704 replies to this topic

[Mahws]

Rightyo, but that does absolutely nothing to deal with alpha striking boats. PPC boating assaults rarely move and shoot and have weapon cool down which makes any accuracy penalty incurred from shooting pretty much irrelevant.

Punishing moving or firing weapons in secession not only doesn't fix the current slow-and-alpha-wins-the-race meta it would further reinforce it by handicapping fast lights and mediums, the only mechs that alphaboats aren't at a massive advantage against.

FPS inaccuracy systems are designed to balance the huge advantages of moving quickly (see how many Quake III players spend time standing still to line up a shot). Mechwarrior doesn't have huge advantages to moving quickly because it has massive health pools and balances quick movement by low armor and firepower. You're trying to stick a square peg in a round hole for no better reason than you've seen holes before and they were all square.

Edited by Mahws, 23 June 2013 - 11:27 PM.

[Thorasta]

I support the original authors message.

Edited by Thorasta, 23 June 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

LL: 9 damage, 7 heat every 4.25 seconds (including 1.0 second beam time); 5 tons
PPC: 10 damage, 8 heat, every 4 seconds; 7 tons.

The 1 point heat difference works out to needing 2.5 extra standard heat sinks or about 2 Poordubs more to counter.

I think these stats seem in the right ballpark. What's making things imbalanced?

Maybe it's the beam duration. PPCs are not hit-scan, but that's "just" leading the weapon, you don't need to hold it for a second.
Or mabe it's that you don't even need those 2 Poordubs to counter the heat. You have a heat cap of at least 50 on any DHS mech, probably more aroud 60 to 65 for an Assault. So you can alpha multiple times before you reach that capacity limit.
Maybe it's a factor of both...

The crucial benefits of alphas is of course that everything converges and you only need to shoot once to deliver all your damage to one point (which is less the case if you need to hold your beam, but even there it can help),

[Sudden Reversal]

Hear, hear!

[Zyllos]

Quinton99, on 23 June 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

It's ok. Use your words. I'll wait.

You're getting too far off track. It doesn't matter that there are multiple weapons(One gun or six, you pull the trigger once and other players take a lot of damage) and a heat scale in this game, at least not for the purposes of this discussion. What matters is that Half-Life(just an example. Rainbow Six was another late 90s title that applies here as well) had a system for dealing with pinpoint damage that was instantly fatal, and they did it in a way that players didn't feel like they were being cheated.

Their solution worked so well that every shooter game worth a lick since then has used it(up to and including the much maligned around here CoD games): Accuracy penalties. If you move, the cone gets bigger. If you fire the cone gets bigger. Take your time to aim, and accept the penalty of not moving and you can get off one good shot. Even in this game the best you can do with that is 60 damage, which while potentially fatal is usually not. Plenty of games have one hit kills and actually pull off still being fun. Crybabies in this game whining about how "RNG hurts my skillz, man" need to go back to CoD... Oh wait, CoD actually has accuracy penalties!

So put that aside for a minute and let's look at what you're proposing. You propose adding an entirely new "resource" into the game, with its own balance issues, strengths, and weaknesses. Where's the incentive for PGI to try it? They could accept the word of some dude on the forum with his crazy new idea (which may or may not be brilliant, but will definitely take months to implement and could turn out to be total garbage) OR, and this is going to sound pretty crazy, they could go with the formula that has been making game developers silly rich since 1998 and go with what has been proven to work!

You don't have to make them wildly inaccurate or anything. Say just enough that your crosshairs would expand to an assault-sized target at 500m while you're at a flat out run, using jump jets at all, or constantly firing(or firing multiple weapons)? Just arbitrary and off the top of my head.

I really don't even feel the need to argue for this system. Forumwarriors can sit here and theorycraft all they want about how it will ruin the game, or it won't work, but the evidence that it will work is that it already has worked for 15 years.

Here is the thing though, even though you say "It doesn't matter that there are multiple weapons(One gun or six, you pull the trigger once and other players take a lot of damage) and a heat scale in this game, at least not for the purposes of this discussion.", it actually does matter.

The other player actually doesn't take a whole lot of damage from any single weapon in this game, except maybe from Gauss Rifles or AC/20s. AC/10s and PPCs are not considered *that* dangerous when taken in single shots. But considering their efficiency, if you equip multiples and have them all land onto a single location, you have turned weapons into something that is impossible to achieve in this game with a single weapon.

That is why your argument stating that multiple weapons and heat scales is flawed. They do matter. MW is new territory in terms of FPS. No other FPS had their standard player firing multiple weapons, multiple times, over many minutes of battle to kill opponents.

I do agree with your statement saying that the CoF has been around for a long time and it's tried and true. But PGI attempting to try Homeless Bill's suggestion where instead of just a regular CoF due to simplicity is no different considering PGI has said multiple times that they do not want to implement a CoF because they believe players should be able to place all their where ever they want to fire and the balance lays in the idea that players should be actively dodging (impossible with the current movement/turning/arm speeds) or torso twisting.

While, personally, I would be fine with either system as it introduces some semblance of spreaded damage that the original Battletech is suppose to have, I think both simple and complex systems have flaws along with PGI's stance against CoF.

[Tombstoner]

Zyllos, on 24 June 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

MW is new territory in terms of FPS. No other FPS had their standard player firing multiple weapons, multiple times, over many minutes of battle to kill opponents.

I do agree with your statement saying that the CoF has been around for a long time and it's tried and true. But PGI attempting to try Homeless Bill's suggestion where instead of just a regular CoF due to simplicity is no different considering PGI has said multiple times that they do not want to implement a CoF because they believe players should be able to place all their where ever they want to fire and the balance lays in the idea that players should be actively dodging (impossible with the current movement/turning/arm speeds) or torso twisting.

While, personally, I would be fine with either system as it introduces some semblance of spreaded damage that the original Battletech is suppose to have, I think both simple and complex systems have flaws along with PGI's stance against CoF.

Granted as a FPS multi weapon fire is reasonably new, but combined with boating all it does is make super versions of the
boated weapon AC-40 and ppc-60's for this very reason a COF if needed. I can't wait for ultra- ac40's with no COF.

If PGI wants to continue with the delusion that high damage alphas = skill and is the basis for good game play. I suppose then you could consider MWO to already be WOT without the COF. Presumably the removal of the WOT COF makes the game better for people who cant understand it, wonder why they die trying to snipe with a short barreled 200mmm short range brawling weapon vs. a 122mm long barreled sniper. Talk about dumming down a game for the masses.

If grouped weapons are not some how distinguished from each other in this case accuracy penalties, all your doing is making super weapons and now we are running around with 1-2 shots per kill sniper rifles on a COD map with the heat scale acting as your clip size.

Edited by Tombstoner, 24 June 2013 - 07:03 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

UPDATE
I've published the full article this thread was a testbed for. You can read it here. Please, do everything in your power to spam the developers with this proposal on here, on Twitter, and through any other medium you can (don't harass the developers IRL, please). It's not often I legitimately care about something, but if they don't fix this problem, I fear that this game will die.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 24 June 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[StandingCow]

Well, I think it's pretty clear SOMETHING needs to be done... I like this idea, or maybe they could be more restrictive of how much we are allowed to build mechs.

Or do something like not allowing so much energy draw on the engine at one time.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

PGI does not want this.

Their main competitor is wot, most people who I know from wot who came to mwos chief complaint is that the game is too complex with too many systems in place, compared to how linear wot is. I understand that hardcore battletech fans want depth but thats not what pays the bills. If this system was implemented it would be another nail in the coffin forcing this game to die in obscurity.

Think about it from a business perspective, why is league of legends more popular than dota? Because the interface and rules are simplified to both make it more accessible to new players, the game is easy to learn yet hard to master.

This change would be in the complete wrong direction, stuff like this is what makes the community its own worst enemy.

[Tombstoner]

Duck Butter, on 24 June 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

PGI does not want this.

Their main competitor is wot, most people who I know from wot who came to mwos chief complaint is that the game is too complex with too many systems in place, compared to how linear wot is. I understand that hardcore battletech fans want depth but thats not what pays the bills. If this system was implemented it would be another nail in the coffin forcing this game to die in obscurity.

Think about it from a business perspective, why is league of legends more popular than dota? Because the interface and rules are simplified to both make it more accessible to new players, the game is easy to learn yet hard to master.

This change would be in the complete wrong direction, stuff like this is what makes the community its own worst enemy.

Whats so hard about big circle bad, small circle good.

I think your trying for some reverse psychology or trolling.

However if your not.

lets see i play WOT and MWO..... who has 45 million accounts with 2 spin off games in development.

Thinking that MWO is too complex... the mech lab? OK i can accept that as a valid point only because i am highly acquainted with the system not everyone else will be. However WOT does hold your hand and limits your weapon choices to historical ish equipment, but that is also necessary for any semblance of balance... also WOT is a historical tank style simulator not a FPS.The weapons in WOT are balanced within their respective tier some clearly good others clearly bad. kinda like history.
this is good for the casual player who likes tanks.

The mech lab adds more depth then WOT, because every mech has access to the same weapons. i recommend never playing EVE. unfortunately the game as it stands makes stock mechs not viable and forces new player to learn a new system just to have a chance. very bad for the game IMO. you do touch upon the games biggest challenge.... how to bring along new players get them trained and having fun. Make stock mechs viable.

Why do trail mech suck... low alphas. since pin point high damage alphas are obtained via mech lab mastery or handing over cash for a mercy: you fix this by removing the benefits of group firing completely:COF not heat.

PGI's solution for the new player is to open a competition for a play designed mech that will be added to the starting rotation...band aid solution not a fix.

Adding a COF to fix Pin point high damage alphas on to the MW IP, is a combination that together provides more depth of history and customization then WWII and WOT. Only with a COF does MWO have the foundation needed to compete with WOT.

Edited by Tombstoner, 24 June 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[glycerin]

I love this solution. Let's make it happen.

Great write up, thought through and presented very well, and the rebuttals are fantastic. Not a fan of the QQ clan (lol) but this is great.

I would change in the HUD implementation, but I think that PGI artists will do that anyway. Otherwise, do it as it is written.

[colatruck]

This goes under the file labeled "Good ideas that won't happen." It could be simplified a little by forgetting the disapation rate and just give hard values (fire over 100 points at a time and there is no convergence for the shot, etc).

Duck Butter, on 24 June 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

PGI does not want this.

Their main competitor is wot, most people who I know from wot who came to mwos chief complaint is that the game is too complex with too many systems in place, compared to how linear wot is. I understand that hardcore battletech fans want depth but thats not what pays the bills. If this system was implemented it would be another nail in the coffin forcing this game to die in obscurity.

Think about it from a business perspective, why is league of legends more popular than dota? Because the interface and rules are simplified to both make it more accessible to new players, the game is easy to learn yet hard to master.

This change would be in the complete wrong direction, stuff like this is what makes the community its own worst enemy.

And yet their are implementing some sort of a penalty for stacking weapons, which basically is a alternative to this(and an inferior one imo).

[Ol Dirty Bastard]

Read the post @ http://www.qqmercs.com/?p=2780 and found it extremely thoughtful, well laid out, and a proper solution to the current (and future) meta problems.

I agree wholeheartedly with this system, and would love to see it implemented. All other "fixes" do fall short, where this system addresses long time mechwarrior issues, in an easy to implement, and easy to understand method.

Kudos for this

[EmperorMyrf]

colatruck, on 24 June 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

It could be simplified a little by forgetting the disapation rate and just give hard values (fire over 100 points at a time and there is no convergence for the shot, etc).

The reason it's there (as I understand it) is to prevent people from firing several successive shots within <0.1s of each other and preventing future potential macro abuse. Everyone is subject to the TCL build and decay, regardless of their firing pattern.

[MurnShaw]

This is interesting. It basically adds recoil into weapon systems, like from other FPSes. I have to agree, this would help with the alpha damage problem if it is implemented correctly. It probably wouldn't help with the large engagement snowball effect that yield 8-0 or 7-1 games though.

[scJazz]

Tombstoner, on 24 June 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

The mech lab adds more depth then WOT, because every mech has access to the same weapons. i recommend never playing EVE.

I lol'd so hard! I imagined all the myriad ways I could fight my Dominix. While also imagining all the time I spent staring at a 'plexing Dominix from my Covert wondering whether or not it was a trap.

[glycerin]

I am trying to answer some questions on the reddit.com thread, but it seems that people are not reading the whole article (including the rebuttals)

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, ESPECIALLY THE REBUTTALS!

Edited by glycerin, 24 June 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[Munk8]

I'm completely down with a targetting computer and it's capabilities.

It makes me think of Counter strike days: someone toting an M4 and spray and praying has severe accuracy penalties. However, doing a two or three round burst was rewarded with good accuracy. Good players have good aim and fire control, both of which this system seems to play to. The balance impacts all weapons, i really like that. Boating anything will be very ineffective, or at least controlled. An LRM 60 can fire 2 vollleys 1 second apart to get all missiles out unaffected. Also, i'm an ac40 *****, and like the idea of actually using my brain a bit rather than single click boom. Let's do it!

[iirai9456]

THIS is bloody brilliant, fixes core problems with the game; while adding more depth. Brain dead shooters are are dull...

[Homeless Bill]

glycerin, on 24 June 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

I am trying to answer some questions on the reddit.com thread, but it seems that people are not reading the whole article (including the rebuttals)

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, ESPECIALLY THE REBUTTALS!

I posted it after a 10-hour, red-eye writing session and forgot to post the initial comment / instructions. I feel so ******* dumb. That I relied on people to at least read my pre-written answers was a stupid mistake