704 replies to this topic

[Immitem]

I really like listening what you have to say so I will ask some more questions that I do not believe have been asked.

What do you personally think could go wrong with implementing this both community and gameplay wise?

From what you have already observed of PGI's competence, how well do you think they could implement this or how badly could they screw it up?

Lastly, what in your mind could be altered in this gameplay mechanic to make it a terrible system, some little tweak that actually breaks the game in your opinion?

[Ares Morgan]

It looks like a solid answer to the alpha problem.

[Cubivorre]

Bill, you've got some fantastic ideas that I normally agree with. However, this new idea assumes something that will always prevent it from being implemented.




PGI is not lazy.

[WHITERABBITS]

+1 just sayin.

Love to know what homeless guy thinks about the current turning circles too

[SgtMaster]

test this in the test server, resolve the issues if any, before releasing to general public.

[N0V0CAIN]

This is only common sense, PGI understand that when you think you are the smartest person in the room you stop listening to alternate ideas, when alternate ideas fail so will this game. You should explore the feasibility of what this post discusses.

PGI, you have many dedicated players that will help you create a game for the ages. Just listen and try new things.

[Homeless Bill]

Peter2000, on 08 July 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

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...

There's nothing quite as satisfying as convincing a skeptic, particularly one I respect as a player.

I agree that changing SRM damage is the single biggest easy win they can take right now. For PPCs, I just think they need a velocity decrease to ~1300m/s. They shouldn't be easier to snipe with than a heavy, ammo-dependent weapon so snipe-oriented that it's built to explode. But that's just me.

Malora Sidewinder, on 08 July 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

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.

I'm curious as to what you think it could do to kill the game? Unless they throw out my numbers and come up with their own really bad ones, I don't see much that could go wrong. The game will pay exactly as it does now provided you stagger your fire a bit. The only new thing it adds is inaccuracy for one-click wonders. I think the threshold for when my system actually does anything is high enough that it really won't affect most players in a big way. That said, if you have specific concerns, I'd love to hear them (what doesn't kill the idea makes it stronger).

Immitem, on 08 July 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

I really like listening what you have to say so I will ask some more questions that I do not believe have been asked.

What do you personally think could go wrong with implementing this both community and gameplay wise?

From what you have already observed of PGI's competence, how well do you think they could implement this or how badly could they screw it up?

Lastly, what in your mind could be altered in this gameplay mechanic to make it a terrible system, some little tweak that actually breaks the game in your opinion?

The community will whine. It always does. You'll hear a lot about "nerfing aim" and how it's "overkill." After it goes in, I really don't see a lot of whine about the impacts on gameplay. There are only a couple things that could go majorly wrong from my perspective:

• They Totally **** Up the Numbers - If they just disregard my numbers in a big way but use the system, it could cause problems. Tying TCS to something like damage will nerf the very weapons it tries to save, while making pinpoint weapons even more desirable. Again, with my baseline numbers, I see no big problems. Tweaking will need to happen, but nothing major.
  
• They Frankenstein My System in a Big Way - As I'll get to later when answering your last question, every piece of this system has a purpose. I've thought through every part of it, trying to trim it back as much as possible while also retaining 100% solvency. The more they deviate from my original vision, the less effective it will be (probably).

At the end of the day, one of the big reasons I like my system is that I have a difficult time seeing any negative impact on gameplay. It spreads ridiculous one-click damage and doesn't do a whole hell of a lot else. Moreover, it should be implemented in a way that it would take no more than flipping a switch in code to turn it off (several easy ways to do this).

In terms of PGI's ability to do this, I think it's incredibly straight-forward. I'd say my time estimates are pretty accurate. In code, this is nothing more than a simplified heat scale that interacts with the convergence system they've already programmed. Cone of fire is a joke to add to any game. The numbers are just one more thing to add to the game data file / importer / exporter. If they don't stray too far from doing exactly what I've laid out, I don't see anything going wrong.

Basically, anything that gets changed about the system will make it less effective in some way. The Clarification sections and a lot of the Rebuttals sections are about various ways that you could change or simplify my system. As previously mentioned, tying TCS directly to damage would be horrible. Implementing the system without loss of convergence would just force the game into close range. Implementing the system without cone of fire would leave some cheese mostly untouched (HGN-732 with 3xPPC in RT). Missile spread instead of losing lock would be confusing an un-intuitive because of the delayed effect. Tying accuracy strictly to chain-fire is too draconian and hurts strikers (like mediums really need a nerf).

The list goes on. I've had all of these arguments with myself already, and what remains is the cleanest implementation that still solves everything. It would be hard for them to make this mechanic game-breaking, but with the right combination of alcohol and not-doing-what-I-say, they could probably manage.

Cubivorre, on 09 July 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

Bill, you've got some fantastic ideas that I normally agree with. However, this new idea assumes something that will always prevent it from being implemented.

PGI is not lazy.

I'd find that argument a lot more palatable if I didn't think heat penalties were an essentially equivalent amount of work. Over the long run, my system will save them weeks worth of playing the chase-the-tail balance game with each new FOTM.

At the end of the day, you're probably right, and they'll look at this proposal and say, "It's too complicated and there's too much work involved," without ever actually approaching it with an open mind. And that's if anyone reads this at all.

WHITERABBITS, on 09 July 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

+1 just sayin.

Love to know what homeless guy thinks about the current turning circles too

Turning circles? Do you mean the turning radius of 'mechs or something else?

SgtMaster, on 09 July 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

test this in the test server, resolve the issues if any, before releasing to general public.

It's pretty much the perfect candidate.

[DeeBeeP]

I like the underlying idea behind the system your proposed and comparing it to "recoil". Though most of the changes to the HUD seem unnecessary. I could see it being boiled down to just having a ballooning targeting reticle to show that you are losing accuracy. I feel like that would be intuitive enough for anyone to figure out that the more and bigger weapons they fire at once the more wild their shots will be.

To use one of your examples from FPS'. Its common knowledge that when you are using a sniper rifle, moving while scoped in greatly reduces your accuracy. There is no accuracy bar that is telling you your shots will be less accurate but you simply know by the sway of the crosshairs.

Similarly in counter-strike skilled players would learn the patterns of recoil unique to each weapon so that a skilled player would anticipate the recoil of the next round and aim accordingly. The same would probably happen with skilled pilots who would know where to aim specific weapons or groups when they have no convergence.

[N0V0CAIN]

PGI, if you watch your own PGI 8 man they recognize the same thing that we as a group has been saying. PPC's are littering the mech landscape. Granted the use of PPC's increase with the increase in ELO, and most people who seriously care about the longevity of the game are the vocal minority but being good the find every exploit and utilize them. Your concentration should be how competitive 8 mans run their groups and learn from them. IF there is something that gives them an advantage it will be used.

Ignore this thread only if you are working on a better plan.

[Qarnage]

Love love love!

[lpmagic]

There is no better explanation, and fix I have seen to date. Very sincere, very well put together, and it is not being trolled, intelligent questions are being asked here, and answered. Well done Mr. Homeless, fantastic ideas!!! Please PGI let us help you make this the best game ever!!!! this is a wonderful start read it, think on it, come play for a while and see how it sinks in...Nice work!!

[Pht]

sarkun, on 08 July 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

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.

The mechwarrior in the TT aims; and even at specific locations of a target.

The TT also happens to simulate how well a 'mech can hit what it's pilot is aiming at.

It seems there is rampant ignorance of what the TT represents and what the MW does.

Edited by Pht, 09 July 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

Still like the premise and general system. Always have when I've seen it come up in some form, though no one else has ever put as much thorough work into detailing it out.


Points of contention remain for me however:

Level of complexity can be debated, it's subjective. But entirely dismissing the 'details of the penalties and minutia' is just whitewashing. They do matter. They are part of the player interaction with it.

'Just stagger fire' is oversimplification when that stagger is fluid based upon the last weapon group you fired and what your TCS level was at when you fired it. If the penalties didn't impact the player, they wouldn't be effective penalties. When a player is trying to snap off two sets of grouped weapons into a narrow window of firing opportunity; you can bet that the dissipation rate, convergence and any CoF certainly will matter and involve active thought to management.

Does that mean it's too complex? Matter of opinion. But those aspects do factor into it. You can't just wave them away.



But the one glaring flaw in it remains the missile lock loss, notably for LRM's. In an effort to sweepingly apply punishments to everything, it misses the mark on missile locks. Because they don't actually fit into the primary function of the system and the same penalizing format.

Loss of missile lock is not in any way an equivalent penalty to loss of convergence.

Quote

I also see no reason that the TCL shouldn’t function as the boolean (on or off) punishment that it does for the other weapon types.

But it doesn't for the other weapon types. They are still completely capable of firing at and hitting the target. It's not an on/off punishment, it's on/on with penalty.

Missile lock loss is truly on/off. If applied as it is with other weapons, in the instant before actual firing, then you are creating a dumb-fire of the LRM's. Complete waste of the shot and loss of ammo. If you apply it in the instant after, then you are often likely to still be completely wasting the shot. Unless that lock can be reacquired quickly enough (if it can be at all).

In short, the direct fire shot is still a useful shot and you are likely to be doing damage with it. Just not pinpoint or 100% accurate to aim damage. The loss of missile lock is not just penalizing to less effectiveness, but completely negating the attempted fire the vast majority of the time.

For Streaks, loss of lock means they won't fire (If loss of lock is applied preemptively) and that's preferable. But the loss of lock isn't necessary. The only measure needed is the preventative one of inability to fire.

Simply disable firing until there's sufficient TCS to handle the launch. That's a far more comparable balancing measure for LRM's and Streaks to loss of convergence for other weapons.

In other words, you have the lock. The targeting computer doesn't suddenly lose it because you attempted to fire. That just absolutely makes no sense. It simply says "You just fired your other weapon group (whatever it may be), I haven't completed recalculating a firing solution for that lock with those launchers."

TL;DR - Prevention measure for locked missiles (LRM's and Streaks) not penalty.


Personally, I'd prefer to see missiles in general be properly limited by tubes. That alone would resolve a large portion of LRM boating issues at least. And relegate it to the mechs designed for the role. Some form of TCS value limit by all means should remain (not loss of lock), but it would much less frequently even arise as necessary.

Once more, applaud the work and the system in general. It's one of a few I'd support them attempting to use. Though I'd support proper adjustments made via the current game mechanics as well. It is entirely possible to balance the game with them. I just don't have any faith in their ability to do it that way. Evidenced by the current stacking heat penalty plan.

[Veev]

I like the idea of the system, but I still wish PGI would fix the hit detection issues first.... I need to put together a video about them.....

[Homeless Bill]

DeeBeeP, on 09 July 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

I like the underlying idea behind the system your proposed and comparing it to "recoil". Though most of the changes to the HUD seem unnecessary. I could see it being boiled down to just having a ballooning targeting reticle to show that you are losing accuracy. I feel like that would be intuitive enough for anyone to figure out that the more and bigger weapons they fire at once the more wild their shots will be.

To use one of your examples from FPS'. Its common knowledge that when you are using a sniper rifle, moving while scoped in greatly reduces your accuracy. There is no accuracy bar that is telling you your shots will be less accurate but you simply know by the sway of the crosshairs.

Similarly in counter-strike skilled players would learn the patterns of recoil unique to each weapon so that a skilled player would anticipate the recoil of the next round and aim accordingly. The same would probably happen with skilled pilots who would know where to aim specific weapons or groups when they have no convergence.

The problem with the ballooning reticle is that it doesn't convey to the play preemptively what their shot will look like. Again, you don't get away with one free alpha strike - the penalty is applied before any of your weapons fire. Keeping that in mind, I think the colors for weapon groups and a little bar are a good idea.

Players will learn this system by feel, not by HUD indicators; that said, more player feedback is never a bad thing. Communication is key for newer players.

Pht, on 09 July 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

The mechwarrior in the TT aims; and even at specific locations of a target.

The TT also happens to simulate how well a 'mech can hit what it's pilot is aiming at.

It seems there is rampant ignorance of what the TT represents and what the MW does.

I agree that there's too much hate towards TT, but I also really don't like random when it can be avoided. The whole point of this system is to force a little random only when you're doing something I don't think you should be able to do. I think anything that deviates every shot or group fire burst with a random element is overkill.

Spades Kincaid, on 09 July 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

Still like the premise and general system. Always have when I've seen it come up in some form, though no one else has ever put as much thorough work into detailing it out.


Points of contention remain for me however:

Level of complexity can be debated, it's subjective. But entirely dismissing the 'details of the penalties and minutia' is just whitewashing. They do matter. They are part of the player interaction with it.

'Just stagger fire' is oversimplification when that stagger is fluid based upon the last weapon group you fired and what your TCS level was at when you fired it. If the penalties didn't impact the player, they wouldn't be effective penalties. When a player is trying to snap off two sets of grouped weapons into a narrow window of firing opportunity; you can bet that the dissipation rate, convergence and any CoF certainly will matter and involve active thought to management.

Does that mean it's too complex? Matter of opinion. But those aspects do factor into it. You can't just wave them away.



But the one glaring flaw in it remains the missile lock loss, notably for LRM's. In an effort to sweepingly apply punishments to everything, it misses the mark on missile locks. Because they don't actually fit into the primary function of the system and the same penalizing format.

Loss of missile lock is not in any way an equivalent penalty to loss of convergence.



But it doesn't for the other weapon types. They are still completely capable of firing at and hitting the target. It's not an on/off punishment, it's on/on with penalty.

Missile lock loss is truly on/off. If applied as it is with other weapons, in the instant before actual firing, then you are creating a dumb-fire of the LRM's. Complete waste of the shot and loss of ammo. If you apply it in the instant after, then you are often likely to still be completely wasting the shot. Unless that lock can be reacquired quickly enough (if it can be at all).

In short, the direct fire shot is still a useful shot and you are likely to be doing damage with it. Just not pinpoint or 100% accurate to aim damage. The loss of missile lock is not just penalizing to less effectiveness, but completely negating the attempted fire the vast majority of the time.

For Streaks, loss of lock means they won't fire (If loss of lock is applied preemptively) and that's preferable. But the loss of lock isn't necessary. The only measure needed is the preventative one of inability to fire.

Simply disable firing until there's sufficient TCS to handle the launch. That's a far more comparable balancing measure for LRM's and Streaks to loss of convergence for other weapons.

In other words, you have the lock. The targeting computer doesn't suddenly lose it because you attempted to fire. That just absolutely makes no sense. It simply says "You just fired your other weapon group (whatever it may be), I haven't completed recalculating a firing solution for that lock with those launchers."

TL;DR - Prevention measure for locked missiles (LRM's and Streaks) not penalty.


Personally, I'd prefer to see missiles in general be properly limited by tubes. That alone would resolve a large portion of LRM boating issues at least. And relegate it to the mechs designed for the role. Some form of TCS value limit by all means should remain (not loss of lock), but it would much less frequently even arise as necessary.

Once more, applaud the work and the system in general. It's one of a few I'd support them attempting to use. Though I'd support proper adjustments made via the current game mechanics as well. It is entirely possible to balance the game with them. I just don't have any faith in their ability to do it that way. Evidenced by the current stacking heat penalty plan.

Finally some criticism =D

On Complexity:
I won't disagree that there's inherent complexity in the back end and theory, but the way players will interact with the system will ultimately be by feel. No matter what you're driving or how experienced you are, there will be an adjustment period where you'll be firing your groups too closely or too far apart. After a dozen or so matches, I expect it will become quite natural.

My point is that players will adjust to this system naturally and without having to think about numbers beyond weapon groupings. Unlike heat, where you have to keep an eye on your level at any given 5-second interval, it will be more about a rhythmic pattern of fire for the targeting computer load.

On Missiles:
Now that I think about it, I forgot that LRMs won't track a different target once launched. If they changed that, it wouldn't guarantee dumb-fire - it would just mean you have to re-acquire lock. Without that adjustment, however, I agree that LRMs should just not fire. In fact, I'd be totally fine with that as an alternative in general.

The only thing I'd say is that the missiles would still need to apply their TCS penalty. I want people to manage their shots or pay the price - not be prevented from firing until there's no problem.

SSRMs essentially just wouldn't fire right now. I'd prefer they dumbfire without a lock, but that's just one more thing for them to change. So you get your wish on that one.

I appreciate the feedback =]

[Zyllos]

About the ballooning ridicule and not conveying enough information to the user what is going on, I think the only way your going to get around that is by some indication on the HUD telling them that your TCL at a specific point and will cause your shots to sway off course if you add more TCS. Because you can't know what the player will fire to show them how large their shot will add to it.

But, honestly, I think that is a good thing that some of the CoF details are hidden from the player so they won't exactly know where the variable range of a shot is. They should be able to decipher what TCL they current have, and in knowing that, if you add a large amount of TCS (AC/10, Gauss Rifle, ect), it will most likely miss by a lot but if I add only a small amount of TCS (Medium Laser, SRM/2, ect) that it will only stray a little.

Over time, players will develop a sense in knowing that if you fire an AC/20 and immediately fire 2 Medium Lasers, your shots are going to spray a bit, but they won't be just completely off, unlike if you fired two AC/20s at the same time. Or know that you can maintain a constant barrage of AC/2 and Medium Laser fire and never have the weapons miss the point where your aiming but if you decide to throw in a Large Laser or PPC shot into the mix, you will have to pull back your barrage of AC/2 and Medium Laser fire unless your fine with a bit of CoF.

Interestingly, is it not an issue that players can slow down their fire and still land all their shots into a single point? Sure, its done over time but I still think you will see many CT only damaged mechs, even with this change. But it's hard to tell due to that since pin point fire is spread out over time now instead of at a single moment, that might be enough to enable more spreading of damage.

Edited by Zyllos, 09 July 2013 - 09:03 PM.

[YueFei]

Zyllos, on 09 July 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

Interestingly, is it not an issue that players can slow down their fire and still land all their shots into a single point? Sure, its done over time but I still think you will see many CT only damaged mechs, even with this change. But it's hard to tell due to that since pin point fire is spread out over time now instead of at a single moment, that might be enough to enable more spreading of damage.

With a salvo stretched out over time, people will be able to twist and turn to spread the damage.

And, make it so that weapons impacts on a mech will throw your torso/arms up or down or to the sides (depending on hit location), and one way to make someone's shot miss or hit the wrong panel is to time your own shot to hit him with at the moment he fires.

Then, you'll have two mechs blasting each other with weaponry chattering back and forth in rapid sequences. An alpha strike could be a bit riskier because if you're struck at the exact moment you fire your entire wad of weaponry, it will be thrown off and most of it will miss. You'll have a whole series of mind games between pilots during an exchange of fire... skilled pilots will detect tendencies in their opponent's firing patterns to guess at the moment they will fire a particular weapon or group of weapons, and strike just a split second before they fire, spoiling their aim or rhythm, or both.

Edited by YueFei, 09 July 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[Phaesphoros]

Homeless Bill, on 09 July 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

On Missiles:
Now that I think about it, I forgot that LRMs won't track a different target once launched. If they changed that, it wouldn't guarantee dumb-fire - it would just mean you have to re-acquire lock. Without that adjustment, however, I agree that LRMs should just not fire. In fact, I'd be totally fine with that as an alternative in general.

The only thing I'd say is that the missiles would still need to apply their TCS penalty. I want people to manage their shots or pay the price - not be prevented from firing until there's no problem.

SSRMs essentially just wouldn't fire right now. I'd prefer they dumbfire without a lock, but that's just one more thing for them to change. So you get your wish on that one.

Now, that I think about it, wouldn't it be more realistic if the Targeting Computer would be loaded during the whole flight of the LRMs, SSRMs and during the beam duration of LASERs?
I haven't yet tried to draw consequences from this, but as the aim is to introduce some game mechanics and not to introduce a realistic TC, maybe it can inspire some penalties.

[Pht]

Homeless Bill, on 09 July 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

I agree that there's too much hate towards TT, but I also really don't like random when it can be avoided.

"Random" is only evil when it's used to mean "nonsense results," especially "uncontrollable nonsense results."

Using a hit percentage based upon how well a mech can handle whatever and make the shot isn't anything like this evil sort of "random."

The results are intutive (your mech can't make the shot because you decided to pull the trigger, when, say, your mech was massively overheated, for example)... and thus the results are predictable ... and controllable.

Anyone who thinks the TT combat mechanic, minus the pilot skill simulating parts, is this sort of evil random ... is misinformed.

Or, as happens around here, their mind vacates their bodies whenver they see the words "random," "rng," or "dice."

Quote

The whole point of this system is to force a little random only when you're doing something I don't think you should be able to do. I think anything that deviates every shot or group fire burst with a random element is overkill.

There's something that simply must be gotten straight here; in every facet of the lore (novels, story fluff in the source books, tt rules, the cartoons, etc, etc, etc...), 'mechs from the BT fictional setting are not capable of getting their shots to concentrate under the reticule very tightly. Which is just fine, because the 'mechs from this setting have armor and structure values balanced around this fact.

In plain language, the 'mech's performance levels are paramaount. The mechs always matter in combat, and the way you can spot a skilled mechwarrior is by seeing how well the can account for this factor.

[DEMAX51]

Bill, your solution is phenomenal. Nothing else I've read even comes close to offering as much upside and as little downside as what you've proposed.

I think the system would be fairly self explanatory for newbies in that they wouldn't really have to deeply understand how it works (the math) so long as they see the effects (the inaccuracy of aiming), but veterans could really study the intricacies of the system to build the most viable 'Mechs possible.

The difference between what you're proposing and a simple introduction of CoF is subtle, yet profound: An always-on CoF is an outright nerf to skill, while your implementation will allow skillful players to excel. Skillful play should be rewarded, not curbed at all times by a random number generator.

Your system is FAR better than limiting weapons to chain fire, because the retention of alpha-striking is clutch: alpha-striking has always been a part of MechWarrior, and it is a viable, strategic option under the right circumstances. Being able to alpha-strike with 6 PPCs at 800m with pinpoint damage is bad, but alpha-striking out of desperation at the Atlas who's 100m in front of your face - and knowing that your shots are all likely to land, but over the entire surface of the 'Mech instead of one pinpoint location - is effing sweet! It'll be a high-risk, high-reward maneuver and that's exactly the type of thing this game needs.

The fact that targeting-values can be changed quickly and on the fly to address future balancing issues is also a huge benefit of your system.

All-in-all, thank you for the thought you've put into your proposal and the effort you've put into defending it. I sincerely hope PGI listens to this advice!

Edited by DEMAX51, 09 July 2013 - 11:02 PM.