704 replies to this topic

[Toby Williamson]

Just found this myself - best suggestion I have seen so far.

PGI: Check my log on activity to the game (every day for the last 8 months, minus perhaps 2 weeks I was in Vegas and Christmas in Italy) and to the forums (twice a month to read patch notes) and elevate/ignore my opinion accordingly.

~T

[Pht]

Caballo, on 14 July 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

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

How shocking. People argue for what they think is true and argue against what they think isn't true.

Yes, some of us even make our own argument, post links to it in their signature, and invite people who disagree with them to state why.

Just horrible.

Quote

I prefer Homeless idea. Basically because your idea will lead to the very same problem we have now.

... and it will only lead to the very same problem ... because you say it will?

[Homeless Bill]

Pht is still on hold 'til I can get some time =P

pencilboom, on 12 July 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

any answer from any of the mod why this idea moved to feature suggestion? Just curious whether this brilliant idea is "getting more attention" or simply being thrown away...

zorak ramone, on 14 July 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

Second page of a backwater exile forum?


Bumping this till gets bumped back into Gameplay Balance!

Know that I have taken the remnant of this thread which has remained true to its purpose beyond the boundaries of the Gameplay Balance, beyond K-Town. I have done this, neither out of disappointment with those whom we leave behind, nor out of spite or disdain, as some will say. No, we have left the Gameplay Balance because we love it too much to see it destroyed. In the wake of the mod's coup, and the long, bitter fighting that came with it, I fear that my forces would do incalculable, possibly irreparable, harm to our forums. We are sworn to ward MechWarrior: Online and its subjects, not destroy it.

Thus, we have left the only homeless we have ever known to place the destructive capability of this idea beyond the reach of those who would use it, not for defense, but for conquest. Perhaps, with the might of our facts and rebuttals out of reach, the ForumWarriors who now grapple with one another will relinquish their dreams of subjugating their neighbors and learn to live in peace with them.

Perhaps, one day, should PGI step back from the brink of the abyss, we, our children, or our children's children will return, to once more serve and protect and guide MechWarrior: Online in mankind's quest for a kick-*** 'mech simulator.

And by that, I mean mods contacted, request denied. I disagree with the decision, but there's no point arguing with the referees. It's technically a feature, and so here it will remain.

Immitem, on 11 July 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

It sounds like this idea is going places (minus the bogus thread location change). One thing that popped into my head recently (and sorry for pestering you with more questions) and that is should the weapons value be different for different mechs? As I understand it (not much) the Awesome is designed to alpha 3 PPC, a strength offset by its armour and large profile where as the Masakari should only fire 2 at a time without bloom to offset its Clan Tech.

Something I saw in another thread that could prevent the Awesome from being the FOTM is having the initial projectile do 5 damage and the rest coming from a tail that follows behind it that does gradual damage like a laser.

What do you think?

P.S. I liked how PPC in Mechwarrior 3 screwed with your HUD.

I'm in favor of implementing the system as-is with no special caveats, but I'd be interested to see certain 'mechs get certain bonuses. I don't know if I'd exempt the Awesome from the 2xPPC limitation, but it might have enough weaknesses to make it uncheesy. If not, I don't really support changing the weapon.

I don't think it's a bad idea - I just don't see it as being necessary; I like PPCs as the brutal energy projectile they are now. I'd like to see PPCs have one more heat, a reduced velocity, and **** yes - a HUD scramble effect.

Endgame124, on 12 July 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

While I had a little resistance to this at first, the more I think about it, the more I'm sold on this idea. I just can't break it without also thinking of a simple fix that only effects the targeting computer model. The worst case you would see is people firing weapon groups that are just under the TC limit, which is perfectly fine w/ me as it means I don't die to a single 40-60 damage alpha.

*You can use quirks on individual mechs to adjust targeting computer values.

*Much like Canon mechs and in TT mechanics, Medium lasers become a very solid choice.

*Pulse Lasers gain an addition balancing point.

*Clan Weapons gain an extra balancing point, in a good way.

*The targeting computer has a reason to exist.

This guy gets it. It's not just what it fixes - it's all the cool mechanics that can be stacked on top. Who needs a jumpjet nerf when you could just use this to counter poptarting? Pulse lasers suck? This can fix that. Clans? Overpowered, but not hilariously so. It's pretty tasty.

Belorion, on 12 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I can see having a slight recoil factor in the game, not unlike the impulse factor caused by getting hit, only for firing.

With heat you can effectively bring the dps of boated weapons down bellow the dps of lesser numbers of the same weapons. That way you are either delivering high dps, or high burst but paying for it at the cost of dps.

Recoil is ineffective because it allows players to get off one shot. You don't need to take a second shot right away when you just put 60 damage on a single component. This is essentially preemptive recoil with a reasonable threshold, and it's a much more solvent implementation of accuracy penalties than just recoil. In addition, lasers should be penalizes at a certain point. I'd really rather not see 10 large lasers being fired at once, regardless of heat generation.

The main thing this fails to take into account is that most matches are decided at the sniper phase right now. Take a look at Peter2000's analysis of the current meta. In the section right before the conclusion, he explains why decreased DPS is of little consequence.

We'll see, but I think you're about to witness the heat penalties fail spectacularly come Tuesday.

Inhibition, on 12 July 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

The idea is well thought but I don't like it.
It will nerf many boats that are intended to be boats.

The idea will also favor lights too heavily. It is hardest
to keep a steady firing reticle over a light, which is not
fair to heavier mechs.

The idea will also change gameplay
very significantly. It's not only the developers that have to
put a large amount of effort, but the players that have to adapt harshly.
Many players will be frustrated. I'd rather keep the current meta to be honest
than have some insane change (coming from a non-PPC user)

It nerfs all boating equally. Whether or not a 'mech was designed as a boat should not dictate its effectiveness. The Catapult A1 and stock Warhawk are perfect examples of canon boats that my solution touches but does not kill. The Splatcat will still be effective - it just can't fire everything in a single click. Same for the Warhawk/PPC Stalker. I don't understand how you think having to click twice is a severe nerf.

First of all, Mediums have totally gotten the shaft. This is something that would help their viability immensely. Even lights are generally getting screwed by the one-click wonders. If it was deemed not harsh enough on lights, it's rather easy to decrease the maximum TCL based on chassis / weight class.

That's the magic of my idea: it WON'T change gameplay in a significant way. For all of the complexity in its concept and implementation, the player's adjustment will be natural and mostly seamless. It's about setting up weapon groups in a reasonable way and rhythmically staggering fire. There's no number-watching or constant monitoring - it's all about feeling out the proper spacing between shots.

The only players that get frustrated will be the ones that do nothing but alpha strike. It would be incredibly easy to get used to, and I think that's one of my system's biggest advantages over a lot of other solutions.

Think about the proposed heat penalties for a second - how do you communicate to the player they just triggered a heat penalty? A little +X floating next to the heat scale? Something that flashes on screen briefly? Just don't tell the player and assume they know the charts?

Edited by Homeless Bill, 15 July 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

Here's to hoping it doesn't try to merge these posts again...

DarkDesigns, on 12 July 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

1. Yes. This is the fix for jump-sniping. It allows developers to essentially set what an acceptable jump-snipe alpha strike is capable of.
2. Yes. Pulse lasers would have a reason to exist perhaps.
3. I don't know if I'm a huge fan of heat affecting accuracy, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing how it plays out on the public test servers.
4. Absolutely. All of those factors could be woven into the system in interesting ways.
5. The problem I have with not having the dots is that the penalty is preemptive. The crosshairs can change color and they do bloom, but I want a player to know, for certain, what their TCL will be at after they fire.

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

mechanical assistance to weapons platforms

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

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

Totally don't care about fluff, so I'd be down with this. However someone wants to explain it works for me.

It would definitely be interesting to see ballistic impacts or collisions affect the TCL/MAWP.

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

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

Would also make brawling more fun.

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

On the PPC: I totally agree that the PPC needs a velocity reduction (sub-Gauss levels, IMO) and maybe one extra heat. That said, it won't fix the issue of pinpoint damage; it's just a bandaid on the worst symptom.

I completely disagree that it won't solve the problem. Don't like how much front-loaded damage is being done? Tweak the numbers. Decrease the rate of dissipation so it takes 1.5 seconds between shots. Increase the TCS value of PPCs to 60 so you can only fire one at a time. The beauty if this system is that it can't not work. They just have to get the numbers right, which, unlike the rest of balance, is fairly easy due to there only being a single number per weapon (as opposed to range, damage, heat, beam duration, recycle time, etc.).

Balancing process for the targeting computer:

• Is weapon X too effective at max pinpoint alpha potential (most fired < 100TCL)? Increase weapon X's TCS to allow fewer to be fired simultaneously.
  
• Is weapon X not effective enough at max pinpoint alpha potential (most fired < 100TCL)? Decrease weapon X's TCS to allow more to be fired simultaneously.
  
• Is there not enough gap between pinpoint shots? Decrease the TCL's rate of dissipation.
  
• Is there too much of a gap between pinpoint shots? Increase the TCL's rate of dissipation.

I appreciate that you may not think it's necessary, but it doesn't share the problems or lack of solvency the heat penalties do.

Zyllos, on 13 July 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Basically. This.

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

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

OR

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

I feel like you didn't read any of the post or rebuttals. I've covered all of this extensively, but here you go:

Because what about 'mechs that have angry stock loadouts? Warhawk has 4xERPPCs and an LRM10 stock. Thunderhawk has 3xGR. Devastator has 2xPPC + 2xGR. Hard limits on weapons are a lazy, inelegant solution to a problem stemming from convergence. Every weapon should be able to be boated legitimately.

Gauss Rifles generate essentially no heat. Large ballistics in general won't be greatly affected. Basically, you're just asking to nerf energy weapons. And only one of those needs it.

[Pht]

Homeless Bill, on 15 July 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Pht is still on hold 'til I can get some time =P

NP man. I'm in the habit, for the longer replys, of "quoting" the post I'm replying to, switch it to show the tags, and type up my reply in a word editor, than save as a plain text file.

About why 'mechs miss (or hit), IN THE LORE (not "RL").

Well, there'es the myomers; they're basically plastic electric motors that perform like muscle tissue. However, they apply the electrical current directly instead of chemically.

Which means that when they get hot, they become more resistive. That plus the fact that the heat is NEVER applied equally across a myomer bundle means that they also become erratic.

The Actutator Enhancement System attains the -1 (makes things easier to hit) by controlling just these things.

The advanced targeting computer suite acheives it's effect by, yes, more capable computing power, but it also adds more advanced steppers/etc and such to each direct-fire weapon in a 'mech to more capably control the aiming of each individual weapon; obviously, if there weren't improvements to be made, there would be no TC hardware, so we know that this is a factor that causes misses.

Oh, yes, 'mechs can and do aim every individual weapon mounted to them; with missiles obviously being aimed in a different manner; and once fired, the missiles themselves, if they have lock, "aim" themselves. Yes, even torso mounted weapons automatically "converge" to attempt to hit a target at whatever range.

Topping this off is the obvious (relative) instability of a bipedal (or quadripedal) firing platform, especially when moving; and the relative directional velocity of a 'mech as a target. Sure, they're as big as billboards, but they can change direction very quickly. A mech's T&T suite actually has to account for this.

Individual weapons can also be made more inaccurate by damage they have taken (to barrels, focusing lenses, etc).

Edited by Pht, 15 July 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[DocBach]

http://themittani.co...od-bad-and-ugly

well, got some publicity from the goons. I'd say it seems like they rather like the idea of convergence changes

[Phaesphoros]

DocBach, on 15 July 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

http://themittani.co...od-bad-and-ugly

well, got some publicity from the goons. I'd say it seems like they rather like the idea of convergence changes

Huh? As far as I understand it, they just want to buff hit points again to nerf PPCs, as atm PPCs are outclassed by high DPS builds only after some 18 s, which is long enough for a PPC boat to destroy a 'Mech (4 shots à 40 dmg).
But this is pointless, as nerfing the PPC DPS and increasing their heat would have the exact same effect.

Side remark: As long as the PPC has the second highest DPS of all energy-based weapons - 1st is LPL m( - and it still does 5 dmg / 1.25 DPS at 45 m, there is no downside in using a PPC in a brawl. In fact (also see Peter2000's analysis), high-alpha weapons have the advantage that the shooter can torso-twist after shooting.
If you wanted to make the PPC a strict sniper weapon, you'd have to lower the DPS, increase the heat, and increase the minimum range. HB's nerf affects the PPC in every role.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 15 July 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[DocBach]

sarcasm, they crapped all over the idea

[Ken Fury]

DocBach, on 15 July 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

http://themittani.co...od-bad-and-ugly

well, got some publicity from the goons. I'd say it seems like they rather like the idea of convergence changes

Convergence changes aren't bad in itself, the suggestions are bad because you can easily circumvent them. AND firing weapons in group and single fire is making them shoot with different reticules.

Disabling convergence for Torso weapons would be really a step into the right direction. Aka weapon offset. If your upset about someone not agreeing with you that's fine. But there might be a reason your idea isn't THE FIX. Think about it how to break your Idea.

[YueFei]

Tank Boy Ken, on 15 July 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

Convergence changes aren't bad in itself, the suggestions are bad because you can easily circumvent them. AND firing weapons in group and single fire is making them shoot with different reticules.

Disabling convergence for Torso weapons would be really a step into the right direction. Aka weapon offset. If your upset about someone not agreeing with you that's fine. But there might be a reason your idea isn't THE FIX. Think about it how to break your Idea.

Being forced to fire smaller groups of weapons for precision fire will give the mech being shot at time to maneuver and twist, spreading the damage out. The same way that a Hunchback-4P ends up slathering damage all over an enemy who is twisting and turning, thus making its 45-damage alpha strike not so dangerous.

Imagine if the Hunchback-4P had medium lasers that delivered instant damage. It would be ridiculous, with a concentration of firepower 9 times higher than it is supposed to be in the TT from which our weapon damage and armor model is derived.

You can still Alpha Strike under Homeless Bill's system, you'll just end up spreading the damage out on the enemy mech, striking multiple panels. That way you can still do the peek-and-shoot and drop back into cover, but that shot you take isn't going to focus a crapload of damage into a single armor panel. The enemy mech you shot gets "softened up", rather than having his shoulder just barely clinging to his mech, only one more alpha strike away from having his shoulder (and the arm and all the weapons) ripped away.

Simply increasing Mech health is a way to increase mech longevity, but the ability to truly focus the damage would still be King. You can rattle out a ton of DPS, but if it strikes 5 different armor facings on the enemy, he's still fully functional. The enemy could dish out just half of the damage in the same amount of time, but if he directs it all into one armor panel, you lose that shoulder, along with half or more of your firepower.

I've had some 500+ damage matches in my Hunchback-4P.... and finished it with no kills and no assists. Then I can turn around and have a 300 damage match in my Catapult-K2, and that's enough to kill 2 or 3 enemies, just because the damage is so focused. Opponents give a split second opportunity for a shot and 2PPC+Gauss rips half the HP away. It wouldn't be like that if my PPCs and Gauss had to fire half a second apart. Then it'd probably be more like 10 damage to center, 10 damage to the shoulder, and 15 to the arm, as the mech being struck twisted and turned.

If he just stands still out in the open and lets me shoot him, I'm still gonna get all that into one spot. But then, if he does that, he kinds deserves it.

Edited by YueFei, 15 July 2013 - 11:33 PM.

[YueFei]

Phaesphoros, on 14 July 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:

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

But that's the beauty of Homeless Bill's system. If players just don't have enough time to react, you increase the TCL value or decrease TCL dissipation rate until it's at the point where an alert player has enough time to twist and turn. I feel that 1 second is long enough. I've shot at players with lasers who were alert enough to begin twisting about half a second into my 1 second beam, spreading the other half of the laser salvo onto other armor panels. Half a second is about how long it takes the average person to react, if you factor in lag, too.

Quote

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

Actually, the pilot being shot at does have a chance to gaurantee that it strikes a different armor section, if he sees what was struck the first time, and shades it appropriately from the enemy's gunsights. No, it may not be easy, but I feel that some challenge and some difficulty in successful defense is appropriate. As long as it's possible for the target being shot at to do something about it, I think that's fine. Again, the TCL values and TCL dissipation rates can be tweaked as needed to give players enough time to make that maneuver. It'd be a vast improvement over the current situation, where you just suddenly tank 45 damage into a single panel.

Quote

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

Nope, Homeless Bill's system can encompass the AC/5 as well. No reason it can't. If 20 damage pin-point every 1.4 seconds becomes too much, just increase AC/5 TCL value.

And the Cataphract's chassis and weapon mount positions might make it an inferior sniper, but Homeless Bill's system makes peek-and-shoot snipers alot less dangerous. Snipers will still have a place, they will still be able to impact the match, but it will come in the form of weakening opponents as forces close in, and not just easily removing limbs and killing mechs in 2 or 3 shots.

Edited by YueFei, 15 July 2013 - 11:44 PM.

[Team Leader]

Tank Boy Ken, on 15 July 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

Convergence changes aren't bad in itself, the suggestions are bad because you can easily circumvent them. AND firing weapons in group and single fire is making them shoot with different reticules.

Disabling convergence for Torso weapons would be really a step into the right direction. Aka weapon offset. If your upset about someone not agreeing with you that's fine. But there might be a reason your idea isn't THE FIX. Think about it how to break your Idea.

Ok so I read this article too. Basically TBK wants a health buff and more emphasis of brawler DPS builds? Health buffs help the assaults that are sitting back launching pinpoint volleys while the lighter/quicker brawlers try to close distance, the DPS potential doesn't matter at all if the pinpoint alphas from range kill it before it even has a chance to get in close.

Also please stop writing in the "everyone is dumb but me and my friends" style it's not very conductive to getting your opinion accepted. But I think more DPS centric weapons as well as the Targeting computer convergence thing could both work quite well together and make the game even more balanced and enjoyable for all play styles. We don't only have to support one system.

[Phaesphoros]

YueFei, on 15 July 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

Half a second is about how long it takes the average person to react, if you factor in lag, too.

I disagree. Average reaction time is of the order of 200 ms, plus pings of the order of 100 (Europe) to 250 (Asia/Australia). 200 ms reaction time + 200 ms ping target + 200 ms ping shooter (due to HSR) = 600 ms. Now you still have to factor in server processing time and torso twisting speed / time. I think 800 - 1000 ms is a good estimate for the time it takes for you to torso-twist a section away from a shooter, if you immediately know where the shot came from.

YueFei, on 15 July 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

Nope, Homeless Bill's system can encompass the AC/5 as well. No reason it can't. If 20 damage pin-point every 1.4 seconds becomes too much, just increase AC/5 TCL value.

And the Cataphract's chassis and weapon mount positions might make it an inferior sniper, but Homeless Bill's system makes peek-and-shoot snipers alot less dangerous. Snipers will still have a place, they will still be able to impact the match, but it will come in the form of weakening opponents as forces close in, and not just easily removing limbs and killing mechs in 2 or 3 shots.

I think you misunderstood me. I do think that the CTF-4X with 4 ACs is not OP, and won't be with HB's system. But I have to address this:

YueFei, on 15 July 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

Actually, the pilot being shot at does have a chance to gaurantee that it strikes a different armor section

And I'd like to hear what Homeless Bill thinks about the following scenario / possible problem:

1v1 4-PPC-STK vs 4-AC-CTF.
Let's say we start at 300 m distance. With seismic and the current map design (even Canyon), I think that should be realistic for a brawler engaging a sniper. At this distance, the brawler starts shooting and the sniper notices the brawler. The possible problem I'd like to point out is this:
The STK can torso-twist defensively after shooting a salvo (or two), spreading out the continuous damage of the CTF. The CTF on the other hand, cannot torso-twist defensively AT ALL. It can torso-twist, but it cannot know when the STK is going to shoot. And as the distance is only 300 m, the PPC only needs 300 ms (at 1000 m/s) to 200 ms to hit the CTF, therefore the CTF cannot twist away when seeing the shot. It could torso-twist when the STK turns towards it, but it cannot shoot while being twisted away.
Now, a good STK pilot doesn't shoot while the CTF is in defensive position, or shoots the arm. If (s)he doesn't shoot, the CTF cannot start firing again; if the STK shoots, it can apply 40 damage to the arm / side torso. If the CTF twists its torso wildly (and not just to the side, not just using the arm as a shield), a good STK pilot still can hit a single torso section, as the torso twisting speed isn't high enough or the change of torso twisting direction not random enough.
As far as I can see, high-alpha weapons will always be superior in brawling; that's also why the AC/20 is effective even though it has only 25 % more DPS, less than half the speed and range and twice the weight of an AC/2. It is somewhat balanced within the ACs (maybe with the exception of 2*AC/20), but completely off when comparing within the energy weapons or PPC<->ballistics.
I agree with the goons at one point: If you don't want to randomize the hit direction completely (i.e. allow pinpoint damage), a high-alpha weapon will always be at least as good for brawling as for sniping.

A solution within HB's system to balance PPCs against high-DPS could be to only allow 1 PPC per second for pinpoint damage. A 4 PPC STK would then have to continuously face the high-DPS brawler (4 s PPC weapon cooldown). But disallowing a 2 PPC pinpoint alpha is quite harsh -- or maybe not, now that I think about it: compare to AC/20, which explicitly is a brawler weapon, or Gauss, which is heavier due to ammo and can explode (though I don't think that this is a large drawback, since the armor has to be removed before).
I think a better way would be - in addition to HB's TC mechanic - to nerf PPC DPS (as I said earlier), increase the heat and increase the minimum range. The idea is that the brawler has a chance to get inside the minimum range and the PPC does only insignificant damage there. While getting inside minimum range, the brawler doesn't have to keep facing the sniper (-> defensive torso-twisting).

Edited by Phaesphoros, 16 July 2013 - 01:13 AM.

[Miken]

I think main problem it's one crosshair for all weapons. Let's split crosshair for groups, something like that ''xoxox'' => LT(LA)CT(RA)RT or "xox" => LT(LA+[CT]+RA)RT so it's simply solve main problem.

Edited by Miken, 16 July 2013 - 02:18 AM.

[Ken Fury]

Team Leader, on 16 July 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Also please stop writing in the "everyone is dumb but me and my friends" style i

Hard truth and stuff...

[Roughneck45]

Very interesting. I like that it attempts to fix the problem without really changing anything else stats wise.

[Pht]

DocBach, on 15 July 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

http://themittani.co...od-bad-and-ugly

well, got some publicity from the goons. I'd say it seems like they rather like the idea of convergence changes

"break the system"

Bufffing hitpoints destroys the smaller weapons systems and the smaller mechs and inherently favors the assaults that can carry a lot of huge hard hitting weapons.

This exact problem cropped up in mw4, esp after the Mektek buff to hitpoints for the assaults.

Hitpoint buffs won't fix the problem.

If they try and "fix" the nerf to small weapons that a hitpoint buff causes, they'll cause even MORE damage vs armor problems.

EDIT: its this sort of "put a bandaid on a squirting jugular vein" fixes that won't fix the problem and have continued to cause more problems.

The fix has to address the cause of the symptoms, not the symptoms theselves.

Edited by Pht, 16 July 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[Khord]

I like this idea and would like to see PGI seriously consider this approach.

[pencilboom]

bumping for justice

[Mega Prawn]

I don't know why it's taken me over a month to find this thread, but I cannot express how awesome this would be if it were to be implemented.

This would turn MWO into the layered, tactical, cognitive game it is supposed to be.

Having read and imagined these changes, the current game systems seem simplistic and unfinished, like a face with a load of features missing.

PGI, if you only ever do one more thing to this entire game, for the love of jeebus make it Operation-Homeless.