704 replies to this topic

[Pht]

PS homeless.

Welcome to the backwoods of the suggestion forum.

You're not the only one with a post here on the same topic!

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

[DarkDesigns]

In honesty I dont have the time or patience to read through ALL 30 pages of replies, so there may well be duplication here!

Short version: I like the concept of action-based deliberate inaccuracy with a starting threshold before it takes effect, and the idea that the inaccuracy level gets bumped BEFORE the shot actually fires.

Long version: The tabletop instituted deliberate inaccuracy partially to emulate how 'hard' a shot was to make, which doesnt fully apply to a FPS type game. However the same 'actions' - moving, jumping, overheating, firing - can definitely be applied here. Consider the following:

1) Add a variable amount of TCL when jumping (longer you jump, more built up - possibly also take into account mech tonnage so it affects heavier mechs more), and then remove the nausea-inducing screen shake. JumpSHOOTERS (not snipers) can still hit medium range targets with reasonable accuracy, but full-on jump SNIPING is far less effective.

2) Pulse lasers can actually have NEGATIVE TCL effects, similar to how they work in the tabletop; and this also opens up the potential for targeting computers to enter the game (whenever that happens...)

3) Heat thresholds for accuracy! They were in the tabletop, and would need to be tweaked to work with the existing system... but I could see TCL thresholds being added as you pass something like 50% heat or so.

4) If you lock a target, you could have TCL versus that target be affected by range to target, target movement (jumping?), and optionally ally targeting; remember the tabletop C3 computers? Having someone spotting for you could affect longer range combat (other than LRMs...)

5) In terms of the proposed interface, I'm not so much a fan of coloring the 'weapon group' dots - they're more annoying than informative normally. I'm more thinking of making the crosshairs change color and visibly grow the more TCL inaccuracy is being introduced. Maybe put the TCL bar across the top of the minimap as well; heat on side, TCL on top.

Anyway, this is just my brief response. I *FAR* prefer what you have here over the heat-multiplying concept they're apparently about to drop on us...

Thanks for writing this up, and I hope it gets seriously considered!

[Pht]

To list the aforementioned problems that are inherent in any implementation of a cones of fire system in the MW genre:

Conditions of your own 'Mech that would have to be considered:

----
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your 'Mech running hot (heat makes the 'Mech's myomers resistive and less predictable, causes aiming trouble).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of damage to your 'Mech's arm actuators (Joints & their associated Myomers).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of damage to your 'Mech's sensors (sensors give info to the 'Mech's Targeting computers, be they the normal built in TC's or the extra and more complex TC).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of of damage to each individual weapon (and for multiple stages of damage, if using the much desired expanded critical damage rules from TO, pg 75)."TO" = Tactical Operations, the advanced combat rules.

The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your 'Mech's movement (i.e., if you're running laterally your misses should usually spread behind or ahead of your target, instead of above or below, so the cone has be be squashed into an oval and offset so some of the oval's area is placed to the appropriate "missed shots go here" direction, behind or in front of your target.)
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects oft he accuracy of varying weapons and ammo types at varying ranges (large spread for cluster ammunition, larger spread for weapons like clan heavy lasers, smaller spread for pulse laser weapons, PPCs not focusing at close range).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the environment - forest fires, heavy smoke, extreme rain, heavy fog, extreme windstorms, sandstorms, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes (and hey, who doesn't want an interactive changeable environment at some point in the future?)

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate how being underwater affects each individual weapon in use and what type of weapon it is. (lasers have shorter ranges underwater, etc)


Conditions of the targeted 'Mech that would have to be considered:
----
The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the target's movement on your 'Mech's ability to aim at it.

The volume of the cones has to be properly calculated to emulate the effects of the target's range differently for almost every weapon and even for some ammo types.

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of what kind of cover or concealment the target is behind (more chances of missing targets moving through sporadic cover/concealment).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of trying to target more than one 'Mech at a time.

The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the target 'Mech's attempts at evasion (TO, pgs 18-19).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your target being underwater.

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of targeting an immobile 'Mech - the cones have to be shrunk down to nearly nothing to emulate the fact that you can pretty much pick your part and hit it vs immobile targets.

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of targeting 'Mechs with relatively "thin" or "tiny" profiles from the front or the side (Vulcan, Marauder).

----

What's even worse is that these rules will combine with and modify each other on a continuous basis - you're literally having to build an entire combat system from scratch and you'll not be able to fully predict how it will work out in gameplay - in fact, you likely won't even be able to tell how many different results that could crop up.

But wait, there's more!

The volume and shape of the cone has to be made to work to make your hits and misses make intuitive "sense," in every situation. For example, you're shooting at a fast moving target at long range for the weapons you're using; say, a bunch of medium lasers (identical performance) - and the target is moving laterally across your FOV - your shots should mostly miss behind something that's moving to fast for your 'Mech to physically track. If this isn't accounted for, and you miss in a circular pattern, you've got nothing to go on as clues as to how to "fix" the problem... and vice-versa applies to hits with a plain circle in this situation - you can get a hit that makes no sense as to why it happened.

It just makes for a system that's too complex and tangled for any developer or group of developers to predict what will happen if they change any given variable... and thus for them to know how to fix any given problem tha crops up.

[YueFei]

A quickdraw contest at high noon is also a test of SKILL, but I bet most players here aren't looking for that kind of experience. If you were, you ought to play a different game, not Mechwarrior. Having mechs two-or-three shot each other runs directly counter to the *advertised* gameplay that was touted.

If PGI isn't going to implement any kind of system that stretches out an Alpha Strike either space-wise or time-wise, they may as well do what Blizzard did for World of Warcraft, take the easy way out, and just increase Mech health so that sustainable DPS can compete with burst damage. As in, both should be equally viable options that players can meaningfully choose.

[zinetwin]

I like the idea of TCL, however I cannot reconcile the concept in my mind. If I understand properly, it's essentially processing load on the targeting computer each time a weapon is fired. If a computer that controls the logistics of walking a 100ton humanoid robot has trouble putting a few projectiles where they're pointed then the future has more problems than just the clan invasion. I'm not saying it's a bad idea and I like the concept of another metric to add a logical difference in mech combat, however we have crappy 486 pc's today that handle launching ICBM's and dozens of weapons systems. Quite simply the math isn't that bad for a computer to just do.

So, I propose a new name:
mechanical assistance to weapons platforms

If anything it's the same thing, but instead of a targeting system load, it's a mechanical limitation of the weapon platforms to deal with recoil/heat/ or damage and their ability to maintain proper weapon-target alignment for the purposes of aiming accurately.

You could also potentially introduce the same value that would increase while taking damage with significant impulse.

You could still use the cone of fire system or just introduce minor delays to the actual weapon convergence on the crosshairs based on the value of MAWP.

Then you would need to introduce a way for players to view and understand where their weapons are point since some of they may be offset by an amount based on use and sustained damage. Artemis could stop working.

Lasers would logically not be as impacted by this as would projectile or missile weapons. The launchers and cannons for each weapon need to factor in their own recoil in order to fire accurately, the lrms would metaphorically have small movements within the launcher to account for terrain and flight path. I would imagine lasers being more directly attached and based on impulse or walking the lasers would encounter similar "wiggle" to their damage area, especially over long distances. However, that said there are gyros and other stabilizers within the mechs that take into account walking for targeting, also done by the computer. Based on that there would be a legitimate need for weapon stabilizers for each platform to allow the targeting computer the ability to maintain accuracy, but within the mechanical limits of the systems.

It would not completely invalidate ppc boats, or gaussapults or boom-jagers, they would presumably still get that first shot, but after that the machinery would start making it more difficult. At the least it would make it much harder to pull off and if someone can actually do it, then they get to be that guy. However, if there are a bunch of high-recoil high-impact weapons being fired then the effect would be immediate as the systems would not be able to compensate for the amount of shake or stress put on the weapon platforms and mech structure. You could also potentially add-in some slightly modified penalties for moving while firing that many of the weapons.

Edit: just realized that PHT and I are on a similar page with the structural aspect of this concept.

Edited by zinetwin, 12 July 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[Ken Fury]

Your idea won't be working fine in 12 vs12 since firing 2 PPCs waiting 1 second and firing 2 PPCs again without penalty is still too much front loaded damage. The only way to solve the long range high alpha meta is more hitpoints, (at least +100% armor and internal) and +1 heat to PPCs (maybe reduce projectile speed to 1200m/s on normal PPCs). It's as easy as that.

Would also make brawling more fun.

Remember the gameplay in November? If we get a buff to hitpoints, it will be like that again. Though thanks for typing that out. But it is the same problem with Pauls boating fix, it won't fix it. Sorry.

[Phaesphoros]

zinetwin, on 12 July 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

I like the idea of TCL, however I cannot reconcile the concept in my mind. If I understand properly, it's essentially processing load on the targeting computer each time a weapon is fired. If a computer that controls the logistics of walking a 100ton humanoid robot has trouble putting a few projectiles where they're pointed then the future has more problems than just the clan invasion. I'm not saying it's a bad idea and I like the concept of another metric to add a logical difference in mech combat, however we have crappy 486 pc's today that handle launching ICBM's and dozens of weapons systems. Quite simply the math isn't that bad for a computer to just do.

It's not just that this hypothetical Targeting Computer had to control just some gyros to make the weapon point in the right direction. I imagine you'd need to compute where the projectile is hitting, including many environmental corrections (but those are essentially the same for all weapons, which only provides a basic "stress").

But the weapons themselves are inaccurate, I imagine that it requires some kind of targeting LASER mounted at every weapon to know precisely where this weapon points at in > 500 m distance. Such an optical targeting system necessarily is much more complex than adjusting some gyros, and also the necessary computations are higher (linearly) for multiple weapons. That said, I think every reasonable engineer / programmer would program the TC in such a way that all weapons suffer only from a slight inaccuracy if the load is high, or if the load is too high (would become too high), it'd adjust only the maximum number of weapons for which a certain accuracy can be guaranteed. However, a pilot could counter that at least for mediocre inaccuracies, (s)he should be able to alpha-strike even if all weapons would be somewhat inaccurate (as opposed to only some weapons being highly inaccurate).

Note that Bill explicitly states that this mechanic is not invented with realism or lore in mind, but solely for balancing.

I'd like to hear what HB has to say to the 2 PPC - 1 s pause - 2 PPC problem, too. It is much better than the current 40-pts-instant dmg, and still better than the .5 s heat "penalty" introduced at the 16th, but I agree it might still not be enough nerf to pinpoint high-alpha.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 12 July 2013 - 10:47 PM.

[Zyllos]

Well, the 2 PPCs then pausing 1.0s is easily fixed under the same system.

If all weapons can fire too quickly too accurately, then just change the dissipation rate of the TCL down, like instead of 100 per second, do 50 per second.

If it's still just specific weapons dealing too much, then just up the TCS values of each weapon, so for PPCs, instead of being 50 (assuming a 100 limit for accuracy), then make it like 60.

If too many weapons can be fired at the same time, then lower the TCL limit of accuracy (from 100 to say 90).

Edited by Zyllos, 13 July 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Sweet Baby Pirate]

The more I think about this, the more I like it.

The convergence mechanic is essentially the 'mech / game helping you to aim - it shouldn't be free.

[Vaalis]

Why not just set limits to specific weapons, i.e. max ppc loadout set to 3 or 4. Then they would have to grab some lasers instead of 2 more ppcs.

OR

Introduce a convergence penalty for a set amount of time after an overheat. This would make all players reconsider an overheat.

Edited by Vaalis, 13 July 2013 - 11:47 AM.

[Phaesphoros]

Vaalis, on 13 July 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Why not just set limits to specific weapons, i.e. max ppc loadout set to 3 or 4. Then they would have to grab some lasers instead of 2 more ppcs.

3 or 4 PPCs is already 30-40 pinpoint damage. Currently very effective builds use only 2-3 PPCs and a Gauss (CTF-3D, HGN-732, Misery) or 4 PPCs (STKs). Also, some stock 'Mechs mount >= 3 PPCs (like AWS-8Q).
If you just disallow > 2 PPCs, then it will be 2 PPCs + 1-2 Gauss.

Vaalis, on 13 July 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Introduce a convergence penalty for a set amount of time after an overheat. This would make all players reconsider an overheat.

Overheating is not an issue for 4 PPC-STK or < 4 PPC + Gauss builds. Even if you increase the PPC heat, good players will be skilled enough to avoid overheating.
Or did you mean running hot (> 80 % heat) with "overheating"? In this case, many other builds, especially fast light 'Mechs, would be nerfed, too. Snipers can always retreat behind cover and cool down.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 13 July 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[zinetwin]

Tank Boy Ken, on 12 July 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Your idea won't be working fine in 12 vs12 since firing 2 PPCs waiting 1 second and firing 2 PPCs again without penalty is still too much front loaded damage. The only way to solve the long range high alpha meta is more hitpoints, (at least +100% armor and internal) and +1 heat to PPCs (maybe reduce projectile speed to 1200m/s on normal PPCs). It's as easy as that.

Would also make brawling more fun.

Remember the gameplay in November? If we get a buff to hitpoints, it will be like that again. Though thanks for typing that out. But it is the same problem with Pauls boating fix, it won't fix it. Sorry.

The idea wouldn't be to introduce a delay for a certain number of weapons. But rather a convergence difference between weapons. Swinging your torso and arms at full speed would inherently have different convergence for different weapons depending on how far they need to travel to remain on target. Some weapons could also be slower at that (your heavier weapons, ppcs, gauss, AC) so that your lasers would mostly always be on target but your big guns may not be immediately on target. Each shot fired or damage taken would offset the other weapons so that it wouldn't be practical to fire all of your weapons at once unless you're at point blank range. This would effectively help the meta especially at greater than 500M since even a milimeter of offset on the actual weapon from where you think you're pointing would mean a complete miss at 1000M or missles running into a building because they couldn't adjust their flight path fast enough.
It would also help with the realism. We all know that being rained down on by lrms makes it harder to hit because the screen is shaking and the mech is being knocked around, however right now that doesn't really translate into weapon inaccuracy so much as the pilot's ability to deal with it. If the weapons are offset by a small amount by each missle hitting you then you can't snipe at all while that's happening. However, if brawling at short range the effect would be much less significant and would most likely mean hitting the right torso, arm, or leg instead of the center due to the offset.

Also, just adding more hitpoints will introduce new balance issues. Like ammo, if you double the hitpoints you need to double the ammo per ton to keep it balanced otherwise everyone would run out of ammo half-way through the match and would have to rely on the one or two lasers they carry around with certain builds being completely useless and laserbacks just waiting until everyone is out of ammo then picking them off.

Phaesphoros, on 12 July 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

It's not just that this hypothetical Targeting Computer had to control just some gyros to make the weapon point in the right direction. I imagine you'd need to compute where the projectile is hitting, including many environmental corrections (but those are essentially the same for all weapons, which only provides a basic "stress").

But the weapons themselves are inaccurate, I imagine that it requires some kind of targeting LASER mounted at every weapon to know precisely where this weapon points at in > 500 m distance. Such an optical targeting system necessarily is much more complex than adjusting some gyros, and also the necessary computations are higher (linearly) for multiple weapons. That said, I think every reasonable engineer / programmer would program the TC in such a way that all weapons suffer only from a slight inaccuracy if the load is high, or if the load is too high (would become too high), it'd adjust only the maximum number of weapons for which a certain accuracy can be guaranteed. However, a pilot could counter that at least for mediocre inaccuracies, (s)he should be able to alpha-strike even if all weapons would be somewhat inaccurate (as opposed to only some weapons being highly inaccurate).

Note that Bill explicitly states that this mechanic is not invented with realism or lore in mind, but solely for balancing.

I'd like to hear what HB has to say to the 2 PPC - 1 s pause - 2 PPC problem, too. It is much better than the current 40-pts-instant dmg, and still better than the .5 s heat "penalty" introduced at the 16th, but I agree it might still not be enough nerf to pinpoint high-alpha.

As far as the targeting computer, I know it was just mentioned for balance and I can suspend reality for it, but the game is largely based on physics and somewhat real concepts, so why go far-left with it. Not counting the 100-ton mech coming to a dead stop on a small rock here since we all know that's not right.

Again, it wouldn't be that they could fire 2 big guns, then wait and fire again. Each weapon fired would introduce a small offset to each other weapon, so firing 2ppcs at >1000M may mean that one or both might miss from the tiny offset introduced by each weapon's recoil and mechanical stresses introduced on the weapon systems.

I'm not saying to have hard limits on certain weapons or equipment, each one would need a value and it would need to be applied in every circumstance, when firing or being hit by them to determine the offsets to both mechs (attacker and defender) to help fix the meta and provide more realism.

Edited by zinetwin, 13 July 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[YueFei]

Tank Boy Ken, on 12 July 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Your idea won't be working fine in 12 vs12 since firing 2 PPCs waiting 1 second and firing 2 PPCs again without penalty is still too much front loaded damage. The only way to solve the long range high alpha meta is more hitpoints, (at least +100% armor and internal) and +1 heat to PPCs (maybe reduce projectile speed to 1200m/s on normal PPCs). It's as easy as that.

Would also make brawling more fun.

Remember the gameplay in November? If we get a buff to hitpoints, it will be like that again. Though thanks for typing that out. But it is the same problem with Pauls boating fix, it won't fix it. Sorry.

That 1 second pause gives you time to rotate your mech to tank the next pair of PPCs on a different armor panel. That fixes the pin-point damage issue. It is still in the player's hands to actively maneuver to spread the damage, which is a good thing. A player standing stock still in the open *should* be open to pin-point punishment.

It's also more rational to imagine that the reason in the lore that pilots hit each other all over the place is because the weapons fire individually and they're adjusting and twisting/turning with each individual shot. And not because their aim sucks.

[Phaesphoros]

YueFei, on 13 July 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

That 1 second pause gives you time to rotate your mech to tank the next pair of PPCs on a different armor panel. That fixes the pin-point damage issue. It is still in the player's hands to actively maneuver to spread the damage, which is a good thing.

I think HSR will interfere with this: HSR may delay the information your enemy has just shot 2 PPCs at you long enough so you don't torso twist enough before (s)he fires the second volley. Also, it is likely that if you don't see your enemy during the first shot, then you'll need more than 1 s to know (how) to react.

YueFei, on 13 July 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

A player standing stock still in the open *should* be open to pin-point punishment.

Not standing behind cover because you don't know better is not the only reason to be in the open. Even if you move, there's no guarantee that the damage won't be applied to different torso sections.

Side remark: One of the best medium-range brawlers I know is the 4 AC/5 CTF-4X. As the AC/5 has a cooldown of 1.4 s, it can deal 20 damage pin-point every 1.4 s and isn't affected by HB's solution. But even when this brawler is superior to a 4 PPC config (considering pinpoint damage in a 2-s-time-window), it still has the downside of low arms and ammo dependency.
Even though it could be superior over a 4 PPC STK atm considering the stats, the low arms make it a bad sniper and disallow peek-and-shoot tactics.

[Sweet Baby Pirate]

I imagine battlemech firmware as being hundreds of years old and very poorly documented.

@Phaesphoros - the nice thing about this system is that if 4xAC5 became overpowered as a result, you could just bump the load value a bit. So if you hold down the trigger, 1st shot is pinpoint, 2nd is straight but unconverged, 3rd is all over the place. Seems fair.

Maybe a module to increase the cutoff a bit? At least make us earn it.

[Caballo]

Pht said:

Continous Blah, blah, blah

I get the picture. You have YOUR idea on how you think the game should be balanced, and you're trying to undermine the rest of the ideas which come to the light from the rest of the people to "Win the internet"...

Good luck with that brick about targeting computers you wrote. I prefer Homeless idea. Basically because your idea will lead to the very same problem we have now.

Edited by Caballo, 14 July 2013 - 06:14 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Second page of a backwater exile forum?


Bumping this till gets bumped back into Gameplay Balance!

[Tombstoner]

Unfortunately since the OP does suggest the addition of a "Feature" it "technicality" belongs here. I use the term very loosely because this topic clearly belongs in the balance section. But we have no say in the matter.

[Endgame124]

Bump for the best suggestion on the forums.

[AdamBaines]

To the OP. Love the thought you put into this. What I like is that, it tried to look at and address the underlying issues, the root of the problem, not just the symptoms.

Like you said, its not the perfect solution, but its a place to start to find the best solution. Thanks for taking all the time to write this up, and to respond to many of the serious question people have. Lets hope it is taken seriously (as I heard in NGNG 80...its been passed on internally at PGI).