176 replies to this topic

[Strayed]

Just make people die after 3 overheats and boating will be fixed in a jiffy!

[Roland]

Quote

Why would 4 PPCs fired at once, inflicting 40 damage, have no heat penalty when 2 AC20s doing the same 40 damage (and weighing more plus ammo plus slot cost) would have a heat penalty?

If I had to guess, I would suspect that both of those configurations will have a heat penalty.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 12 June 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Mostly I second your posting...
however ... we still didn't get any information about "stacking" of any other weapon as the PPC and the MLAS
(i expect that there is a 3 ER PPC barrier as well (AWS-9M) - but most other weapons appear in pairs only.
So will there be no penalty or penalty for every weapon above 2...

more information from Devs would help much to prevent rage....

however i totaly agree with ideas about heatsinks and cone... however most will dislike it because of skill™ so prepare to get shelled

What happens with 2 PPCs and 2 ER PPCs? Different weapons, after all.

[Felbombling]

HighlandCoo, on 12 June 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

PSST - Dont forget that in WOT your tank can be invisible if it sits still in a bush. There is no such thing in mechwarrior so convergence would actually be a bit of a bummer.

Well, to be fair, in WoT 100% of shots are made with the aim system, not just shots made while hidden within or behind a bush. Convergence would be a tool to balance the game more toward strategy and maneuver over the one click, one kill we seem to have right now. To be honest, I think MWO could use a little more thinking, being billed as the thinking man's shooter.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 June 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

What happens with 2 PPCs and 2 ER PPCs? Different weapons, after all.

Duno but maybe nothing - because they are different weapons!!!????
the 2 ER-PPC and 2 PPC Stalker will be a greater thread as the 4 PPC Stalker then.

If and only if the examples could be transfered towards ALL Mechs and are not depending on each mech (means only Awesome is allowed of stacking 3 PPC without penaltys)
Pretend that 3 PPCs are allowed because of the AWS8Q and 3 PPCs are allowed because of the AWS9M on every Mech...there could be some 3 PPC and 3 ERPPC Stalker - 12 heat more as currently (60) near overheating but less than 6 PPC with stacking penalty (42)

However thats the problem with "just" examples... need more ammunition

[Bagheera]

StaggerCheck, on 12 June 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

To be honest, I think MWO could use a little more thinking, being billed as the thinking man's shooter.

Oh, you mean like if we had to manage our heat because failing to do so would cause damage to our internal components or possibly cause our mech to fail catastrophically?

Karl Streiger, on 12 June 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

Duno but maybe nothing - because they are different weapons!!!????
the 2 ER-PPC and 2 PPC Stalker Cataphract will be a greater thread as the 4 PPC Stalker then.

ftfy

Edited by Bagheera, 12 June 2013 - 06:28 AM.

[Aim64C]

Skyfaller, on 12 June 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

The game has two major design issues:

1- Alpha boating.
2- Pinpoint accuracy.

#1 is due to the dual heatsinks. No other reason. DHS is the very reason why boating is possible. Engine DHS to be more precise.

No, it's not.

It's due to the ****-poor hardpoint system that already contributes heavily to the "I need to use the biggest weapon I can fit here or I get cheated out of firepower" problem.

Quote

#2 comes from the game being 1st person shooter and you guys making it an arcade click'n'shoot game. BT did not have pinpoint firing, it was random roll hit location.

Agree, somewhat - though the main reason this is a difficult concept to balance is because weapons that deal 10 points of damage on contact with the target can be stacked on in numbers that are incredibly high.

Convergence isn't necessarily -the- problem to be addressed, here.

Quote

So, how to fix the game?

1- Re-work the heatsink mechanics. Make single heatsinks have 2.0 heat capacity and 1.0 dissipation while DHS have 1.0 heat capacity and 2.0 dissipation. The result is those who want to be able to fire 3 or 4 boated alphas before shutdown pay for doing so with a glacial cooling time. Those that pick DHS cant spam alpha because they dont have the heat capacity for it but they can cool weapons quickly which greatly benefits brawling chain fire.

I don't see how that's going to fix high-alpha builds. So my 6-Medium Laser Jenner damn near shuts down with a single shot. No biggie - I just run off and wait for the target to forget about me and return.

The 6PPC stalker? Who cares about DOT when you can blast the guy in the face with 60 points of damage before he even realizes he's made a mistake?

Quote

2- There is a way to remove pinpoint accuracy while still allowing the player to aim in 1st person shooter. World of Tanks uses it.

Simply put, there is a dispersion cone built into the aimpoint. The longer the aimpoint remains aimed at a certain range the narrower the cone becomes. If the aimpoint is moved around the dispersion cone expands.

That's a horrible idea.

Light mechs will be all kinds of gimped, and everything will turn into turrett battles. Anything approaching mobile combat will be reduced to missiles and face-humping.

Why? Because everyone is going to be standing around to make sure their weapons hit.

Quote

Apply both fixes to heatsinks and add the dispersion system and your game will be fixed.

No, no it won't.

The best way to fix this game is to implement a more sophisticated hardpoint system that prevents the 'boating' of weapons that are oddly placed in battletech, to begin with. The PPC is a perfect example - it's a "small" and very light weapon for the damage it does. That's fine - except that you can put high numbers of PPCs on mechs and make it practical in a design that would have been making very severe compromises in tabletop.

Fix the hardpoint issue. Then we can talk about whether or not other things need to be changed.

[3rdworld]

Livewyr, on 12 June 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

3PPC/1Gauss Highlander.

Given how easy it is for stalker to abuse the terrain, don't forget the Misery.

[Roland]

Aim64C, on 12 June 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

No, it's not.

It's due to the ****-poor hardpoint system that already contributes heavily to the "I need to use the biggest weapon I can fit here or I get cheated out of firepower" problem.

You are incorrect.

If they removed the hardpoint system, you'd actually see even MORE boating.

How do I know this, with 100% certainty? Because it's exactly what happened in past Mechwarrior games. That's the entire reason why they introduced the hardpoint system.

[Kaldor]

Roland, on 12 June 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Technically, these actually are exactly the issues that are breaking the balance of the Battletech game design.

People may be afraid of various solutions to those problems, but they ARE the problems, whether you want to admit it or not. They are the root of why high alpha, boated weapons will always dominate mechwarrior. And they always have been.

Fair enough. But adding randomness to a game that is basically an FPS is not the answer. Whether you care to admit it or not, there is some skill involved in firing while moving at a target that is moving and being able to hit it where you want. At that point you have to look at solutions that are simple but effective. Forcing people to alpha less via lower heat caps, but giving them the ability to shoot more via higher dissipation is likely the best answer.

Edited by Kaldor, 12 June 2013 - 06:34 AM.

[Moira]

I tend to agree with AIM64C, hardpoint limits are needed. I feel kinda weird even thinking that I can slot a LRM20 to STK-3H LT that has only was it 6 tubes =) So if this hardpoint limit would come available then we really would have start thinking the mechs model not just the hardpoints that it has.

just my view of the matter

[Skyfaller]

Kaldor, on 12 June 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

How about we leave heatsinks alone, and just fix the heat system right?

Reduce heat cap by 50%, increase dissipation by 50%. Leave everything else alone, test it, make changes from there.

Umm..that's basically what I'm suggesting is done to the DHS.

Quote

Convergence cone? No thank you. I do not need to be penalized by the game for being a good shot.

Actually yes you do. The only reason you claim you're a good shot is because you're using high damage instant application weapons like projectiles and PPCs. There is no way you can come here and claim you can keep a large laser aimed at the RT of a mech for the duration of the lase as you move and it moves. This 'good shot' of yours is literally your misconception of the results of game mechanics stacked to favor your not-so-skillful ability to click when your aimpoint is at a certain location. Why? Because 4 PPCs (as an example) hitting the same armor section (even if they miss the armor spot you were aiming for) still apply significant damage to the enemy mech and greatly contributes to its destruction.

Quote

The issue is not convergence. The issue is not pin point accuracy. The issue is a heat system that allows people to alpha too many high damage front load weapons like PPCs, gauss, and AC20s with no real penalty. If you increase the amount of shots they have to take to keep from over heating, their accuracy will not go down, but as a side effect they will need to expose themselves longer to get damage on target, instead of step out, alpha, and step back in to cool.

Heat is indeed half of the problem. Tell me though, do you think the PPC/AC20/GAUSS boating would be effective if they didn't all hit in one location? Again, these are all instant-damage application weapons not lasers that deliver damage over 1 second time. They would not plain and simple.

For example, if I use the jager-DD macro on a 6 PPC stalker...making it so that when I click all 6 ppcs WILL fire ..but they will fire 0.3 seconds apart... here's what will happen:

Heat-wise the six PPCs firing so close together means the stalker will still generate the same total heat as if all were fired at once (give or take 2% due to the added up delay). So no real change to heat as an issue there.

Damage wise however.... instead of all six slapping 60 damage into the CT of the moving enemy mech, the 0.3 delay makes the PPCs hit the CT, the LT, the arm and probably the last 2 ppcs in the firing sequence will miss. Using this macro effectively makes the 6 ppc stalker into a useless pile of junk because it cant dump all damage on one spot in one hit. Thats why BOATING and ALPHA striking is all about.

This is the CORE REASON for the game's current issue with boated weapons. Heat issues come into play AFTER the pinpoint fire problem... because it enables multiple such pinpoint hits to be fired before heat shutdown. That is why heat mechanics need to be changed at the source: The heatsink heat cap and dissipation rather than applying heat penalties or changing heat costs of weapons all over the place.

[Roland]

Kaldor, on 12 June 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

Fair enough. But adding randomness to a game that is basically an FPS is not the answer. Whether you care to admit it or not, there is some skill involved in firing while moving at a target that is moving and being able to hit it where you want. At that point you have to look at solutions that are simple but effective. Forcing people to alpha less via lower heat caps, but giving them the ability to shoot more via higher dissipation is likely the best answer.

Oh, I'm a big fan of the shooter aspect of the game, and I like being able to headshot mechs on a fairly routine basis.

But at the same time, I also realize that it's a core source of frustration for a large portion of the player base.

Even if they introduced some mechanism by which my weapons spread if I fired a bunch at once, I'd still be able to adapt and be effective.

[Felbombling]

Aim64C, on 12 June 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

That's a horrible idea.

Light mechs will be all kinds of gimped, and everything will turn into turrett battles. Anything approaching mobile combat will be reduced to missiles and face-humping.

Why? Because everyone is going to be standing around to make sure their weapons hit.

I cannot agree with this assessment of an aiming mechanic, Aim64C. Lights would do what they do... run out and brawl at closer ranges, where their guns would be much more accurate. You see this all the time in WoT where tanks with brutal aim times on larger cannons basically hit broadside 90% of the time. I don't see how this concept would change in MWO.

[Jetfire]

Yes, I think this is a solid option all around.

[scJazz]

Svalfangr, on 12 June 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

So all they need to do is make it so you cant use macros.

They are nothing but exploits anyway.

They can't... and so far I've resisted the urge to use them. Still there is no way possible for them to keep anyone from using keyboard macros. None. Which is my point, people can and will use them adding the 0.51 sec delay between shots. Anyone not using them... people who aren't Computer Savvy, New Players, etc won't be using them and will pay a heavy price.

Any solution to a game balancing problem which can be defeated with a few minutes of effort using your Mouse/Keyboard Built-In Macro Software or by downloading free Macro Software is totally and utterly doomed to failure.

In 0.5 seconds just how much can Angle of Attack change can an Elite Atlas (some other mech) generate? Anyone happen to know already? A quick google gave me the average human reaction time of 0.215 seconds or more than 40% of the 0.5 second delay. So really my question should be in 0.3 seconds how much AoA change can there be? Is it enough to overcome reaction speed? Does it really influence hard shots like shooter moving left/target moving visual right?

BANG... 0.2 seconds I've been shot... I MOVING/TWISTING/TURNING... 0.3 seconds... BANG... I'm still CT Cored and dead

Seriously it is just a plain BAD solution.

[General Taskeen]

There never will be a more restricted hardpoint system to the person that mentioned it earlier as a "fix." That would mean the modelers are currently and have wasted their time making all hardpoints 3D modular based on the weapon that is placed there. This is slowly being added to the game. Basically you have to tell the Devs to "Hey, stop working on 3D Modulation, and then make more hardpoint restrictions, and also scrap all that work you already did for 3D Modulation."

Edited by General Taskeen, 12 June 2013 - 06:52 AM.

[Aim64C]

Roland, on 12 June 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

You are incorrect.

If they removed the hardpoint system, you'd actually see even MORE boating.

How do I know this, with 100% certainty? Because it's exactly what happened in past Mechwarrior games. That's the entire reason why they introduced the hardpoint system.

My apologies, my posts are intended to be read and interpreted by those posessing sentience.

I am not against a hardpoint system. I am against a "****-poor" hardpoint system.

The problem isn't "boating" - the problem is the extremes to which 'boating' can be taken.

The hardpoint system should be a 2d 'plot' for hardpoints. A 2x3 grid, a 4x2 grid - etc. Weapons should take up a 2d space (and not be able to be rotated). Thus - if a PPC takes up a 3x2 plot, and a large laser takes up a 2x2 plot, one cannot fit a PPC into a 2x4 plot, but may fit 2 large lasers.

The specifics could be worked around, and the numbers modified a bit more (such as a PPC may take up a 3x4 area whereas a large laser a 3x3) - but the point would be that you would be able to sub-divide a hardpoint into smaller weapons if you wished - and you could allow multiple smaller weapons without introducing large weapons.

This would help to preserve chassis personality.

Note that this would not necessarily get rid of the critical system - the classic critical system could remain in the background.

StaggerCheck, on 12 June 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

I cannot agree with this assessment of an aiming mechanic, Aim64C. Lights would do what they do... run out and brawl at closer ranges, where their guns would be much more accurate. You see this all the time in WoT where tanks with brutal aim times on larger cannons basically hit broadside 90% of the time. I don't see how this concept would change in MWO.

Then your cone of fire mechanic is not going to be useful in preventing alpha-strike dominance.

If I can still be accurate enough at 150 meters to put medium lasers roughly on the torso section I am pointing at while dashing at over 100 kph with very high angular velocities involved... then the 6PPC stalker may not be able to put all 6 of his PPCs on the component he is targetting (he already can't, normally) - but he is still going to be able to put a good spatter across a target at 800 meters (not that he's been doing much movement).

The highlander is in the same boat with his gauss rifle and ppc complement.

Which means the mechanic is largely useless to address the problem.

If you insert a cone of fire that is useful in addressing the problem, then you are either standing to make your cone of fire useful - or you're just running up, point-blank, and shotgunning away.

[Sasha Volkova]

Skyfaller, on 12 June 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

BT was a random number generator 'roll' to determine where each weapon hit. WOT's cone of fire is ideal for MWO and it works in tandem with heat system. Heat controlling the rate of fire/damage output max while the cone of fire controlling the hit rate.

People like you make me smile
PGI have several times already stated that this is not going to be exactly like BT - bcuz making a game like BT is not what they wanted.

[Jasen]

General Taskeen, on 12 June 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

There never will be a more restricted hardpoint system to the person that mentioned it earlier as a "fix." That would mean the modelers are currently and have wasted their time making all hardpoints 3D modular based on the weapon that is placed there. This is slowly being added to the game. Basically you have to tell the Devs to "Hey, stop working on 3D Modulation, and then make more hardpoint restrictions, and also scrap all that work you already did for 3D Modulation."

The minute they start making changes based on what is good for the game instead of what is good for the developers, a lot of the problems will magically disappear.


You guys are in denial... The game sucks, will always do so as long as amateur gamers are in charge of balance. I read somewhere that the longest stretch a PGI employee has played the game for was 4-5 hours. They are noobs. We should just ask the next random person to make an account what they would do to fix the game... we'd get about the same results.