44 replies to this topic

[Odins Fist]

FupDup, on 12 June 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

This game seriously poops in the mouth of small-weapons enough as it is...

I must say this is the funniest line of the day... I'm glad to see some people haven't lost their humor.

Edited by Odins Fist, 12 June 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[Sable Dove]

Good idea, but the issue is not necessarily that alpha strikes are possible, but that there is no real limit to the things you can boat.

A more balanced solution would be to reduce the heat cap (either by removing the base capacity, or to remove the additional capacity of heat sinks. I would say the latter is the better option), and increase heat dissipation by 75-100% 60-150% (depending on the method used and possibly what the base is changed to). This would leave alphas possible, but impractical for large groups or hot weapons.

With a heat cap of 20, 2 ERPPCs simutaneously would overheat any mech). So a mech could still fire 5 ML without overheating, but not 2 ERPPCs. Due to heat dissipation, one could fire three LL, 7-8 SL, 5 ML, 2PPC, 1ERPPC, etc.

Assuming PGI keeps their boating penalties, this can also eliminate the dual AC20/Gauss builds (and if they're smart, Gauss+AC20 too).

Edited by Sable Dove, 12 June 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[Marj]

Removing group fire/alpha strikes means you're removing the ability to pilot defensively since you have to keep facing your opponent to fire (unless you only have 1-2 guns). Bad idea.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Group fire is a vital aspect of MWO.

I assume your goal is to nerf high-alpha builds of one kind or another (9ML HBK-4Ps are high alpha every bit as much as 4 PPC Stalkers).

This is not the way to do it. What needs to happen is that there needs to be an element of real risk in the high-alpha play style. The overheat damage proposal from the recent developer update post is an ok start, though it has issues. Removing group fire as a mechanic, however, is just dumb.

[Corvus Antaka]

Sable Dove, on 12 June 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Good idea, but the issue is not necessarily that alpha strikes are possible, but that there is no real limit to the things you can boat.

A more balanced solution would be to reduce the heat cap (either by removing the base capacity, or to remove the additional capacity of heat sinks. I would say the latter is the better option), and increase heat dissipation by 75-100% 60-150% (depending on the method used and possibly what the base is changed to). This would leave alphas possible, but impractical for large groups or hot weapons.

With a heat cap of 20, 2 ERPPCs simutaneously would overheat any mech). So a mech could still fire 5 ML without overheating, but not 2 ERPPCs. Due to heat dissipation, one could fire three LL, 7-8 SL, 5 ML, 2PPC, 1ERPPC, etc.

Assuming PGI keeps their boating penalties, this can also eliminate the dual AC20/Gauss builds (and if they're smart, Gauss+AC20 too).

it's either this and normal dissapation rates (buff SHS a little possibly) or PGI needs to make any shot worth more than 20 dmg stack heat equal to the extra damage, so a dual ac/20 boat firing both AC's incurs a 20 heat penalty in example.

the current meta is godaweful. Can't even have fun in a spider these days, and I'm actually starting to miss the raven 3L everywherez

I though Russ said DPS was too high? heat is how you balance it. heck, even mech 3 ac 20 boats where WAY more limited then what we have here.

[soarra]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

It is how I have played CBT for 26 years. Redesign My Mechs so it can fire most to all my weapons. It is foollish to try to stop folks like me from playing the game as I have for 26 years.

but in BT not all your shots hit exactly dead center

[Tennex]

HRR Insanity, on 12 June 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

In MWO, sure. But look at the heat ratios... They're waaay worse than they should be for the weight.

And in MW4, they nerfed both heat and damage.

yeah thats true. in MW4 small weapons could be boated like crazy.

good thing we have the hardpoint system

[Tennex]

HighTest, on 12 June 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Sorry, I have to throw this idea into the "terrible ideas" bin.

Theres a terrible ideas bin? why hasn't PGI been told about this. would have helped a lot

[Lootee]

Group fire has a place but it should only allow a certain number of smaller weapons to be fired simultaneously. 3 is a good number. 3 medium lasers = same damage as a gauss rifle.

The big problem right now is massive damage from humongous alpha strikes all hitting the same spot. If there was a limit of only 1 big gun, or 3 small guns allowed to be fired at once the most damage you would suffer from that single strike would be 10-20.

After the quick cooldown (.5-.75sec) you could continue to fire the rest of your weapons, but it would require you to keep your aim on the target. Skilled players could still make all their weapons hit the same place, but it wouldn't be guaranteed any more and spreading the damage out over time gives the victim time to respond instead of just falling over dead from 60-90 pts of damage.

It's either that or a random cone of fire (which almost no one wants), at least this way the player still controls where the shots go. It just slows the combat down and gives a chance of spreading the damage around, rather than concentrating every weapon mounted on a mech into a single hit like how it is now.

Make up whatever rationale for the limit. Power couplings can't handle the load to power more than 3 guns at any given instant, recoil from the huge ballistics. LRM rocket engine safeties disengaging, whatever. It'd be better for game balance than the alpha strike nightmare we're seeing now.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 12 June 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[HiplyRustic]

Bill, from now on I must think of you like this:

[cyberFluke]

I still fail to grasp why people don't want more "atmospheric" (Game POV) and player controllable weapon deviation from aimpoint. Not RNG CoF but swaying when running, twitching when hot and bouncing on collision etc.

Snipers have to be still and cool (or skilled enough to compensate for the sway and time the shot right) to make that high damage shot.

Lower the heat cap and up dissipation (maybe raise some weapon heat values) and boating is no longer the most desirable build strategy, no need for extra systems overlayed on top of existing ones. This is especially true when the existing systems were designed to prevent exactly the problems we're having.

[IceSerpent]

Homeless Bill, on 11 June 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

I don't want this to be a thread about whether or not forcing chain-fire would solve our current balance problems. That's a discussion for another thread. I want you to just forget gameplay balance as part of your reasoning.

What I do want is a discussion of why group fire is good or bad from a gameplay standpoint. Why should it exist in the first place?

In the context of the poll, assume that if you vote yes, chain-fire is fixed to have a slight delay so you can't macro or spam to get the same effect as group fire.

I have my own opinions, but I'll reserve those for now.

1. You seem to contradict yourself - see underlined parts.
2. Having chain fire only would simply mean that the fewer (and the bigger) guns you have, the better off you are. Which is what we already have in current meta - most configs run with 2-4 weapons at most.

[PEEFsmash]

Have we gone so far with hating the metagame that we don't want to allow people to fire two small lasers at the same time?

Dear lord, some of these suggestions are mind-blowingly bizarre.

[Sable Dove]

cyberFluke, on 12 June 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

I still fail to grasp why people don't want more "atmospheric" (Game POV) and player controllable weapon deviation from aimpoint. Not RNG CoF but swaying when running, twitching when hot and bouncing on collision etc.

Snipers have to be still and cool (or skilled enough to compensate for the sway and time the shot right) to make that high damage shot.

Lower the heat cap and up dissipation (maybe raise some weapon heat values) and boating is no longer the most desirable build strategy, no need for extra systems overlayed on top of existing ones. This is especially true when the existing systems were designed to prevent exactly the problems we're having.

Because mouse manipulation is the only skill most core gamers know. They can't grasp the concept or any sort of skill that relies on intelligence; predicting sway, being conscious of where the weapons are on your own mech, and god forbid they have to actually learn to control their fire.

The easiest solution would be to cut the heat cap and increase dissipation. And if they're not going to add heat penalties to aiming, moving, or the like, they could at least increase the heat retention so that builds that run hot are penalized by cooling more slowly. Sure, you can alpha yourself up to 90% heat, but then it takes twice as long to get back to zero as if you chain fired them.

[East Indy]

Is the problem group fire, or is the problem multiple high-damage beams or projectiles converging on a pinpoint?

Convenience and organization are good. Turning several weapons into a mega-weapon is dumb. Alpha strikes not used as a last-ditch effort are dumb.

Why not modify Piranha's proposed change? Remove the heat penalty. Just incorporate a 0.5-second delay between weapon firings, whether grouped or not. Hell, even a 0.25-second delay might be enough to allow players to effectively group and feel like they're loosing a volley without zapping the same square inch. Then reintroduce the heat penalty specifically for the alpha-strike button, so it's reserved for those last 10 seconds when one 'Mech tries desperately to core the other before frying itself.

[Homeless Bill]

HiplyRustic, on 12 June 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

Bill, from now on I must think of you like this:

Let me be perfectly clear:
BILL DOES NOT SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF GROUP FIRE.

Bill supports this solution to balance most of the issues we have. This was nothing more than a research thread.

I wanted unbiased feedback as to why everyone likes group fire, and that's what I got. I know a lot of the things I like about group fire, but I figured there were more good reasons. I used you all for the brainstorming, and you all performed admirably.

[HighTest]

In my opinion, most of the issues with boating (particularly PPCs) these days is really a function of the MAPS we're playing on. And because of those, it encourages people to boat multiple long-range weapons.

Why? Simple. With the exception of River City and Frozen City, most of the maps have a ton of wide-open firing lanes where straight-line energy and ballistic weapons can shine. Look at Alpine Peaks in particular -- almost every match there seems to begin with heavy long-range exchanges. Why? Because if you boat PPCs, even at 1600m, you can still do some damage with a group of them. And since PPCs don't have an ammo limit, why not just keep firing away even if you're only doing 5 damage per alpha (from being so far over effective range). The poor saps on the other side can't touch you at that range with AC20s, LRMs, SRMs or most other weapons, so what is the downside of using as much heat as you have to whittle them away? I actually can't fault them for that -- it's good tactics, really.

Now take a look at Tourmaline Desert. While there are lots of tight places to get into close-range skirmishes, almost every match seems to end up with both sides running into the "stargate" area -- which again is generally wide open for PPC or LRM fire.

The funny thing is, except for maybe Alpine Peaks (which really is quite open even despite the hills and mountains), every map has some choke points that you can use to your advantage to close the engagement range. Sadly, most people never bother to use them. They just run into the 'usual' open places and get torn to shreds.

So don't blame boating. Don't blame the alpha strike. Don't blame group fire.

You might argue that you can blame the maps. That at least makes some sense.

But really, you need to blame the tactics. If you insist on finding the part of the map where a 5 PPC Stalker can tear you to shreds while you stand there with an AC20 and some medium lasers or SRMs, it's not the metagame's fault.

[stjobe]

Group fire isn't a problem, in fact it's canon. Look up "Target Interlock Circuit", or TIC.

What is a problem, as so many others have pointed out, is that all weapons in a group (TIC) hit in exactly the same spot. This is most definitely not canon, in fact it's about as far from canon as you can get.

So no, getting rid of group fire is a bad idea. Getting rid of pin-point accuracy is a good idea, and there's plenty of solutions floating around the forums on how to go about it, e.g.
* Cone of Fire
* Convergence
* Make ballistics burst-fire

[General Taskeen]

Why don't they just fix group fire so it works just as fast as a macro? As it is now, 'group fire' doesn't cycle to the next 'available' weapon. It just goes down the list and fires each weapon in turn. Or they could simply implement several types of group fire, which is what MW3 did for 'fast fire' cycling and less heat intensive cycling. MWO is missing those types of 'simulation-esque' options that made other Mech titles more interesting.

Edited by General Taskeen, 14 June 2013 - 05:25 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

soarra, on 12 June 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

but in BT not all your shots hit exactly dead center

Neither do my shots in MWO. Otherwise I wouldn't shoot off as many legs and arms as I do...