704 replies to this topic

[Psikez]

I support this message

[Ledabot]

I want this to happen, and the game secretly does too. I just don't see it happening since PG wont want to go out of their way so close to releace to put in such a fundemetal game mechanic. It's sad really, since this solves all the problems that the game has had, and does what heat was designed to do but better.

Maybe when advanced targeting computers come in, they could act something like dhs for this as compared to shs? who knows.

[x Zool x]

His arguments are sound as is the idea.
Implementation would be an issue, certainly.
QQ'ing from the masses (en mass) guaranteed if it could be/was done.

But consider this. Everything we know is lore based.
Why are the mechs from lore built with single heatsinks when doubles are more effective?
Why is just about every, and I mean every, BT mech build such that even the slightest modification can make it a lot better ?
Why aren't BT mechs built to the best possible configs to begin with?

Some players are always going to find and exploit every possible way to give themselves an edge and someone else is always going to want to change something because they don't agree with it and someone else is always just going to complain.

My suggestion, remove user configuration completely. Make it so that players CAN ONLY choose from the BT lore variants only with the BT values as written on everything.

Then if you don't like it don't play.

BUT IT WILL BE MECH WARRIOR, PURE, UNADULTERATED AND WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE.

[FupDup]

Zoolanator, on 19 June 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

His arguments are sound as is the idea.
Implementation would be an issue, certainly.
QQ'ing from the masses (en mass) guaranteed if it could be/was done.

But consider this. Everything we know is lore based.
Why are the mechs from lore built with single heatsinks when doubles are more effective?
Why is just about every, and I mean every, BT mech build such that even the slightest modification can make it a lot better ?
Why aren't BT mechs built to the best possible configs to begin with?

Some players are always going to find and exploit every possible way to give themselves an edge and someone else is always going to want to change something because they don't agree with it and someone else is always just going to complain.

My suggestion, remove user configuration completely. Make it so that players CAN ONLY choose from the BT lore variants only with the BT values as written on everything.

Then if you don't like it don't play.

BUT IT WILL BE MECH WARRIOR, PURE, UNADULTERATED AND WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE.

Just wait until stock mechs like the Hellstar eventually come along (3079 so it'll be a while...). It comes default with 4 Clan ER PPCs, 30 DHS, 18.5 tons of armor (just a hair less than an Atlas's max armor), and 64 KPH speed (which is considered quite fast for a 95 tonner in TT and average speed for a heavy). What about the Bane? Supernova? Nova Cat? What are other stock mechs supposed to do against something like that?

Edited by FupDup, 19 June 2013 - 06:42 PM.

[Pater Mors]

Zoolanator, on 19 June 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

His arguments are sound as is the idea.
Implementation would be an issue, certainly.
QQ'ing from the masses (en mass) guaranteed if it could be/was done.

But consider this. Everything we know is lore based.
Why are the mechs from lore built with single heatsinks when doubles are more effective?
Why is just about every, and I mean every, BT mech build such that even the slightest modification can make it a lot better ?
Why aren't BT mechs built to the best possible configs to begin with?

Some players are always going to find and exploit every possible way to give themselves an edge and someone else is always going to want to change something because they don't agree with it and someone else is always just going to complain.

My suggestion, remove user configuration completely. Make it so that players CAN ONLY choose from the BT lore variants only with the BT values as written on everything.

Then if you don't like it don't play.

BUT IT WILL BE MECH WARRIOR, PURE, UNADULTERATED AND WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE.

[Rebas Kradd]

I've come to appreciate this idea more, but it's still a very artificial solution. It feels like the OP looked for some element of the game that wasn't being used (i.e. targeting computer) and went "Okay, we'll use THIS thing to justify an arbitrary scale meant to deal with a specific problem."

I continue to maintain that, despite everyone's opinion, the only REAL problem in the game is PPC boaters. I honestly see VERY few people complaining about ballistics boaters. AC20's are hard to handle, Gauss rifles are bulky and dangerous, and boating either one forces an XL engine upon you and makes you vulnerable. That's taken care of most of the complaints.

Which means that we're basically asking the devs to implement an entirely new layer of fire control just to deal with PPC boats. It's killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 19 June 2013 - 07:09 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Zoolanator, on 19 June 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

But consider this. Everything we know is lore based.
Why are the mechs from lore built with single heatsinks when doubles are more effective?
Why is just about every, and I mean every, BT mech build such that even the slightest modification can make it a lot better ?
Why aren't BT mechs built to the best possible configs to begin with?

Cost ... the same reason why medium mechs are more common in the BT canon than in MW:O ... maintaining a interplanetary military-industrial complex costs a rear-torso-ton. ... If repair and rearm were back, we probably wouldn't see nearly as many 15+ million C-Bill builds on the battle field. ... Or, if there was some form of BV or CB value drop limit.

I'm not advocating for any of this ... I think it would be interesting to have a "stock only" option, but I think it limits a very important part of any MW game.

[x Zool x]

The whole point here is to do something about high point alpha strikes.

FupDup, on 19 June 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Just wait until stock mechs like the Hellstar eventually come along (3079 so it'll be a while...). It comes default with 4 Clan ER PPCs, 30 DHS, 18.5 tons of armor (just a hair less than an Atlas's max armor), and 64 KPH speed (which is considered quite fast for a 95 tonner in TT and average speed for a heavy). What about the Bane? Supernova? Nova Cat? What are other stock mechs supposed to do against something like that?

These mechs, when alpha striking repeatedly are going to heat up and shut down frequently regardless of how many heatsinks. When a mech either shuts down from over heating it becomes a sitting duck, or if the pilot over rides then there is a heat/damage penalty. Either way it means you have to space out your alpha strikes considerably or use more sensible groupings/fire modes, which is part of what Homeless Bill is aiming at.

[FupDup]

Zoolanator, on 19 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

The whole point here is to do something about high point alpha strikes.


These mechs, when alpha striking repeatedly are going to heat up and shut down frequently regardless of how many heatsinks. When a mech either shuts down from over heating it becomes a sitting duck, or if the pilot over rides then there is a heat/damage penalty. Either way it means you have to space out your alpha strikes considerably or use more sensible groupings/fire modes, which is part of what Homeless Bill is aiming at.

The Hellstar, in Tabletop, has very little heat issues until it starts losing heat sinks to combat damage. It can alpha strike repeatedly until that happens. I dunno about the listed mechs. Still, they're going to kill you a lot faster than you can kill them. They'll get to dissipate heat after you're already dead, which shouldn't take very long.

The thing about stock mechs is that while most of them are indeed designed specifically to suck, a number of them are designed by people that know what they're doing (i.e. Hellstar). Those few gems would become FoTM and murder all of the other poor stocks that have to deal with balanced loadouts and no tech upgrades.

Edited by FupDup, 19 June 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[x Zool x]

it's all well and good to cite one or two specific mechs that IS NOT in MWO and in all likelihood wont appear in MWO given the number of mechs pgi has to choose from, that indeed shoot a hole in what I am saying, BUT over all it's as good an idea as any other imho.

And the prevalence of such superior mechs in large numbers would simply mean more people playing the same mech with fewer varieties of mechs seen on the battlefield, which is not what MW is about.

[FupDup]

Zoolanator, on 19 June 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

it's all well and good to cite one or two specific mechs that IS NOT in MWO and in all likelihood wont appear in MWO given the number of mechs pgi has to choose from, that indeed shoot a hole in what I am saying, BUT over all it's as good an idea as any other imho.

And the prevalence of such superior mechs in large numbers would simply mean more people playing the same mech with fewer varieties of mechs seen on the battlefield, which is not what MW is about.

Depending on what the initial Clan mechs are and how customizable they are, I'm probably going to try to rig a Ghetto Hellstar out of a Dire Wolf or something. All of the tech needed to build the unit exists before the invasion so no issues there.


Of course, we wouldn't have to worry about the Hellstar in a stock game mode for quite a long time if ever (very unlikely to ever get added, but like I said above I'm going to try to jury-rig one out of a different chassis). Even in the current timeline, there are just some stock mechs that are plain superior (although most of them are Clan).



Ultimately, customization doesn't actually cause balancing issues; it merely makes them more apparent and lets more mechs benefit from them. The only way to curb down on FoTM mechs is to make all weapons/builds have risks proportional to their rewards so that they have real weaknesses to compensate for their strengths (i.e. current ERPPC has very few risks but quite high rewards and that is borked).

Edited by FupDup, 19 June 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Zoolanator, on 19 June 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

[Stock 'mechs]

No. Customization is a huge draw of this game. I would leave without it, and so would many (if not most) others. A stock mode would be great; a stock game would be terrible. Plus, many of the stock 'mechs are capable of that ridiculously dangerous pinpoint damage my system is meant to prevent (unless you're talking about stock + what I'm suggesting): Devastator, Warhawk, Thunder Hawk, Hunchback IIC, and the list goes on and on.

Rebas Kradd, on 19 June 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

I've come to appreciate this idea more, but it's still a very artificial solution. It feels like the OP looked for some element of the game that wasn't being used (i.e. targeting computer) and went "Okay, we'll use THIS thing to justify an arbitrary scale meant to deal with a specific problem."

I continue to maintain that, despite everyone's opinion, the only REAL problem in the game is PPC boaters. I honestly see VERY few people complaining about ballistics boaters.

That is precisely what I did. Targeting computer load, voltage, mana - who gives a ****? That's just a decent piece of fluff. But what you call an arbitrary scale I see as the missing link between tabletop balance and realtime balance. It's always been needed, it's always been missing, and it's why pinpoint damage has been a problem in all realtime MechWarrior titles.

I don't see how you can think the boating of large ballistics isn't going to be a problem. Without the Stalker, Highlander, or Atlas RS, you wouldn't see PPC boats as a problem either. You'd see a few around, but they'd be just like the AC/40 builds we have now: overpowered for their tonnage, but not game-breakingly bad because of their weaknesses. In case you skimmed the OP:

Spoiler

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

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.

They either avoid putting those 'mechs in (which sucks) or the PPC metagame of today will fade away to the ballistics metagame of tomorrow. Think about the Clan UAC/20. Tell me that's not going to be a huge problem. This 'mech is scarier than anything we have on the battlefield right now: http://www.sarna.net...i/Hunchback_IIC

Why ignore the root of the cause and leave yourself open to later problems? Bandaids and quick fixes aren't enough for a problem of this magnitude and complexity.

Zoolanator, on 19 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

These mechs, when alpha striking repeatedly are going to heat up and shut down frequently regardless of how many heatsinks. When a mech either shuts down from over heating it becomes a sitting duck, or if the pilot over rides then there is a heat/damage penalty.

PPC Stalkers do that now. It doesn't make them any less effective. It punishes them for using a game-breaking tactic, but it does not prevent them from using it. I don't care how harsh the penalties are: if it doesn't prevent that much damage from converging in a single point, it isn't an effective solution.

[The_Desert_Tiger]

Amazing design idea. It's intuitive, allows for counter play (if you don't know what this is look it up on Extra Credits), and allows for meaningful choice. This idea, refined through testing allows everything us and PGI want. It can allow metas to be built around it but is now wholly the only factor to it. It balances the AlphaWarrior aspect while taking player skill into consideration.

This is a great concept. And we as a community who supports it should continue to rally behind it. Remember what this community can do when we stand together behind something. PGI does listen, they might be slow to some changes but that's how things go sometimes. They will weigh their options but we can move them if we demand changes like this in an intelligent way.

Bump this thread. Tell your friends, show your support in likes and what have you. Together we can make a difference. Thank you Bill, I will get you a new cardboard box and a bottle of crown for your contribution.

[Noober]

I support this message.

Anyone with twitter want to throw this out to Bryan or someone else to get their attention?

[Stormyblade]

I think your original write-up is brilliant, HB. Kudos to you for thinking all this through, and another kudos for taking the time to write it all down here on this forum.

[Haji1096]

This is the most important thread in the forums.

If this solution is not implemented, PGI is basically saying they do not want this game to last.

[Tombstoner]

Haji1096, on 20 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

This is the most important thread in the forums.

If this solution is not implemented, PGI is basically saying they do not want this game to last.

O its clear that PGI does want the game to last. it's just that they have a different vision of what some players want to play: FPS vs. SIM. Both can have COF BTW. This topic in various forms has been around since closed beta. choices have been made that have consequences. It's entirely posable that something like the OP's idea is being worked on and the changes implemented for pop tarts and PPC boating are simply place holders. i dont think PGI is willing to put itself into a position where it has no options. We haven't seen much well nothing really regarding this topic. that's because PGI has chosen to be very tight liped.

Resources are limited i'm sure. what bothers me the most about topics like this is the company is sending signals that nothing will be change at all before launch and we are wasting our time. Why do that to us?

The move to further optimize pulse laser damage would be pointless if a new targeting mechanic was going to be implemented. you need to redo all weapons at that point. so i dont see anything coming from this thread until after the clans arrive.

The problem and question then becomes will PGI risk ******* off its player base by basically changing the game in a fairly substantial way post launch. I think it will, but only if the games dieing.

This brings me back to are we just wasting our time?

[Homeless Bill]

T3kn0man, on 19 June 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

a bottle of crown for your contribution.

You know how to treat a girl right <3

Noober, on 19 June 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

Anyone with twitter want to throw this out to Bryan or someone else to get their attention?

I decided to wait until early-week-that-is-not-patch-time to release the full article (next Monday). When I do, I'm going to sign up for twitter, and I'm going to spam them with it. Until then, I hear Garth was being spammed with PMs... soooooo you know what to do =P

Stormyblade, on 20 June 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

I think your original write-up is brilliant, HB. Kudos to you for thinking all this through, and another kudos for taking the time to write it all down here on this forum.

Thanks. Positive feedback is like quarters for my soul.

Haji1096, on 20 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

This is the most important thread in the forums.

Totally going at the top of the OP for dramatic effect =D

Tombstoner, on 20 June 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

This brings me back to are we just wasting our time?

It's not just possible - it's quite likely. This game may never pan out to what we're all hoping. But it's been a hell of a ride. I've never gotten this involved in an online community, and it feels awesome to have been through here all three LRMageddons, the time of the earthquake-god Streakcats, the reign of the Splatcats, ECM, breakfast wars, and all the other fun and terrible times. If it was a waste, it was time well wasted.

The likelihood PGI will adopt the change I'm proposing is ridiculously small. Though in practice this system is a small amount of work to implement and a very small adjustment for players, it will be viewed with extreme skepticism because it's new. For whatever reason, most people just feel safer with old numbers being bent than new ones being created for a specific purpose. I love game analysis and design, I love writing, and I love arguing; I already got my jollies off. All I can do at this point is spruce up the OP and make the case here, reddit, and elsewhere.

[Zyllos]

Well, considering the maturity of the thread (and I am talking about how the thread has progressed, not about those acting in it), a CoF solution does still present problems.

Here is some esthetics and mechanics problems that I have:

• Weapons from the same location crossing paths mid flight
  
• How much CoF to balance out long distance versus short distance

The first one is a problem with visuals and a CoF feeling "off" due to having multiple weapons. Lets say you have a HBK-4SP with it's two Medium Lasers in a single arm. If you fired both at the same time and utilize a full CoF, is it not a problem that there is a solution where the lasers could cross each other (either short or long)? Maybe I am looking at this wrong because all weapons are considered on a gimble thus is entirely possible to have weapons from a single location to "spray" in a manner which crosses fire from a single location.

The second problem is something you mentioned. A sniper shooting many shots that introduces a CoF will effect them in a greater fashion than a brawler due to how cones geometrically work (the area is larger at the bottom of the cone than the top). I believe your suggestion is to implement convergence removal first as that effects both players greatly. But removing convergence is a greater penalty, I personally think, than a CoF. Is this not a problem?

[Zyllos]

Oh, just to add, the current system in MWO doesn't effect players until they hit the maximum heat. If your not at maximum heat, there is no reason to just go ahead and fire all weapons.

So far, from what I can see, MWO has 2 layers that effects firing:

1. RoF effects immediate timing that a player can fire the weapon

2. Maximum heat effects how long sustained fire can last

The problem is that we are missing a 3rd layer that effects how many weapons can be fired in a given moment and this solution adds that 3rd layer.