704 replies to this topic

[Chavette]

I like it. Even before I read this, on my own I had the idea of "worsening weapon convergence taking power of weapons fired in past time period into account". This is pretty much the same.
Great minds think alike.

Edited by Chavette, 07 July 2013 - 02:10 AM.

[X3N2R10N]

homeless,
firstly kudos on a well written article,
now i have 2 questions,

with your TCS convergence solution, as you pointed out it would be reducing maximum alpha for good convergence accuracy.

will it and how would it affect players with high latency/ping.

also,would you agree that having multiple firing groups which requires multiple buttons would severely hamper players with normal mice

thanks

Edited by WoNkY SaUsAgE, 07 July 2013 - 03:54 AM.

[Caballo]

Best solution i've read for the issue. And it should've been in from the start.

[MarsRadio]

Congrats Homeless, that is one fine idea you present. I had to break my forum posting cherry just to be another player that can be counted in agreeing that this should be implemented. I personally can't imagine what this game will be like once the clans get here and (if) they include more then just clan mechs.

Cone of fire... connected to a targeting system... it's so elegantly simple.

Also your HUD mock up is ingenious, communicating this system absolutely has to have those adjustments to keep the player feeling like they are in control, and thus having fun!

Homeless For 2016!

[Homeless Bill]

WoNkY SaUsAgE, on 07 July 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

homeless,
firstly kudos on a well written article,
now i have 2 questions,

with your TCS convergence solution, as you pointed out it would be reducing maximum alpha for good convergence accuracy.

will it and how would it affect players with high latency/ping.

also,would you agree that having multiple firing groups which requires multiple buttons would severely hamper players with normal mice

thanks

It shouldn't affect high pings any differently. As much as there are a ton of numbers in my proposal, the player's experience with it will very much be by feel. Everyone will learn how to space their weapon groups properly, and it won't be a big deal. Even if something odd happened with client-server communication, the worst that could happen is a single, inaccurate shot.

The only people I could see having a poor experience would be people that set up macros to space fire as tightly as possible and have huge ping spikes. And I can't see anyone doing that. If you're setting your 4xPPC Stalker on an exact one-second macro instead of aiming and taking two shots, you deserve problems.

The bottom line is this: the colored boxes around the reticle will never lie to you, so the player will always know what's going to happen, regardless of ping.

I don't see multiple firing groups as a problem. Almost every 'mech I run has two weapon groups (left and right click) and one of the same groups on chain-fire bound to middle click. If people are using one-button mice, I salute their courage.

MarsRadio, on 07 July 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

Congrats Homeless, that is one fine idea you present. I had to break my forum posting cherry just to be another player that can be counted in agreeing that this should be implemented. I personally can't imagine what this game will be like once the clans get here and (if) they include more then just clan mechs.

Cone of fire... connected to a targeting system... it's so elegantly simple.

Also your HUD mock up is ingenious, communicating this system absolutely has to have those adjustments to keep the player feeling like they are in control, and thus having fun!

Homeless For 2016!

Always good to see lurkers come out =D

Lots of credit should go to Phaesphoros for making those and giving input, as well as Tombstoner for coming up with the colored boxes idea in the first place.

[nemesis271989]

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

UPDATE
I've published the full article this thread was a testbed for. You can read it here. Please, do everything in your power to spam the developers with this proposal on here, on Twitter, and through any other medium you can (don't harass the developers IRL, please). It's not often I legitimately care about something, but if they don't fix this problem, I fear that this game will die.

THINK IT'S TOO COMPLEX?

Spoiler

Players operating under this system will need to change two things, and two things only:

• Group weapons properly (total TCS <= 100)
  
• Don’t spam all your weapons at once

Forget about the numbers, the rate of dissipation, the details of the accuracy penalty, and all the other minutia – when you boil it down to the player’s interaction with the system, it’s a simple choice between staggering fire for accuracy or taking a one-time aim penalty for extreme, immediate damage. Players won’t need to micromanage the TCL or time their shots perfectly – they just need to cut back on the alpha spam. Again, weapon cooldown and heat will remain as the only limiters on damage over time.



Furthermore, if you’ve played an FPS with recoil, you’d immediately understand what’s going on; it’s intuitive and perfectly catered to the mass market. Even without that experience, it would take someone perhaps two minutes in the training ground or shooting at a wall to figure out precisely what’s happening.

You want to know what doesn’t have mass market appeal? Getting one- or two-shotted in a game that takes two minutes just to get to the fight.

One huge benefit of my strategy over others is that it will only require players to change one thing: fire discipline. Whereas movement/heat penalties, highly-penalized group fire, and the wait-for-convergence strategy will all fundamentally alter combat and force players to make large changes to how they play, this solution will allow this entire balance problem to be de-coupled from every other system in the game.

Additionally, I think a lot of players are craving more depth and will actually enjoy having an additional simulation element. It’s a sorely-needed later of tactical depth in what has largely become a mindless, point-and-click shooter since ballistic host state rewind.

OP (seriously though, go read the much more organized and thorough article):

Spoiler

PREFACE
Strap on your stupid, kids. This thread is ******* ambitious.

So, I've done a lot of thinking about a combination of balance issues over the past several months. All the way back to the days when Splatcats reigned supreme, I've thought about how best to balance the nature of large bursts of damage without going overboard. The situation got exponentially worse with the poptarting craze after host state rewind for ballistics went live and the arrival of the Highlander.

I will be the first to acknowledge that many aspects of the game's balance need fixing: SRM damage, LRM coring/damage, SSRM coring, pulse lasers, hit detection, etc. I also won’t deny that hardpoint restrictions, penalties for overheating, and tonnage limitations would cut back a lot of the cheese, but none of them are a sufficient solutions to many of the short- and long-term balance issues MWO faces.

The crux of a lot of the major balance problems is that being able to deal more than 20 or 30 points of damage to a single location in a single click - particularly at range - is bad. Separately, neither massive alpha strikes nor convergence is a bad thing, but together, they create a nasty scenario where a couple of clicks is enough to vaporize an opponent. It's undesirable, both in terms of gameplay and from a Battletech lore standpoint. There's absolutely no incentive to fire two shots at 20 damage when you could fire one for 40 damage.

Last I've heard, the solution in the pipe is some sort of boating heat penalty. No one knows what this would end up as. A heat penalty for simply equipping a certain number of a certain type of weapon? A penalty for group fire? A penalty for firing them within a certain time frame? Would penalties only apply to the stacking of the same weapon? For a certain number of weapons? For all weapons? At the end of the day, I don't give a ****. I say that because I don't think any of them are the right solution.

FORGET HEAT

Spoiler

I'll caveat this: I'd rather have a heat penalty than nothing if it has some positive effect on the problem of pinpoint alpha strikes. But day by day, I grow increasingly wary of the balance issues it will bring.

Edit: I'm going to caveat my caveat... the way PGI is doing it isn't going to fix anything. In addition, I've decided that because it will never get ripped out once it goes in, it just shouldn't go in. The real issue needs to be addressed.

1. It's going to be super arbitrary and hard to balance. I'd like to have faith in PGI to get the numbers right, but they frankly haven't impressed me in that category so far. They're getting better and better, but sculpting such an intricate layer on top of the heat system sounds pretty dangerous. There are so many weapon combinations that I think it will be extraordinarily difficult to integrate into what is already a delicate system.

2. It will punish players for doing it, but it won’t prevent them from doing it. Even assuming the heat balancing goes well, the penalties will have to be ridiculously severe to truly deal with things like the 4xPPC Stalker. It still doesn't solve that single, massive, focused burst that’s enough to leg a light whether by a skilled or lucky hand. It doesn't prevent them from doing what they do; it just means they'll have to be a little smarter about picking their shots.

3. This is the big one for me: it doesn't solve ballistics. No one really cares about this yet, but you will. You will if they decide to drop an Annihilator or Mauler on us. The minute we get something that can mount 4xUAC/5s plus change AND has the ability tank a good amount of damage, people will be ******** their pants. Even if they put ridiculous heat penalties on the autocannons, the Gauss rifle will continue to kick copious amounts of ***. 2xPPC + 2xGauss is pretty hard to solve with heat.

The AC/40 Catapult has to sacrifice speed, and the AC/40 Jagermech is really squishy. They're cheesy and still far too good for their weight, but they have exploitable weaknesses. Even if heat fixed PPCs and autocannons, once something that can effectively mount 3 Gauss rifles drops, it’s time to break out the tear jars. On the flip-side, it could also mean PGI avoids any 'mech that can boat large ballistics simply because they have no good way to balance them. Which is a really ****** solution. I want the Devastator and Annihilator, and I'll be damned if balance issues prevent that.

A WORD ON OVERHEAT PENALTIES

Spoiler

I agree that high-heat effects and permanent penalties (whether it's damage, convergence issues, speed loss, or whatever) from overheating should be implemented. It's an issue worthy of its own thread and discussion. But I also don't think it will solve this. Again, focusing on heat largely ignores ballistics.

A WORD ON HARDPOINT RESTRICTIONS

Spoiler

I think it should be implemented, but it doesn't solve 'mechs like this or this or this.

I'll probably be doing a write-up on hardpoint restrictions at another time. Though I think it's a good idea and it would help curb ridiculous boating (particularly with the current 'mech selection), it won't be an effective long-term solution to the problem.

A WORD ON TONNAGE LIMITS

Spoiler

I’ll agree that there should be far more mediums and far fewer assaults than what we see today, and I think that PGI needs to incentivize playing as mediums and lights over heavies and assaults. That said, the game should have some semblance of balance regardless of what people bring. My solution allows assault ‘mechs to continue to reign supreme in combat while making it much more difficult for them to leg a light or pop a medium with a single salvo. I support more balanced matches, but I think it still ignores the problem. Plus, tonnage limitation completely ignores the problem posed by the incoming Clan cheese like this.

MY REASONING

Spoiler

I believe a new system is necessary to deal with the major differences between tabletop and realtime Battletech that stem from convergence. No one wants a random number generator to decide where they hit in a first person shooter, but Battletech was balanced based on that very premise. A shooter needs responsive aim, but visceral, plodding 'mech combat needs something to limit pinpoint damage. My solution is essentially meant to be the bridge between the two requirements.

I realize this is an entirely new system that has its own potential problems, but I believe it is the best solution to a host of balance issues. My solution will avoid the quagmire of messing with the heat system, encourage more tactical shooting without slowing the pace of the game, effectively balance the focused alpha potential of every kind of weapon, solve the problem for ballistics (unlike heat penalties), add a strategic element to fire discipline, and I don't think it goes overboard.

Another extremely positive benefit is that it will also serve as a partial check to some of the imbalance of massively superior Clan technology. I figure most people are thinking what I'm thinking: Clans should be superior... but 80-damage pinpoint alpha strike superior? 4xSSRM6 + 2xERPPC on a heavily-armored 'mech going over 80kph superior? It's a fine line between "this **** is dangerous, but we can beat it" and, "Oh my god no." So, without further adieu...

THE SOLUTION

Spoiler

No skimming on this part. My solution is to implement a scale that represents the load on the targeting computer (TCL). Each weapon would, similar to heat, have an associated targeting computer stress value (TCS). When a weapon (or group) is fired, the stress value of all about-to-fire weapons are added to the load on the targeting computer. The targeting computer load automatically dissipates at a constant rate of 100 per second.

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.

From 101 to 200, the accuracy penalty gets progressively worse (the cone of fire expands). Each weapon fires at its own accuracy offset, rather than all picking the same skew. The pilot can continue to drive the targeting computer load up to a maximum of 500 by continuing to fire, but the effects of a targeting computer overload reach their worst at 200.

To clarify, you can't get away with one free alpha strike; TCL values are added and penalties are applied before the shots are fired.

THE NUMBERS

Spoiler

Keep in mind that these numbers are meant to demonstrate the spirit of what I’m going for. Don’t get caught up in the minutia - it’s just a starting point. Here’s about where I think the numbers would be based on my observations in the field (these values assume weapon balance as of 6/10/3050).

• Weapon Type
  
  • Weapon Name
    
    • Targeting Computer Stress: #
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: # (the number you can fire simultaneously without overloading the targeting computer)
      
    • */Note: (If applicable)
• Energy
  
  • Small Laser
    
    • TCS: 10
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 10
  • Medium Laser
    
    • TCS: 12.5
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 8
  • (ER)Large Laser
    
    • TCS: 25
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 4
  • Small Pulse Laser
    
    • TCS: 10
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 10
  • Medium Pulse Laser
    
    • TCS: 15
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 6 + Change
  • Large Pulse Laser
    
    • TCS: 30
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 3 + Change
  • (ER)PPC
    
    • TCS: 50
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 2
• Ballistics
  
  • Machine Gun
    
    • TCS: 0.8 (8 / second)
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 125
      
    • Continuous Fire: 12 + Change
  • Gauss Rifle
    
    • TCS: 75
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 1 + Change
  • AC/2
    
    • TCS: 10 (20 / second)*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 10
      
    • Continuous Fire: 5
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • AC/5
    
    • TCS: 25*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 4
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • AC/10
    
    • TCS: 50*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 2
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • AC/20
    
    • TCS: 100*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 1
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • LBX/10
    
    • TCS: 30* [40]
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 3 + Change [2 + Change]
      
    • *Value for LBX Autocannons is based on caliber (3/caliber) [4/caliber]
      
    • Note: These are underpowered and need damage adjusted to 1.2 per pellet or something. The values in [ ] are based on the LBX getting some love.
  • UAC/5
    
    • TCS: 25* initial shot, 12.5* double-tap
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: Depends on double-tap usage
      
    • *Value for UAC is based on caliber (5/caliber initial shot, 2.5/caliber double-tap)
      
    • Note: An Ultra Autocannon does not add its TCS to the TCL if it jams.
      
    • Note: Ultra Autocannons are a bit awkward with the double-tap. This setup allows UACs to serve their intended purpose without bypassing the penalty. You may notice that with current TCS values, a UAC/20 would take a partial accuracy penalty on the first double-tapped shot. This is intentional as limiting pinpoint damage is my intent and UACs don’t get a free pass.
• Missiles
  
  • SRM
    
    • TCS: 4.167 per missile
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 24 missiles
      
    • Note: These are underpowered right now; I figure they’ll end up about 2.0 damage. The values in [ ] are based on SRMs feeling right.
  • SSRM
    
    • TCS: 6 per missile
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 16 missiles + Change
      
    • Note: These are hopelessly overpowered right now due to their preference for the center torso. This number will look a lot more reasonable once they’re spreading damage around properly.
  • LRM
    
    • TCS: 2.5 per missile
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 40 missiles
      
    • Note: These are in a weird place right now because they seek the core too much, but they don't do enough damage; I’m hoping they increase damage to around 1.5 and make it spread evenly to all components without Artemis and spread mostly equally between all three torsos with Artemis.

THE HUD

Spoiler

This is what Phaesphoros and I have come up with as a HUD mock-up. Phaesphoros gets all artistic and photoshop credit, and I would like to give a shout-out to Tombstoner that first threw out the idea of weapon group colors based on post-shot TCL.

Explanation/Labeled:


Idle (TCL == 0):


Firing (TCL == 37.5):


Firing (TCL == 130, no convergence, small accuracy penalty):


Firing (TCL > 200, no convergence, maximum accuracy penalty):

THE EFFECTS ON GAMEPLAY

Spoiler

The immediate impact on gameplay is that damage is either reasonably staggered or inaccurate. It means firing 4xPPCs or 2xAC/20s at once results in a huge accuracy penalty. It means alpha strikes will generally be relegated to oh-**** moments. It means that you'll be able to do around 20 damage per second with pinpoint weapons and still maintain 100% accuracy. It means firing discipline will be back in style - maybe even chain fire.

It means that LRM80 builds will have to be careful and stagger fire a bit instead of getting to melt people with a single volley. It means SRM boats are better off firing two or three at a time instead of putting out the biggest splat possible. Even potential Clan powerhouses will have to pace themselves.

It should be noted that heat will always be the limiting factor in a ‘mech’s damage per second. The TCL dissipates so rapidly that heat will be a far greater concern. Again, you can fight with the targeting computer completely overloaded - you just won’t have convergence. It’s a tactical decision that adds another layer of depth to the gameplay.

THE GOOD

Spoiler

1. It’s a middle-of-the-road solution that robs players of neither convergence nor alpha strikes. It's not going to prevent you from firing four PPCs, but it will force you to either fire two at a time or take the accuracy penalty associated with firing all four. If you're in close it won't matter as much, but it definitely takes a toll on your combat effectiveness at range. An alpha strike with every weapon (on many builds) should be a blast of desperation - not just another shot fired.

You can still have your lasers and SRMs. They both have inherent disadvantages versus pinpoint weapons like PPCs and ballistics, so they receive a penalty that's far less harsh. LRMs and SSRMs take a hit from the loss of target lock if they're spammed too hard, and the loss of Artemis would be a good penalty for spammy ASRM users. You'll see more fire discipline, you'll see more balanced builds, and no one will be able to vaporize you with a single click.

2. It keeps separate balance issues separate. The heat solution, as I mentioned before, will probably be extremely icky. The heat system is part of an intricate web of weapon balance. The problem we're trying to solve stems from convergence not being a thing in tabletop Battletech. Mixing the two issues is going to be both difficult to balance and ineffective in many ways. Keeping them separate allows for different problems to be solved independently of each other.

I think my solution strikes an appropriate balance for convergence. Convergence isn't going away, so aiming is still of the utmost importance (and there are no issues with weird multi-reticle interfaces). At the same time, it's not there to the extent that it facilitates the abuse of mechanics that were never meant to be in place. I want my aim to count for something, but more than 20 or 30 points of damage to a single location is too much reward for too little effort.

3. It is a comprehensive solution. All of the other proposals I've seen address certain aspects, but all of leave them messes to clean up. Hardpoint restrictions only hit non-Canon boats, heat disproportionately affects certain weapon classes, tonnage limits side-step the real issue, the wholesale removal of convergence would be terrible, and I've yet to see anything that meaningfully affects the Clans.

4. It adds an interesting and somewhat believable simulation element. Personally, I’d enjoy an extra layer of complexity to ‘mech combat besides on top of point and shoot. I like the idea of being rewarded for firing discipline while still being able to trade accuracy for brutal, immediate firepower. Some people might be turned off by the extra complexity, but I dig the idea of a meaningful targeting computer.

5. It will make the game less cruel to new players. Frankly, this game is extremely unforgiving. When I see a poor little newbie standing still, I sigh, shake my head, and watch as they pop. Not allowing for massive, accurate, long-range alphas will mean players can take some punishment and adjust, rather than most mistakes spelling certain death.

THE BAD

Spoiler

1. It's more work. It's a whole, new system for PGI to implement. It will require a little work to the HUD, a little work to the UI, some work inside the weapon code, and little bits of work elsewhere. As a game programmer, I'm well aware that it never turns out to be "just that easy." That said, I think this is, at most, a week's worth of man hours from a decent portion of their team (in addition to plenty of testing).

I know how pressed they are for time, but I still think it's worth it. They would do extremely well to fix some of these long-standing balance issues before release is upon us. I'm not suggesting this needs to get put in the pipeline right now; however, these balance issues need to be fixed, and I'm more and more convinced that a heat-based solution will ultimately be messy and unsuccessful.

2. It's additional complexity. As if this game wasn't already confusing enough, Bill wants to add another scale. At a first read, this may sound pretty complex, but it's actually rather intuitive, especially if you've played other shooters with recoil. It would take a minimal amount of work to the HUD to make it easily understandable.

When you actually think about the system's practical effect, it's not that bad. It boils down to "don't fire too many weapons together." Unlike the heat scale, there is no way to change its dissipation rate, and that rate is so high that it doesn't need to be in the back of the pilot's mind like heat. People will adapt and learn to stagger their fire slightly.

In addition, I'd argue that new players won't be hugely affected. They already have a ton of **** to think about, and it'll be self-explanatory (and familiar, if they've played other first person shooters) when their aim goes to **** after firing too many weapons at once. If anything, it will dissuade them from mindlessly alpha striking, causing them to inadvertently learn good heat management.

THE HOMELESS

Spoiler

I understand a lot of people will think this is overblown, too complicated, too new, too dangerous, too homeless, etc., but I've yet to see an adequate solution - simple or complex - to our current balance issues. Though this proposal may be complicated, I feel such a system is the only way to properly adapt the biggest difference between tabletop and realtime. Elegant solutions are not always simple.

I've seen countless posts claiming the problem lies with heat or convergence or alpha strikes, but it really comes down to the combination of convergence and high damage. Heat has a few issues, but it’s not the culprit of our major problems. It should be left out of the solution entirely in favor of something that can also solve issues with large ballistics boats and the impending Clan invasion.

A PREEMPTIVE REBUTTAL

Spoiler

You Say: The accuracy penalty is basically just a random element that is incapable of being overcome by skill. You're nerfing aim.

I Say: You want to talk about skill? Let's talk about putting two 20-damage rounds on target instead of one 40-damage salvo. Let's talk about holding lasers on a location for the entire beam duration. Taking a single, massively-damaging shot that you'd take in any other FPS against a target that's less maneuverable (and typically slower) than an opponent in any other FPS is not skill.

Forcing people to aim more frequently elevates the value of aiming. A consistently good shot won’t as often lose to a lucky alpha. It also introduces the additional skill of fire discipline and knowing when to take the accuracy penalty to put out more damage. It's a tradeoff, and I think it's a fair one.

In a 6xPPC Stalker, all you have to do is pick your moment. You wait, you stalk your prey, you see someone turn their back or shut down, and you melt them. Skill. And this isn't coming from a ****** player that's been nuked one too many times. I sat in the 732 Cheese King for two months, and it was a total joke. No one with less cheese had a chance.

I remember one time when I came back from being AFK to being cored out with orange internals my left torso (running an XL) and under fire. I proceeded to solo kill a Catapult, a Cicada, and a Cataphract; I legged a Raven and scared them off of our base before I died. Sure, good on me for aiming. But what about those other people? They weren't great pilots, but none of them were bad, either. All I had to do was twist away from them, absorb a shot or two, turn back, and with a quick flash, they would inevitably pop.

The thing that strikes me the most is that non-cheese-running players have little-to-no effect on the outcome of most engagements if I run a cheese monster. If I can aim my shots, they lose every time. It doesn't matter whether they're in a Raven or an Atlas - a brawler or a sniper. As long as I can hit my target, it's dead in three shots.

It's not skill, and it’s not balanced. It's a ******* joke, both in terms of game balance and Battletech lore.

You Say: This is an entirely new system with its own potential balance issues.

I Say: Every solution to the current and future balance problems facing this game has potential complications. I believe my solution is better and far less prone to issues of its own because it addresses a separate problem in a separate manner. Shoehorning existing systems to fix a problem they were never meant to solve is going to create complicated and cascading balance problems. This idea is tailor-made to fix the specific problem of high damage to a single component, and that’s exactly what it does.

TL;DR:

• The Problem: Most of our gameplay imbalances result from the combination of high damage and weapon convergence. Convergence is not a bad thing on its own and neither is high damage, but together, they’re killing a lot of the fun. Battletech was balanced with random hit locations, while a first person shooter needs reliable and meaningful aiming.
  
• The Solution: Implement a second scale (targeting computer load or TCL) to limit extreme, pinpoint damage. Each weapon fired in a short span raises the TCL and it dissipates rapidly (100/second). If it goes over 100, convergence is lost, you take an increasing cone of fire penalty, locks are lost, and Artemis stops working. TCL penalties are applied before the shot is fired. You can do extreme, inaccurate damage all at once or you can do stagger your fire to remain accurate.
  
• The Numbers: The goal is to limit pinpoint damage to about 20 damage per second. You'll see the penalties are less severe for weapons that tend to spread damage. 2xPPCs, 1xAC/20, 1xGauss+Change, 8xMedium Lasers, SRM24, LRM40. Full numbers section for more.
  
• The Good: Balances extreme alphas of all kinds (particularly pinpoint), it solves ballistics (unlike a heat penalty), retains (and increases) the value of aiming skill, improves combat pacing, keeps heat untouched, and goes a long way towards balancing Clan technology.
  
• The Bad: Added complexity and more work for PGI.
  
• Why It’s Worth It: A new system is needed to bridge the gap between tabletop balancing and the precision aim of a shooter. I believe my solution adds a believable layer of tactical depth to the game while solving a host of current and future balance issues.

Edit: HUD section updated with the final mock-up. A huge thanks to Phaesphoros for his input, time, and photoshop skills.

How about to ADD lock-On Function on all weapons before a player will be able to release a trigger.
How it works?
1. Line of sight
2. Lock on weapons - lasers, auto-cannons etc. Then Trigger being released
3. Additional aim correction is required in order to put a projectile on the enemy's component. (No auto-aim just trigger lock/release).
3.1 ECM works as usual, for missiles only, does not apply effect on the rest of weapons.
4. Add more heat penalties 40 % - 50 % chance to explode. ( I don't care of TT rules. It is a proven fact that TT - rules do not work for a computer game).
5. Convergence.
5.1 Overheat will require re-calibrate weapon's convergence. ( 5 sec calibration). No calibration means ballistics, lasers and other weapon systems are shooting somewhere else but not at cross-hair.
6. Reactor. Overheat will cause reactor to go to the safe mode and generating 25% less energy. What it means? Movement speed, torso twist, arm aim/movement, jump jets and energy weapons will work at 75% capacity/efficiency. Reactor reload/re-calibration, restart will require to achieve 100% efficiency back.

Most of problems are solved.

Edited by nemesis271989, 07 July 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[Barantor]

Hopefully they read this at some point and either say "yeah" or "we are doing something else".

Also, bump.

[Shiro Matsumoto]

Looks good.

[Archon Adam Steiner]

The first and only good, comprehensive, and accountable set of proposals that I have seen.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

DV McKenna, on 05 July 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2525364

Might be worth transferring the likes.

Gief more likes!

[Dantioch]

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

UPDATE
I've published the full article this thread was a testbed for. You can read it here. Please, do everything in your power to spam the developers with this proposal on here, on Twitter, and through any other medium you can (don't harass the developers IRL, please). It's not often I legitimately care about something, but if they don't fix this problem, I fear that this game will die.

THINK IT'S TOO COMPLEX?

Spoiler

Players operating under this system will need to change two things, and two things only:

• Group weapons properly (total TCS <= 100)
  
• Don’t spam all your weapons at once

Forget about the numbers, the rate of dissipation, the details of the accuracy penalty, and all the other minutia – when you boil it down to the player’s interaction with the system, it’s a simple choice between staggering fire for accuracy or taking a one-time aim penalty for extreme, immediate damage. Players won’t need to micromanage the TCL or time their shots perfectly – they just need to cut back on the alpha spam. Again, weapon cooldown and heat will remain as the only limiters on damage over time.


Furthermore, if you’ve played an FPS with recoil, you’d immediately understand what’s going on; it’s intuitive and perfectly catered to the mass market. Even without that experience, it would take someone perhaps two minutes in the training ground or shooting at a wall to figure out precisely what’s happening.

You want to know what doesn’t have mass market appeal? Getting one- or two-shotted in a game that takes two minutes just to get to the fight.

One huge benefit of my strategy over others is that it will only require players to change one thing: fire discipline. Whereas movement/heat penalties, highly-penalized group fire, and the wait-for-convergence strategy will all fundamentally alter combat and force players to make large changes to how they play, this solution will allow this entire balance problem to be de-coupled from every other system in the game.

Additionally, I think a lot of players are craving more depth and will actually enjoy having an additional simulation element. It’s a sorely-needed later of tactical depth in what has largely become a mindless, point-and-click shooter since ballistic host state rewind.

OP (seriously though, go read the much more organized and thorough article):

Spoiler

PREFACE
Strap on your stupid, kids. This thread is ******* ambitious.

So, I've done a lot of thinking about a combination of balance issues over the past several months. All the way back to the days when Splatcats reigned supreme, I've thought about how best to balance the nature of large bursts of damage without going overboard. The situation got exponentially worse with the poptarting craze after host state rewind for ballistics went live and the arrival of the Highlander.

I will be the first to acknowledge that many aspects of the game's balance need fixing: SRM damage, LRM coring/damage, SSRM coring, pulse lasers, hit detection, etc. I also won’t deny that hardpoint restrictions, penalties for overheating, and tonnage limitations would cut back a lot of the cheese, but none of them are a sufficient solutions to many of the short- and long-term balance issues MWO faces.

The crux of a lot of the major balance problems is that being able to deal more than 20 or 30 points of damage to a single location in a single click - particularly at range - is bad. Separately, neither massive alpha strikes nor convergence is a bad thing, but together, they create a nasty scenario where a couple of clicks is enough to vaporize an opponent. It's undesirable, both in terms of gameplay and from a Battletech lore standpoint. There's absolutely no incentive to fire two shots at 20 damage when you could fire one for 40 damage.

Last I've heard, the solution in the pipe is some sort of boating heat penalty. No one knows what this would end up as. A heat penalty for simply equipping a certain number of a certain type of weapon? A penalty for group fire? A penalty for firing them within a certain time frame? Would penalties only apply to the stacking of the same weapon? For a certain number of weapons? For all weapons? At the end of the day, I don't give a ****. I say that because I don't think any of them are the right solution.

FORGET HEAT

Spoiler

I'll caveat this: I'd rather have a heat penalty than nothing if it has some positive effect on the problem of pinpoint alpha strikes. But day by day, I grow increasingly wary of the balance issues it will bring.

Edit: I'm going to caveat my caveat... the way PGI is doing it isn't going to fix anything. In addition, I've decided that because it will never get ripped out once it goes in, it just shouldn't go in. The real issue needs to be addressed.

1. It's going to be super arbitrary and hard to balance. I'd like to have faith in PGI to get the numbers right, but they frankly haven't impressed me in that category so far. They're getting better and better, but sculpting such an intricate layer on top of the heat system sounds pretty dangerous. There are so many weapon combinations that I think it will be extraordinarily difficult to integrate into what is already a delicate system.

2. It will punish players for doing it, but it won’t prevent them from doing it. Even assuming the heat balancing goes well, the penalties will have to be ridiculously severe to truly deal with things like the 4xPPC Stalker. It still doesn't solve that single, massive, focused burst that’s enough to leg a light whether by a skilled or lucky hand. It doesn't prevent them from doing what they do; it just means they'll have to be a little smarter about picking their shots.

3. This is the big one for me: it doesn't solve ballistics. No one really cares about this yet, but you will. You will if they decide to drop an Annihilator or Mauler on us. The minute we get something that can mount 4xUAC/5s plus change AND has the ability tank a good amount of damage, people will be ******** their pants. Even if they put ridiculous heat penalties on the autocannons, the Gauss rifle will continue to kick copious amounts of ***. 2xPPC + 2xGauss is pretty hard to solve with heat.

The AC/40 Catapult has to sacrifice speed, and the AC/40 Jagermech is really squishy. They're cheesy and still far too good for their weight, but they have exploitable weaknesses. Even if heat fixed PPCs and autocannons, once something that can effectively mount 3 Gauss rifles drops, it’s time to break out the tear jars. On the flip-side, it could also mean PGI avoids any 'mech that can boat large ballistics simply because they have no good way to balance them. Which is a really ****** solution. I want the Devastator and Annihilator, and I'll be damned if balance issues prevent that.

A WORD ON OVERHEAT PENALTIES

Spoiler

I agree that high-heat effects and permanent penalties (whether it's damage, convergence issues, speed loss, or whatever) from overheating should be implemented. It's an issue worthy of its own thread and discussion. But I also don't think it will solve this. Again, focusing on heat largely ignores ballistics.

A WORD ON HARDPOINT RESTRICTIONS

Spoiler

I think it should be implemented, but it doesn't solve 'mechs like this or this or this.

I'll probably be doing a write-up on hardpoint restrictions at another time. Though I think it's a good idea and it would help curb ridiculous boating (particularly with the current 'mech selection), it won't be an effective long-term solution to the problem.

A WORD ON TONNAGE LIMITS

Spoiler

I’ll agree that there should be far more mediums and far fewer assaults than what we see today, and I think that PGI needs to incentivize playing as mediums and lights over heavies and assaults. That said, the game should have some semblance of balance regardless of what people bring. My solution allows assault ‘mechs to continue to reign supreme in combat while making it much more difficult for them to leg a light or pop a medium with a single salvo. I support more balanced matches, but I think it still ignores the problem. Plus, tonnage limitation completely ignores the problem posed by the incoming Clan cheese like this.

MY REASONING

Spoiler

I believe a new system is necessary to deal with the major differences between tabletop and realtime Battletech that stem from convergence. No one wants a random number generator to decide where they hit in a first person shooter, but Battletech was balanced based on that very premise. A shooter needs responsive aim, but visceral, plodding 'mech combat needs something to limit pinpoint damage. My solution is essentially meant to be the bridge between the two requirements.

I realize this is an entirely new system that has its own potential problems, but I believe it is the best solution to a host of balance issues. My solution will avoid the quagmire of messing with the heat system, encourage more tactical shooting without slowing the pace of the game, effectively balance the focused alpha potential of every kind of weapon, solve the problem for ballistics (unlike heat penalties), add a strategic element to fire discipline, and I don't think it goes overboard.

Another extremely positive benefit is that it will also serve as a partial check to some of the imbalance of massively superior Clan technology. I figure most people are thinking what I'm thinking: Clans should be superior... but 80-damage pinpoint alpha strike superior? 4xSSRM6 + 2xERPPC on a heavily-armored 'mech going over 80kph superior? It's a fine line between "this **** is dangerous, but we can beat it" and, "Oh my god no." So, without further adieu...

THE SOLUTION

Spoiler

No skimming on this part. My solution is to implement a scale that represents the load on the targeting computer (TCL). Each weapon would, similar to heat, have an associated targeting computer stress value (TCS). When a weapon (or group) is fired, the stress value of all about-to-fire weapons are added to the load on the targeting computer. The targeting computer load automatically dissipates at a constant rate of 100 per second.

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.

From 101 to 200, the accuracy penalty gets progressively worse (the cone of fire expands). Each weapon fires at its own accuracy offset, rather than all picking the same skew. The pilot can continue to drive the targeting computer load up to a maximum of 500 by continuing to fire, but the effects of a targeting computer overload reach their worst at 200.

To clarify, you can't get away with one free alpha strike; TCL values are added and penalties are applied before the shots are fired.

THE NUMBERS

Spoiler

Keep in mind that these numbers are meant to demonstrate the spirit of what I’m going for. Don’t get caught up in the minutia - it’s just a starting point. Here’s about where I think the numbers would be based on my observations in the field (these values assume weapon balance as of 6/10/3050).

• Weapon Type
  
  • Weapon Name
    
    • Targeting Computer Stress: #
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: # (the number you can fire simultaneously without overloading the targeting computer)
      
    • */Note: (If applicable)
• Energy
  
  • Small Laser
    
    • TCS: 10
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 10
  • Medium Laser
    
    • TCS: 12.5
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 8
  • (ER)Large Laser
    
    • TCS: 25
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 4
  • Small Pulse Laser
    
    • TCS: 10
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 10
  • Medium Pulse Laser
    
    • TCS: 15
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 6 + Change
  • Large Pulse Laser
    
    • TCS: 30
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 3 + Change
  • (ER)PPC
    
    • TCS: 50
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 2
• Ballistics
  
  • Machine Gun
    
    • TCS: 0.8 (8 / second)
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 125
      
    • Continuous Fire: 12 + Change
  • Gauss Rifle
    
    • TCS: 75
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 1 + Change
  • AC/2
    
    • TCS: 10 (20 / second)*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 10
      
    • Continuous Fire: 5
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • AC/5
    
    • TCS: 25*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 4
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • AC/10
    
    • TCS: 50*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 2
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • AC/20
    
    • TCS: 100*
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 1
      
    • *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
  • LBX/10
    
    • TCS: 30* [40]
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 3 + Change [2 + Change]
      
    • *Value for LBX Autocannons is based on caliber (3/caliber) [4/caliber]
      
    • Note: These are underpowered and need damage adjusted to 1.2 per pellet or something. The values in [ ] are based on the LBX getting some love.
  • UAC/5
    
    • TCS: 25* initial shot, 12.5* double-tap
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: Depends on double-tap usage
      
    • *Value for UAC is based on caliber (5/caliber initial shot, 2.5/caliber double-tap)
      
    • Note: An Ultra Autocannon does not add its TCS to the TCL if it jams.
      
    • Note: Ultra Autocannons are a bit awkward with the double-tap. This setup allows UACs to serve their intended purpose without bypassing the penalty. You may notice that with current TCS values, a UAC/20 would take a partial accuracy penalty on the first double-tapped shot. This is intentional as limiting pinpoint damage is my intent and UACs don’t get a free pass.
• Missiles
  
  • SRM
    
    • TCS: 4.167 per missile
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 24 missiles
      
    • Note: These are underpowered right now; I figure they’ll end up about 2.0 damage. The values in [ ] are based on SRMs feeling right.
  • SSRM
    
    • TCS: 6 per missile
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 16 missiles + Change
      
    • Note: These are hopelessly overpowered right now due to their preference for the center torso. This number will look a lot more reasonable once they’re spreading damage around properly.
  • LRM
    
    • TCS: 2.5 per missile
      
    • Simultaneous Fire: 40 missiles
      
    • Note: These are in a weird place right now because they seek the core too much, but they don't do enough damage; I’m hoping they increase damage to around 1.5 and make it spread evenly to all components without Artemis and spread mostly equally between all three torsos with Artemis.

THE HUD

Spoiler

This is what Phaesphoros and I have come up with as a HUD mock-up. Phaesphoros gets all artistic and photoshop credit, and I would like to give a shout-out to Tombstoner that first threw out the idea of weapon group colors based on post-shot TCL.

Explanation/Labeled:


Idle (TCL == 0):


Firing (TCL == 37.5):


Firing (TCL == 130, no convergence, small accuracy penalty):


Firing (TCL > 200, no convergence, maximum accuracy penalty):

THE EFFECTS ON GAMEPLAY

Spoiler

The immediate impact on gameplay is that damage is either reasonably staggered or inaccurate. It means firing 4xPPCs or 2xAC/20s at once results in a huge accuracy penalty. It means alpha strikes will generally be relegated to oh-**** moments. It means that you'll be able to do around 20 damage per second with pinpoint weapons and still maintain 100% accuracy. It means firing discipline will be back in style - maybe even chain fire.

It means that LRM80 builds will have to be careful and stagger fire a bit instead of getting to melt people with a single volley. It means SRM boats are better off firing two or three at a time instead of putting out the biggest splat possible. Even potential Clan powerhouses will have to pace themselves.

It should be noted that heat will always be the limiting factor in a ‘mech’s damage per second. The TCL dissipates so rapidly that heat will be a far greater concern. Again, you can fight with the targeting computer completely overloaded - you just won’t have convergence. It’s a tactical decision that adds another layer of depth to the gameplay.

THE GOOD

Spoiler

1. It’s a middle-of-the-road solution that robs players of neither convergence nor alpha strikes. It's not going to prevent you from firing four PPCs, but it will force you to either fire two at a time or take the accuracy penalty associated with firing all four. If you're in close it won't matter as much, but it definitely takes a toll on your combat effectiveness at range. An alpha strike with every weapon (on many builds) should be a blast of desperation - not just another shot fired.

You can still have your lasers and SRMs. They both have inherent disadvantages versus pinpoint weapons like PPCs and ballistics, so they receive a penalty that's far less harsh. LRMs and SSRMs take a hit from the loss of target lock if they're spammed too hard, and the loss of Artemis would be a good penalty for spammy ASRM users. You'll see more fire discipline, you'll see more balanced builds, and no one will be able to vaporize you with a single click.

2. It keeps separate balance issues separate. The heat solution, as I mentioned before, will probably be extremely icky. The heat system is part of an intricate web of weapon balance. The problem we're trying to solve stems from convergence not being a thing in tabletop Battletech. Mixing the two issues is going to be both difficult to balance and ineffective in many ways. Keeping them separate allows for different problems to be solved independently of each other.

I think my solution strikes an appropriate balance for convergence. Convergence isn't going away, so aiming is still of the utmost importance (and there are no issues with weird multi-reticle interfaces). At the same time, it's not there to the extent that it facilitates the abuse of mechanics that were never meant to be in place. I want my aim to count for something, but more than 20 or 30 points of damage to a single location is too much reward for too little effort.

3. It is a comprehensive solution. All of the other proposals I've seen address certain aspects, but all of leave them messes to clean up. Hardpoint restrictions only hit non-Canon boats, heat disproportionately affects certain weapon classes, tonnage limits side-step the real issue, the wholesale removal of convergence would be terrible, and I've yet to see anything that meaningfully affects the Clans.

4. It adds an interesting and somewhat believable simulation element. Personally, I’d enjoy an extra layer of complexity to ‘mech combat besides on top of point and shoot. I like the idea of being rewarded for firing discipline while still being able to trade accuracy for brutal, immediate firepower. Some people might be turned off by the extra complexity, but I dig the idea of a meaningful targeting computer.

5. It will make the game less cruel to new players. Frankly, this game is extremely unforgiving. When I see a poor little newbie standing still, I sigh, shake my head, and watch as they pop. Not allowing for massive, accurate, long-range alphas will mean players can take some punishment and adjust, rather than most mistakes spelling certain death.

THE BAD

Spoiler

1. It's more work. It's a whole, new system for PGI to implement. It will require a little work to the HUD, a little work to the UI, some work inside the weapon code, and little bits of work elsewhere. As a game programmer, I'm well aware that it never turns out to be "just that easy." That said, I think this is, at most, a week's worth of man hours from a decent portion of their team (in addition to plenty of testing).

I know how pressed they are for time, but I still think it's worth it. They would do extremely well to fix some of these long-standing balance issues before release is upon us. I'm not suggesting this needs to get put in the pipeline right now; however, these balance issues need to be fixed, and I'm more and more convinced that a heat-based solution will ultimately be messy and unsuccessful.

2. It's additional complexity. As if this game wasn't already confusing enough, Bill wants to add another scale. At a first read, this may sound pretty complex, but it's actually rather intuitive, especially if you've played other shooters with recoil. It would take a minimal amount of work to the HUD to make it easily understandable.

When you actually think about the system's practical effect, it's not that bad. It boils down to "don't fire too many weapons together." Unlike the heat scale, there is no way to change its dissipation rate, and that rate is so high that it doesn't need to be in the back of the pilot's mind like heat. People will adapt and learn to stagger their fire slightly.

In addition, I'd argue that new players won't be hugely affected. They already have a ton of **** to think about, and it'll be self-explanatory (and familiar, if they've played other first person shooters) when their aim goes to **** after firing too many weapons at once. If anything, it will dissuade them from mindlessly alpha striking, causing them to inadvertently learn good heat management.

THE HOMELESS

Spoiler

I understand a lot of people will think this is overblown, too complicated, too new, too dangerous, too homeless, etc., but I've yet to see an adequate solution - simple or complex - to our current balance issues. Though this proposal may be complicated, I feel such a system is the only way to properly adapt the biggest difference between tabletop and realtime. Elegant solutions are not always simple.

I've seen countless posts claiming the problem lies with heat or convergence or alpha strikes, but it really comes down to the combination of convergence and high damage. Heat has a few issues, but it’s not the culprit of our major problems. It should be left out of the solution entirely in favor of something that can also solve issues with large ballistics boats and the impending Clan invasion.

A PREEMPTIVE REBUTTAL

Spoiler

You Say: The accuracy penalty is basically just a random element that is incapable of being overcome by skill. You're nerfing aim.

I Say: You want to talk about skill? Let's talk about putting two 20-damage rounds on target instead of one 40-damage salvo. Let's talk about holding lasers on a location for the entire beam duration. Taking a single, massively-damaging shot that you'd take in any other FPS against a target that's less maneuverable (and typically slower) than an opponent in any other FPS is not skill.

Forcing people to aim more frequently elevates the value of aiming. A consistently good shot won’t as often lose to a lucky alpha. It also introduces the additional skill of fire discipline and knowing when to take the accuracy penalty to put out more damage. It's a tradeoff, and I think it's a fair one.

In a 6xPPC Stalker, all you have to do is pick your moment. You wait, you stalk your prey, you see someone turn their back or shut down, and you melt them. Skill. And this isn't coming from a ****** player that's been nuked one too many times. I sat in the 732 Cheese King for two months, and it was a total joke. No one with less cheese had a chance.

I remember one time when I came back from being AFK to being cored out with orange internals my left torso (running an XL) and under fire. I proceeded to solo kill a Catapult, a Cicada, and a Cataphract; I legged a Raven and scared them off of our base before I died. Sure, good on me for aiming. But what about those other people? They weren't great pilots, but none of them were bad, either. All I had to do was twist away from them, absorb a shot or two, turn back, and with a quick flash, they would inevitably pop.

The thing that strikes me the most is that non-cheese-running players have little-to-no effect on the outcome of most engagements if I run a cheese monster. If I can aim my shots, they lose every time. It doesn't matter whether they're in a Raven or an Atlas - a brawler or a sniper. As long as I can hit my target, it's dead in three shots.

It's not skill, and it’s not balanced. It's a ******* joke, both in terms of game balance and Battletech lore.

You Say: This is an entirely new system with its own potential balance issues.

I Say: Every solution to the current and future balance problems facing this game has potential complications. I believe my solution is better and far less prone to issues of its own because it addresses a separate problem in a separate manner. Shoehorning existing systems to fix a problem they were never meant to solve is going to create complicated and cascading balance problems. This idea is tailor-made to fix the specific problem of high damage to a single component, and that’s exactly what it does.

TL;DR:

• The Problem: Most of our gameplay imbalances result from the combination of high damage and weapon convergence. Convergence is not a bad thing on its own and neither is high damage, but together, they’re killing a lot of the fun. Battletech was balanced with random hit locations, while a first person shooter needs reliable and meaningful aiming.
  
• The Solution: Implement a second scale (targeting computer load or TCL) to limit extreme, pinpoint damage. Each weapon fired in a short span raises the TCL and it dissipates rapidly (100/second). If it goes over 100, convergence is lost, you take an increasing cone of fire penalty, locks are lost, and Artemis stops working. TCL penalties are applied before the shot is fired. You can do extreme, inaccurate damage all at once or you can do stagger your fire to remain accurate.
  
• The Numbers: The goal is to limit pinpoint damage to about 20 damage per second. You'll see the penalties are less severe for weapons that tend to spread damage. 2xPPCs, 1xAC/20, 1xGauss+Change, 8xMedium Lasers, SRM24, LRM40. Full numbers section for more.
  
• The Good: Balances extreme alphas of all kinds (particularly pinpoint), it solves ballistics (unlike a heat penalty), retains (and increases) the value of aiming skill, improves combat pacing, keeps heat untouched, and goes a long way towards balancing Clan technology.
  
• The Bad: Added complexity and more work for PGI.
  
• Why It’s Worth It: A new system is needed to bridge the gap between tabletop balancing and the precision aim of a shooter. I believe my solution adds a believable layer of tactical depth to the game while solving a host of current and future balance issues.

Edit: HUD section updated with the final mock-up. A huge thanks to Phaesphoros for his input, time, and photoshop skills.

nice work dude, but this game has nothing to do with MW , for starters all the mechs run tu fast for 3025, sec. they have way to much HP s, thats why every sucker ,runns liht and med mechs, than the fire power of the lights and meds arw way to much,
so u r faster, u got the same fire power and u allmost indistractable compared to hvy and assault mechs, no falling make the pilot part lol ig, there is no skill involved when running around with a light +++,fix this that a jenner dies again from one aflfa of n hvy or assault than we r talking abouth MW, and normaly when u get hit from a hvy+ u loose at least body pards or massive dam to some, but this here is an ***** game made from ,for idiots and, why the f...... u just do pay content for the last year.
allmost every new map is cr ap,and the rest like the dropship mode and some real content is mising at all, so basicly u all got duped lol,but thats is no prblem, becourse u r conditiont to not think for ur self any more!

{Noble MechWarrior} F....

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Dantioch, on 08 July 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

nice work dude, but this game has nothing to do with MW , for starters all the mechs run tu fast for 3025, sec. they have way to much HP s, thats why every sucker ,runns liht and med mechs, than the fire power of the lights and meds arw way to much,
so u r faster, u got the same fire power and u allmost indistractable compared to hvy and assault mechs, no falling make the pilot part lol ig, there is no skill involved when running around with a light +++,fix this that a jenner dies again from one aflfa of n hvy or assault than we r talking abouth MW, and normaly when u get hit from a hvy+ u loose at least body pards or massive dam to some, but this here is an ***** game made from ,for idiots and, why the f...... u just do pay content for the last year.
allmost every new map is cr ap,and the rest like the dropship mode and some real content is mising at all, so basicly u all got duped lol,but thats is no prblem, becourse u r conditiont to not think for ur self any more!

{Noble MechWarrior} F....

I think your playing a different game to most people, Light mechs and mediums are incredibly vulnerable, especially mediums...who have the worst of everything at the moment.

[Sen]

I had a similar thought, though it was based around engine power output. Even a quarter or half second delay between shots should mitigate those one hit kills

unless the target is standing still. . .

in which case he deserves to die

[Falso]

Excellent Idea!

I really think you have got something here, I think that laser beam time might have to be adjusted to equal things out a bit, (or ammo for ballistic weapons adjusted) but your system really makes sense!

I truly hope that PGI is able to implement something similar soon, I agree most of all with the idea of "prevent the ability to load high alpha pin-point damage rather than punish for using".

I have never been a fan of the Nerf bat, or blaming players for using what works, the "cone of fire" effects were used in closed beta (weapons not tracking properly depending on distance, especially at close ranges with large wide mechs like Atlases) so the mechanics are there, I really think your "targeting computer load/stress" mechanic makes perfect sense!

It allows for skilled shots to still be used, but prevents the ridiculous ability to melt an assault mech in one or two alphas to the CT.

Once we have a mechanic such as this, it will spell the end of FOTM weapons/load-outs.

P.S. I'm really wanting a Mauler/Devastator in game, but not destroy game balance, heck, right now just a Warhawk (Masakari) would do what the Stalker does now, with Clan tech! You know there is something strange going on when light mechs are running around with ERPPC's

[GoriKarafong]

I support that and will tell others about it. PGI should better read this carefully.

[Homeless Bill]

nemesis271989, on 07 July 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

How about to ADD lock-On Function on all weapons before a player will be able to release a trigger.
How it works?
1. Line of sight
2. Lock on weapons - lasers, auto-cannons etc. Then Trigger being released
3. Additional aim correction is required in order to put a projectile on the enemy's component. (No auto-aim just trigger lock/release).
3.1 ECM works as usual, for missiles only, does not apply effect on the rest of weapons.
4. Add more heat penalties 40 % - 50 % chance to explode. ( I don't care of TT rules. It is a proven fact that TT - rules do not work for a computer game).
5. Convergence.
5.1 Overheat will require re-calibrate weapon's convergence. ( 5 sec calibration). No calibration means ballistics, lasers and other weapon systems are shooting somewhere else but not at cross-hair.
6. Reactor. Overheat will cause reactor to go to the safe mode and generating 25% less energy. What it means? Movement speed, torso twist, arm aim/movement, jump jets and energy weapons will work at 75% capacity/efficiency. Reactor reload/re-calibration, restart will require to achieve 100% efficiency back.

Most of problems are solved.

Personally, I think it changes too many things about gameplay to be safe. It's a dramatic shift in gameplay, and without being implemented properly, it will have all sorts of unintended consequences. I encourage you to check out this proposal, which may be more to your liking.

My proposal keeps this game as a Battletech-skinned shooter; Doc's proposal pushes it towards being a Battletech simulator.

DV McKenna, on 07 July 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

Gief more likes!

Fear not, citizen. Once they answer my ATD question about release (which, admittedly, may never happen), I'll be begging for a response in the rest of the ATDs. It did get a lot more support than I was expecting buried on the last page, though.

Dantioch, on 08 July 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

nice work dude, but this game has nothing to do with MW , for starters all the mechs run tu fast for 3025, sec. they have way to much HP s, thats why every sucker ,runns liht and med mechs, than the fire power of the lights and meds arw way to much,
so u r faster, u got the same fire power and u allmost indistractable compared to hvy and assault mechs, no falling make the pilot part lol ig, there is no skill involved when running around with a light +++,fix this that a jenner dies again from one aflfa of n hvy or assault than we r talking abouth MW, and normaly when u get hit from a hvy+ u loose at least body pards or massive dam to some, but this here is an ***** game made from ,for idiots and, why the f...... u just do pay content for the last year.
allmost every new map is cr ap,and the rest like the dropship mode and some real content is mising at all, so basicly u all got duped lol,but thats is no prblem, becourse u r conditiont to not think for ur self any more!

{Noble MechWarrior} F....

I don't think you're playing this game at all. Lights don't go fast enough (artificial speed cap), there aren't enough internal hitpoints (makes the critical system worthless), and lights do die in one hit - and all of those are problems. Instagib deaths have no places in this sort of game.

Honestly, it sounds like you'd really like the game in its current state; you should try it.

Falso, on 08 July 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

I really think you have got something here, I think that laser beam time might have to be adjusted to equal things out a bit, (or ammo for ballistic weapons adjusted) but your system really makes sense!

I truly hope that PGI is able to implement something similar soon, I agree most of all with the idea of "prevent the ability to load high alpha pin-point damage rather than punish for using".

I have never been a fan of the Nerf bat, or blaming players for using what works,

It allows for skilled shots to still be used, but prevents the ridiculous ability to melt an assault mech in one or two alphas to the CT.

P.S. I'm really wanting a Mauler/Devastator in game, but not destroy game balance, heck, right now just a Warhawk (Masakari) would do what the Stalker does now, with Clan tech! You know there is something strange going on when light mechs are running around with ERPPC's

In my mind, if any weapons need adjusting, it just means my TCS numbers are off. Again, one of the biggest advantages of this system is that it's modular - it should not require a single other balance change to just plop in and start working. If a certain class of weapon is getting the shaft, up the TCS values to improve its boating viability.

Prevention, in my mind, is the only way to go. Even if they blow up in a single shot, why let someone mount 7xPPCs and fire them off all at once? All a sniper needs is one shot on anything 50 tons or below, and it's over.

Blaming the players is something I really detest when I see it happening. Competitive players run whatever works the best, and that's not their fault. You can call it cheesy and unskilled, but it's really that they have no intention of giving their opponents a competitive advantage by not running what's best. When you play to win, you play with cheese. PGI need to fix the cheese.


I'm fine with skilled players continuing to kick *** at sniping. If you can put two shots on target spread across a second, you deserve the 40 damage to a single component.

The Warhawk would be less dangerous as a hill-humper, but infinitely more scary overall. Having those lower arm actuators means terrific aiming, and the increased engine size means it will have some serious speed and maneuvering capability. I just hope they don't go all-in on heat fixes and avoid chassis that can avoid the penalties.

[Hercu1]

Awesome Idea Bill
　


PGI should take the time to have a better balancing tool in place. If they have hopes to compete with other games that will be coming out soon, like Star Citizen, they should anyway.

[Peter2000]

I was highly skeptical, but after reading this new, full version in its entirety, I think it's a great system (though there are other ways of achieving similar goals, this one is quite elegant).

Implementing and balancing a new system may take time, though, so the devs should probably bring PPCs into line with other energy weapons in the meantime, and buff SRMs...

Edited by Peter2000, 08 July 2013 - 03:26 PM.

[sarkun]

I approve of this idea.

I've long since felt that the root of most of our balance issues is that we can aim while in TT we couldn't. So we either ditch all of TT, or nerf aiming somehow. Your solution is pretty much spot on I think.

[Malora Sidewinder]

This seems like it could work... But it also seems like if poorly executed it could actually kill the game.

If given one shot, make it work.