0
Haji1096, on 20 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:
This is the most important thread in the forums.
UPDATE III: LET'S MEET HALF-WAY
So, it's abundantly clear that they're going to roll with heat penalties, at least for the time being. While I'm still fully in favor of this proposal, in the meantime, I'm advocating for a change to the way the heat penalties are calculated.
Currently, they're a confusing mess. My fix is essentially to take the relative alpha balance numbers (the TCS values) from my system, and just apply them to the heat scale instead. It doesn't matter if you don't like heat penalties; I don't either. If you like it better than what's currently in, you should go support it.
UPDATE II: AN ANSWER FOR PAUL
miSs, on 12 July 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:
Weapon convergence is a tough nut to crack. We want to keep the number of random “dice rolls” to a minimum, and network synchronization can become unpredictable when trying to determine a convergence point that may or may not be moving. It will be necessary to make the convergence point calculation server authoritive and that can cause a desync due to the fact that the simulation runs at different frequencies on the server and client.
I'm pretty sure my implementation of convergence even avoids the need to make it server-authoritative. I could be wrong about this, but hear me out:
- Most convergence implementations assume no convergence to begin with, and gain convergence by some form of target tracking (painting the target with your reticle or whatever).
- My proposal assumes convergence exactly as it is now - always-on and pinpoint. Convergence is only lost when you cross a certain threshold. It has nothing to do with target tracking.
I've published the full article this thread was a testbed for. You can read it here. If you want to help out, spread awareness. Tell your buddies, your clan, and the developers how awesome it is. It's not often I legitimately care about something, but if they don't fix this problem, I fear that this game will die. Though I'll give the heat penalties a chance, I think they're ultimately destined for failure.
Aaaand we're famous. Balance was discussed for about a half hour on the latest No Guts No Galaxy podcast (#80), much of which was devoted specifically to my solution. Thank you Zomboid (I think that's your name; if not, come forward and correct it please) for asking the question, and thank you everyone else for your support. I couldn't have raised this kind of awareness alone, and I'm incredibly grateful to those that have helped spread the word.
THINK IT'S TOO COMPLEX?
Spoiler
Players operating under this system will need to change two things, and two things only:
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.
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
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
A WORD ON OVERHEAT PENALTIES
A WORD ON HARDPOINT RESTRICTIONS
A WORD ON TONNAGE LIMITS
MY REASONING
THE SOLUTION
THE NUMBERS
THE HUD
THE EFFECTS ON GAMEPLAY
THE GOOD
THE BAD
THE HOMELESS
A PREEMPTIVE REBUTTAL
TL;DR:
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.
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.
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...
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.
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)
- Targeting Computer Stress: #
- Weapon Name
- Energy
- Small Laser
- TCS: 10
- Simultaneous Fire: 10
- TCS: 10
- Medium Laser
- TCS: 12.5
- Simultaneous Fire: 8
- TCS: 12.5
- (ER)Large Laser
- TCS: 25
- Simultaneous Fire: 4
- TCS: 25
- Small Pulse Laser
- TCS: 10
- Simultaneous Fire: 10
- TCS: 10
- Medium Pulse Laser
- TCS: 15
- Simultaneous Fire: 6 + Change
- TCS: 15
- Large Pulse Laser
- TCS: 30
- Simultaneous Fire: 3 + Change
- TCS: 30
- (ER)PPC
- TCS: 50
- Simultaneous Fire: 2
- TCS: 50
- Small Laser
- Ballistics
- Machine Gun
- TCS: 0.8 (8 / second)
- Simultaneous Fire: 125
- Continuous Fire: 12 + Change
- TCS: 0.8 (8 / second)
- Gauss Rifle
- TCS: 75
- Simultaneous Fire: 1 + Change
- TCS: 75
- AC/2
- TCS: 10 (20 / second)*
- Simultaneous Fire: 10
- Continuous Fire: 5
- *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
- TCS: 10 (20 / second)*
- AC/5
- TCS: 25*
- Simultaneous Fire: 4
- *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
- TCS: 25*
- AC/10
- TCS: 50*
- Simultaneous Fire: 2
- *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
- TCS: 50*
- AC/20
- TCS: 100*
- Simultaneous Fire: 1
- *Value for Autocannons is based on caliber (5/caliber)
- TCS: 100*
- 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.
- TCS: 30* [40]
- 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.
- TCS: 25* initial shot, 12.5* double-tap
- Machine Gun
- 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.
- TCS: 4.167 per missile
- 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.
- TCS: 6 per missile
- 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.
- TCS: 2.5 per missile
- SRM
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- [u]Why It’s Worth It:[/u] 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.
Edited by Homeless Bill, 20 July 2013 - 12:56 PM.
removed request to re-post/crosslink thread
