.

Wildgrin, on 02 July 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

I have seen more an more ideas about balancing out high alphas, to the point where it seems like the community as a whole has realized this is a problem. To me if the community has realized this without any statistics it is well past time to figure something out to address the issue.

Really just bumping this thread back to the front page.

(jumps back into my lurker lair)

<3 Lurker support for the win.

[The_Desert_Tiger]

Bump for great justice!! Also nice to see you back Bill!

[Oderint dum Metuant]

http://www.gamasutra...r_milestone.php

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Quote

[color=#000000]"We're actively involved with the community, but the message is managed and largely driven by Piranha." He says IGP and Piranha's goal is to find an audience with hardcore MechWarrior fans[/color]

I thought the hardcore...were not the target demographic?

And yet, it states they are actively involved with the community, yet how many good solid threads get interaction? There only involvement with us, is AtD and that gets more awful with each pass.

[Amalinze]

I second this notion. There does not seem to be any appetite at PGI for a step-change solution, instead forcing new FOTM's through a rotating series of balance changes which exist purely for the purpose of placating the player base by making an effort.

If any given solution sends players back to their mechbay, the solution is not a solution. The beautiful thing about Bill's solution is that if you're already a good sniper, brawler, or whatever, the change makes it easier to distinguish yourself from players that survive on lucky shots. And, outside of a few ludicrous builds, most mechs are still viable without changing anything. They just require more skill on the part of their pilots. The objective should not be to force people away from sniping because they finally nerfed sniping, but to require snipers to be good shots on a consistent basis, and to take away the panic-alpha power they have in brawls.

That said, he successfully addressed most of the counter arguments we see in his pre-emptive rebuttal, but we still have several pages'-worth of people making those arguments anyway because "tl;dr, wtb soundbite solution."

Kudos to you sir. I know this will probably never be implemented, but I'm happy to bump the thread.

[El Bandito]

Here is another bump.

[Scromboid]

Love this.

Love this.

[Reptilizer]

Amalinze, on 03 July 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

...
The objective should not be to force people away from sniping because they finally nerfed sniping, but to require snipers to be good shots on a consistent basis, and to take away the panic-alpha power they have in brawls.

...

Kudos to you sir. I know this will probably never be implemented, but I'm happy to bump the thread.

I agree on the first part.
Bill actually proposed a viable solution for that.
They will not get better or cheaper counsel from their own crew and WE ARE STILL BETA, so i do not really see why it should be impossible to at least try it out for a month.
The actual effort of implementing the routine should not be that big. They got a team of 40+ people working on the game. There should be 1 programmer left for a few hours when you subtract all the marketing and accounting guys.

[Zyllos]

I still think implementing a CoF first is the way to go.

Think about this, in the TT, range was essentially directly tied to how accurate the weapon was because range determined the ToHit modifier of a weapon. Beyond the extreme range did that mean the weapon was ineffective against a target.

That should mean that weapons with longer ranges are naturally more accurate, thus should apply a much smaller CoF based on their optimal distance.

So, if a weapon has an optimal range of 810m, that means the CoF should be of the size that would spray against a Medium sized target at 810m and an AC/20 should have the same CoF size at 270m based on the same TCL values.

Interestingly, most weapons that have high TCS, will most likely increase their CoF size quickly due to high TCS, meaning that in up close engagements, their CoF will be significant enough because they are firing quickly. But at longer ranges, if they slow their fire down, their CoF will be small or non-existant.

Examples that I am looking at are the Gauss Rifle and ER PPC, both with TCS values of 75 and 50. If you chain fire them at far distances, there will be very little CoF (due to high ranges) or no CoF (waiting the full amount of time before firing). But up close, waiting to take those shots will get you killed, but if you fire many shots quickly, even with a small CoF, the high TCS will begin to produce a CoF large enough to effect close ranges.

Edited by Zyllos, 03 July 2013 - 08:30 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

DV McKenna, on 03 July 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

I thought the hardcore...were not the target demographic?

And yet, it states they are actively involved with the community, yet how many good solid threads get interaction? There only involvement with us, is AtD and that gets more awful with each pass.

Honestly, that article made my face hurt. I suppose I could be wrong, but it's my guess they're behind most of the rushed, unfinished, and half-working **** we see. I don't think PGI wanted to go into Open Beta when they did, and I don't think they'd be launching in September if it was their call.

If he isn't just flat-out lying, and PGI has truly been behind all the decision-making, I would be shocked and disappointed.

The community interaction is pretty bad, but I also don't know how they'd go about interacting with threads like this. What are they going to do? Go around to each thread like I do, posting rebuttals and defending their implementation of everything (particularly when it's indefensibly bad =P)?

That said, it would be really nice to see some acknowledgement for the really popular threads and ideas beyond, "It's been forwarded." Honestly, "It's been forwarded," sounds a lot like, "It's sitting in an unread email." We'll never really know because they never defend their ideas or refute alternatives.

Amalinze, on 03 July 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

I second this notion. There does not seem to be any appetite at PGI for a step-change solution, instead forcing new FOTM's through a rotating series of balance changes which exist purely for the purpose of placating the player base by making an effort.

If any given solution sends players back to their mechbay, the solution is not a solution. The beautiful thing about Bill's solution is that if you're already a good sniper, brawler, or whatever, the change makes it easier to distinguish yourself from players that survive on lucky shots. And, outside of a few ludicrous builds, most mechs are still viable without changing anything.

That said, he successfully addressed most of the counter arguments we see in his pre-emptive rebuttal, but we still have several pages'-worth of people making those arguments anyway because "tl;dr, wtb soundbite solution."

Playing whack-a-mole was okay for a while, but leaving this problem to fester post-launch is a huge mistake in my book. They'll waste countless hours trying to perfect relative weapon balance when that's really not the cause of the problem.

That is definitely another thing I like about my proposal. I don't want any part of the game to shift beyond fire discipline. Every build should still work basically like it did. The only builds that will go away are stupid ones like the 6xPPC Stalker. I suppose you could still run it, it would just be much less desirable than the 4xPPC version due to heat efficiency. Everything else should just work with a little shot stagger.

Honestly, you can't expect people to read. It's mostly just nice to have something to copy-and-paste. I also wrote it with the intent of the developers reading it. I don't do things half-way - I either put 100% effort into it and make it airtight, or I don't bother.

Zyllos, on 03 July 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

I still think implementing a CoF first is the way to go.

So, if a weapon has an optimal range of 810m, that means the CoF should be of the size that would spray against a Medium sized target at 810m and an AC/20 should have the same CoF size at 270m based on the same TCL values.

Interestingly, most weapons that have high TCS, will most likely increase their CoF size quickly due to high TCS, meaning that in up close engagements, their CoF will be significant enough because they are firing quickly. But at longer ranges, if they slow their fire down, their CoF will be small or non-existant.

I wouldn't mind the weapon-specific cone of fire if I thought there was a good way to communicate that to the player. You'd have multiple rings going on, and for newbies that don't know anything about Battletech or its weapons, I think it would get too confusing. For most players, I don't think it would be an issue, but new blood would find it pretty confusing.

As time goes on, I do feel that a gradual loss of convergence between 101 and 150 is probably better than immediate loss of convergence (still with a cone of fire increasing between 101 and 200). It's less jarring, and I don't see it solving the problem any less effectively. It would solve your main complaint of the immediate, boolean punishment for even the slightest error, but it also wouldn't necessitate per-weapon spread stats. Thoughts?

[Phobic Wraith]

I"ve been trying to drum up support or at least acknowledgement for the idea, been doing so for a bit now, not much success. However I did manage to get ahold of Karl Berg at PGI and he promised to bring it up with Paul and maybe some others. He made it explicitly clear that he's just the programmer and doesn't have any say, but he did promise to mention it.

[Homeless Bill]

Phobic Wraith, on 03 July 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I"ve been trying to drum up support or at least acknowledgement for the idea, been doing so for a bit now, not much success. However I did manage to get ahold of Karl Berg at PGI and he promised to bring it up with Paul and maybe some others. He made it explicitly clear that he's just the programmer and doesn't have any say, but he did promise to mention it.

I sincerely appreciate it. I know they're going ahead with the heat penalties, but I'd really like someone important to take a serious look at this proposal.

[Phoenix Branson]

This is actually a pretty ingenious solution to high alpha builds. I hope someone at PGI (cough Paul) reads it! With this change, they could also add modules for slightly increasing the effectiveness of your targeting computer. Plus, it would be cool to hear Bitching Betty say, "Warning, Targeting Computer Overloaded."

Edited by Maverick01, 03 July 2013 - 06:47 PM.