704 replies to this topic

[Tolkien]

Your wall of text is excessive, but I am not sure it can be addressed by anything smaller.

I agree with your sentiment that the game *needs* to force damage to be spread around on enemy mechs, and that high alpha builds combined with pinpoint firing are big problems to the viability of the game.

I find your targeting computer idea perhaps overwrought but very much like that you are thinking about ways to make the damage spread happen.

[Buso Senshi Zelazny]

This idea seems to be trying to do the same thing that PGI is attempting with their heat penalties for firing multiples of a single weapon within a certain time limit.

I like the fact that this solution does not interfere with the heat scale already in place, which allows you to tune it entirely on its own, independent from any other game mechanics besides targeting. Care would have to be taken so that the controlling the Targeting Computer Load does not nullify the need to watch your heat load as well.

It appears that the HB has already taken a few steps to ensure that this does not happen. It still introduces two new numbers to tune for each weapon system

• Homeless Bills's Solution:

• Limit number of weapons fired simultaneously
  
• Incur accuracy/targeting penalty for doing so

• PGI's Solution:

• Limit number of weapons fired simultaneously
  
• Incur heat penalty for doing so

HB's solution is inherently less complex than PGI's solution because it does not interact directly with the heat system already in place.

I apologize if this is redundant, but I just wanted to emphasize why I support this balancing measure over the one that PGI is contemplating implementing. I also just wanted to add a post to this thread to give it a bump in the hopes that the developers see this and take it seriously.

[Zyllos]

Buso Senshi Zelazny, on 20 June 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

This idea seems to be trying to do the same thing that PGI is attempting with their heat penalties for firing multiples of a single weapon within a certain time limit.

I like the fact that this solution does not interfere with the heat scale already in place, which allows you to tune it entirely on its own, independent from any other game mechanics besides targeting. Care would have to be taken so that the controlling the Targeting Computer Load does not nullify the need to watch your heat load as well.

It appears that the HB has already taken a few steps to ensure that this does not happen. It still introduces two new numbers to tune for each weapon system

• Homeless Bills's Solution:

• Limit number of weapons fired simultaneously
  
• Incur accuracy/targeting penalty for doing so

• PGI's Solution:

• Limit number of weapons fired simultaneously
  
• Incur heat penalty for doing so

HB's solution is inherently less complex than PGI's solution because it does not interact directly with the heat system already in place.


I apologize if this is redundant, but I just wanted to emphasize why I support this balancing measure over the one that PGI is contemplating implementing. I also just wanted to add a post to this thread to give it a bump in the hopes that the developers see this and take it seriously.

In my eyes, that is 100% true. These systems both accomplish the same task but one idea is independent of the other system while the other idea has two effects on the same system.

This also adds another layer of give bonuses/penalties to with future equipment and mech quirks. Think about this, if this system was set up to where they do not want to allow more than 20 points of damage at any given time to be 100% accurate, the PPC should have a 50 TCS, thus 2 can be fired at the same time and introduce no penalty.

The AWS-8Q could be modified to include a PPC quirk that introduces a -15 to TCS for equiped PPCs. That would mean the AWS-8Q could fire PPCs at a faster rate without a penalty than other mechs or could alpha strike with them with a smaller penalty than other mechs.

This also allows expansion into the Targeting Computer equipment that could modify a weapon's TCS by 50% while providing a small boost in TCL loss per second.

And mentioned earlier in this thread, you could expand this into actuator/gyro critical hits, current actions taken by the mech, ect. All this is independent of the heat system in the game and heat will still be a limiting factor in how long sustained fire can be achieved.

[Tolkien]

Quote

I apologize if this is redundant, but I just wanted to emphasize why I support this balancing measure over the one that PGI is contemplating implementing. I also just wanted to add a post to this thread to give it a bump in the hopes that the developers see this and take it seriously.

I don't think it's redundant at all. PGIs proposal with heat is trying to address the problem but it doesn't actually fix the problem of multiple massive guns hitting the same spot on the enemy, it just penalizes the behavior of firing them together. Eventually we will get a clan mech with 3-4 gauss rifles and this heat solution is going to do nothing even if the penalty is 30 for the 3rd gauss fired.

Since their heat penalty scale will be as well balanced as their weapon designs (looool, cheapshot?) it will layer on more balancing complexity and make it even harder to keep things aligned.

I like all ideas that force damage to be spread around so we get longer matches, and don't really care if it is
1) the targeting computer
2) random dithering of the targeting reticule
3) random damage allocation on the target
4) others...

[Tombstoner]

Zyllos, on 20 June 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

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

1-I recommend weapons in the same location be treated as the same for any COF or TCL calculations. it just doesn't sit well with me if the weapons do cross. they should hit the same location. if fired at the same time. its when all of a mech weapons hit the same location all the time it becomes an issue. it also gives a benefit to boating in one location and having that section killed out right. i'm thinking of the cat ears and the hunchback torso.

2- MAX COF ideally would be harsh enough to hinder high alpha sniper builds at nere max range, but allow near perfect accuracy with smaller alphas. all real weapons ever made all have a COF. yes even lasers. its just extremely small at extremely long ranges. The primary purpose is to not prevent you from hitting, but to prevent you from hitting the exact same spot with all linked fired weapons while running at full speed or pop tarting. its a trade of between movement, high alpha damage and accuracy.

The COF as i see it would max out at the size of a quarter. so if your at short range its likely all your weapons will hit the same location. at long range expect to miss some or make smaller alphas.

Bottom line is it will need lots of testing

Edited by Tombstoner, 20 June 2013 - 07:17 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

Zyllos, on 20 June 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

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?

1. Weapons will most likely cross, but I don't think it'll look particularly bad. Even if it did, I see all aesthetic concerns as secondary to balance. Honestly, I think it will look awesome to watch a fully-loaded Splat Stalker alpha strike. The beams will be all over the place and it will just be a wall of missiles.

2. The cone of fire probably needs to be balanced for ~500m. The cone of fire serves two main purposes: make life extremely ****** for snipers and fire support 'mechs that go over the limit, and penalize 'mechs that can boat in a single component.

Good pilots running a HGN-732 with 3xPPC in RT and 1 Gauss in RA would be largely unaffected by a convergence-only solution (and in fact at a huge advantage because the rest of the cheese got the operational end of the nerf-bat). Brawlers will be minimally affected by the cone of fire, and that's fine; convergence will be enough.

The removal of convergence is the greater penalty, and that's the way the system is intended to work. I honestly didn't want a cone of fire at all, but as stated above, it serves two extremely important purposes. I tried to figure out a way to make this system simpler, but everything in it I felt necessary to its success.

Just like your 'mech turns off when you hit 100% heat, your targeting computer turns off at 100%. The accuracy penalty is there for those that go above and beyond the call of duty. Just like someone that hits 125% heat should start taking damage on top of shutting down, someone that pushes the targeting computer up past 125% should incur an additional penalty to accuracy.

Tolkien, on 20 June 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

Your wall of text is excessive, but I am not sure it can be addressed by anything smaller.

I find your targeting computer idea perhaps overwrought but very much like that you are thinking about ways to make the damage spread happen.

The forthcoming article will be formatted in a more appropriate manner. The massive number of rebuttals will be saved until the end, so that the reader can pick and choose based on what they think are the best alternatives.

If anyone has a better, more believable explanation for this system, I'm open to it. Like I said to that one guy, I totally just picked something and went with it. I thought about what part of the 'mech would affect weapon accuracy for all weapons, and it seemed like the targeting computer was the only valid explanation. They might need to rename it so it doesn't get confused with the Targeting Computer piece of equipment.

Buso Senshi Zelazny, on 20 June 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

• Homeless Bills's Solution:

• Limit number of weapons fired simultaneously
  
• Incur accuracy/targeting penalty for doing so

• PGI's Solution:

• Limit number of weapons fired simultaneously
  
• Incur heat penalty for doing so

HB's solution is inherently less complex than PGI's solution because it does not interact directly with the heat system already in place.

That's a great little summary. Mind if I steal it?

[Zaptruder]

Homeless Bill, on 20 June 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

That's a great little summary. Mind if I steal it?

That's a terrible summary! There's a massive difference between your suggestion and PGI's attempt at fixing this that goes beyond accuracy vs heat.

One affects all weapons combinations fairly. The other penalizes players for *boating* weapons. Doesn't do a lick to get rid of the massive pin point damage problems plaguing the game, other than penalizing certain types of builds.

Edited by Zaptruder, 20 June 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[Pando]

I would love to try this.

[Buso Senshi Zelazny]

@ Homeless Bill: Sure, use it if you want. In that summary, I might also add that your Targeting Computer Load system is geared towards combating multiple weapon alpha strikes only, and leaves sustained fire to be balanced by heat, if I understand correctly.
Also Zaptruder is correct, since your system applies the accuracy penalties as you fire, where PGI's lets you fire with full accuracy, and then hits you with a heat penalty. This is another subtle difference that I really like.

[n3ctaris]

Signed.

Please implement this.

I love the simple elegance of this solution, so easy to understand. And a slight delay on single point high damage is exactly what's needed.

PGI is foolish if they don't implement this AND offer you a job.

[Tolkien]

Quote

Also Zaptruder is correct, since your system applies the accuracy penalties as you fire, where PGI's lets you fire with full accuracy, and then hits you with a heat penalty. This is another subtle difference that I really like.

Agree and agree. His proposal also allows a clear point to introduce the clan targeting computer via an enhancement to this parameter of the mech mounting it.

[Homeless Bill]

Zaptruder, on 20 June 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

That's a terrible summary! There's a massive difference between your suggestion and PGI's attempt at fixing this that goes beyond accuracy vs heat.

One affects all weapons combinations fairly. The other penalizes players for *boating* weapons. Doesn't do a lick to get rid of the massive pin point damage problems plaguing the game, other than penalizing certain types of builds.

It's not a summary of everything, but it elegantly states one of my favorite features: it doesn't mix with the heat system. I may or may not use it in the end, but I like painting that difference clearly. Heat is just not a good way to balance this problem.

Buso Senshi Zelazny, on 20 June 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

@ Homeless Bill: Sure, use it if you want. In that summary, I might also add that your Targeting Computer Load system is geared towards combating multiple weapon alpha strikes only, and leaves sustained fire to be balanced by heat, if I understand correctly.
Also Zaptruder is correct, since your system applies the accuracy penalties as you fire, where PGI's lets you fire with full accuracy, and then hits you with a heat penalty. This is another subtle difference that I really like.

Absolutely correct. This is in no way meant to replace the heat scale. Heat will limit damage over time like it always has. I see the need for a limiter on accurate, immediate damage, and that's all this system was meant to solve.

Prevention versus punishment is huge. Any fix that can't prevent the undesirable act is a far less effective solution than one that can.

n3ctaris, on 20 June 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

PGI is foolish if they don't offer you a job.

Indeed. Their most foolish move to date. Please, PGI? =D

[Zyllos]

The idea of implementing the CoF before losing weapon convergence makes sense. It also makes sense that losing convergence should be at the same level of when you can no longer retain/gain lockons.

With crossing fire, while I do like the idea that weapons from a single location should random close to the same location, the problem is then it get's back to the original problem, you can fire many weapons from a single location and they will randomly all hit the same location.

I think having weapons fire cross each other would have to be an acceptable loss for balanced play. And technically, crossing weapons fire should only be happening at extreme ranges, now that I think about it.

I would figure the maximum deflection would a weapon that is the furthest mount away from the center of the crosshair while being as close as possible. But, even within the game, when your extremely close to each other, most weapons do not deflect far enough to actually hit where your aiming at. Adding a CoF wouldn't change this.

At the furthest ranges, the only time they could cross is if you had two weapons at the furthest extremes when mounted, the arms most likely, and they randomly selected a location on the very opposite side of the CoF based on where they are mounted. That would make the weapons cross a bit right in front of the target.

Edited by Zyllos, 20 June 2013 - 10:20 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Homeless Bill, on 19 June 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

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.

Disagree. Tactics should never be prevented, only punished. The point is to make people think about what they're doing and analyze the tradeoffs, not limit their options. That's probably the mindset PGI is proceeding under.

As far as Clans, let's wait until we're given info about them before we start trying to fix them. The devs have tried to give every unique weapon and loadout a notable drawback in the game so far, minus PPC boats; I'm sure they've got some idea for Clans. If we're able to easily spot problems when we extrapolate current issues to Clan weapons, so are they.

[Sporklift]

This would work, complex as it sounds. It adds something else to balance weapons by and it might also limit aimbots.

[Royce Mathers]

one fallacy to your reasoning is that AMS makes a LRM user fire as many of their missiles in a volley as possible. If a mech with 3 LRM 15s has to fire each individually the AMS gets 3 shots at those missiles instead of one. AMS almost requires an LRM mech to boat. If you took some system that did the exact same to lasers or ballistics----those users would have a problem with this also.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Another idea for favoring stock builds ... perhaps each stock weapon on a particular variant gets a bonus to TCL cap?

[scJazz]

OK Bill sorry it has taken this long considering I originally posted on the first page. I read your post in entirety and then just to be certain I read every single reply. Then I read HRR Insanity's idea. You win! Some points in no particular order...

With Server Authoritative architecture and considering network latency I strongly suggest no weapon uses the entire 100 pts of TCL. So AC/20 is maybe 90 and PPCs are maybe 45. Why? To lessen the crazy associated with network latency. Yeah... someone will try to stick in another gun with the AC/20 but I'm not sure that is a huge problem. I could keep typing but you get my point don't you.

I am a Missile Crazy Pilot... if you make me lose lock because I caught that ECM Atlas at 190m and just volleyed 30LRMs and 8 Streaks (Catapult A1) at him I'm going to have to strangle you. I know the point and shoot crowd doesn't understand this but locking or re-acquiring lock is a complete PITA. So yeah... losing lock... hate that plan and don't think it works that well. In keeping with your CoF why not just decrease tracking and increase spead? Streaks... yeah I know... how about we send half of a Streak volley straight ahead just like normal Dumb Fire SRMs when you overload the TC. In other words your current plan works well for gimping LRM100 Stalkers and the like but totally destroys reasonable builds.

Perhaps adding some extra love penalties for firing oversized missile launchers through small missile tube sets is in order?

TAG and NARC: Let them reduce the TCL if the target is locked. No bonus if it isn't for no other reason than this simplifies implementation as I suspect CryEngine's Weapons Routines would get stressed out trying to apply the bonus on a target that isn't locked. 5% and 10% TCL reduction might be usable numbers. Someone will no doubt say... increase the bonus for Self-TAG and Self-NARC... no! That just leads us down the path of Awesome's with TAG in Head slot and similar crazy.

Clan Targeting Computers and Clan Weapons are going to be a huge issue but we already know that. Your plan gets us in front of the curve.

Modules and Skills could be reworked for your idea as mentioned.

There is one thing that the Jenner pilots keep bringing up but haven't really considered. Yes, they require Alphas and need to take their shots when they can get them. The point they keep missing is the fact that with their very small bodies even firing with no convergence at all still means most (all) of their Alpha lands pretty much where they wanted it to anyway.

Despise those icons on the HUD. How about just putting some "Eye Lids" on the Crosshairs. Green OK, Yellow no convergence, Red CoF. Add the same color coding in a slim bar across the top of the mini-map.

Great plan as mentioned before. Hope my thoughts from the Peanut Gallery help.

[Zomboyd]

Wow dude this is a well thought out post which i agree is the best dolution i have seen for this issue. Props to u and ZPGI should be offering you a job.

I do very much like what this post is attepting to do, and i see a bunch of complants about it. My guess is most if them come from your ppc boaters and players who only alpha strike. In my opinion the most fun to be had in this gqme is from reasonably well balanced mechs. PGI listen to the good ideas please and once again well done sir.

[K O N D O]

Well done and well thought out.
Convergence and targeting penalties look like a good idea.

another +1 to this idea.