12 replies to this topic

[Reno Blade]

You propably had games with lots of low-damage mechs fighting till the end (like centurions) and thought: "damn that was a fun fight after all the boring one-shot sniper battles"...
These changes should bring the game "down" to reasonable levels. (slows down the killing)

Please consider all changes from all sides ( shooter, target, strategy/teamplay level).

The Overall problem:
The gameplay is too fast, people die way too easily and with 12v12 and Clans in the future, this will increase even further.
All changes here would increase survivability and even get closer to the fluff (from the books).


1. Heat:
The internal DHS 2.0 are too strong compared to outside DHS or SHS.
- Changing iDHS to 1.4 would bring mechs back to "normal levels". Most mechs with 2-4 energy weapons (+Balistics or Missiles ) can make use of very low number of DHS (between 10 and 14) because of iDHS2.0 giving a huge buffer to their heat limit and dissipation

- Heatscale negative effects like in TT or older MW games instead/in addition of boating multiplier
15% Slower leg, torso and arm movement above 50% heat.
30% Slower above 70% heat.
50% slower above 80% heat.


2. Mech skills
Mech skills give a HUGE bonus to turning, twisting, accelerate and decelerate rates!
(Basic unlocks give over 20% faster rates to twisting and turning, 22.5% accelerating and 25% deceleration with double the% at Elite)
Mechs can peak from cover, because they are very mobile in accelerating and backing off into cover again. This lowers the "strategy" aspect of moving together and more into staying in cover to sniper with the biggest alphas possible and least time in the open.
Even a 50% slow from high heat (from section 1) is barely touching anything with Elite skills !
In the first few gameplay video interviews it was said that heavy/assault mechs would need a lot of time to slow down when with full throttle, but the 50% bonus from elite skills is a HUGE advantage over the basic chassis (and trial mechs).
- Lower the %s of skills.


3. Pinpoint Damage -> Splash Damage
PPCs, Gauss and ACs are poinpoint accurate and deliver all damage to one point, allowing to deliver groupfire shots that can kill even heavy mechs in one shot = bad.
Lasers and Missile spread the damage and can be mitigated by player skill = good. (cover, twisting, running)
The only real option is splash of the damage or spread of the shots (more bullets).
Convergence (random spread of hits) is not wanted by PGI because it can't be overcome by player skill.

3a) - PPC splash with bigger radius and high % splash.
Direkt 1 damage, Splash 6 damage, Radius 4meter (about to hit 2-3 sections for smaller mechs and 1-2 sections for bigger mechs)
Resulting in 7 to 12 damage average (depending on hit location and damage drop per radius and mech size)
Smaller mechs would fear PPCs, but wont get one-shot-legged by a volley. (more dangerous for low armored parts like the head, or open sections)

3b) - AC10 splash with small radius and low % splash.
Direkt 5 damage, splash 4 damage, Radius 1 meter (usually only 1 section for anything bigger than a light mech)
Resulting to 9 damage minimum and possible 10-12 damage with spread to other sections.

2c) - AC20 splash with bigger radius, medium % splash.
Direkt 6 damage, splash 10 damage, Radius 2.5 meter ( usually hitting 2 sections)
Resulting to 16 damage minimum and 20-24 damage average for two or more sections.

3d) - Gauss Splash??
If so, then
Direkt 8 damage, and splash 6 damage, Radius of 2 meter (usually hitting 1 section)
Resulting in mostly 14 -16 damage.


4. Pinpoint Damage -> Damage Spread
The other option to the problem of 3. is to spread the damage with the number of projectiles and/or Rate of Fire.
The way AC2 and AC5 deliver the damage is good. high RoF, low Instant damage, but AC10, AC20, PPC and Gauss have higher damage and profit way more from "boating" because all of the projectiles hit on one spot.

4a) – PPC with a “Bolt”
Changing the PPC from 1-hit to a “Bolt” or stream similar to Laser, but with only 0.25s duration (like the current animation of the projectile).
Resulting into the same pro/cons of lasers for shooter and target.

4b) – AC10 burstfire mode
5 bullets of 2 damage each in 0.5 sec duration.
Resulting in a spread of impact locations on faster targets. Can be overcome by playerskill for the shooter (leading a target) and the target (moving and twisting like on laser impact).

4c) - AC20 burstfire mode
Same as AC10, but with 4 damage each bullet.

4d) – Gauss capacitor discharging delay (CDD)
A delay of 0.75 to 1 second before the bullet leaves the barrel would lower the reflex-shot (twitch) ability of the weapon.
(Possible random number between 0.5 and 1.2 seconds for multiple weapons of the same type (here Gauss) would be an option, but random again.)


5.) Laser differences
The Pulse lasers biggest disadvantage is the short range.
Together with more heat and tonnage, the little bonus RoF and damage is not enough.
The best change to Pulse laser would be a shorter cooldown and a little less heat.
With the higher RoF the heat would go up even faster, but it would have a difference to the “standard” model laser.

[Otto Cannon]

You say that convergence 'can't be overcome by player skill', but is that really true? Imagine a system which allows single weapons to fire with pinpoint accuracy exactly in the centre of the reticle, but when you fire multiple weapons either through groupfire or by hitting all your triggers by hand the shots spread slightly- just enough to hit 2 torso locations instead of 1. The spread could be made the same at any range.

Using this system a skilled pilot would have the choice of either rapid firing single weapons to hit exactly the same spot using their aiming skill to full effect, or firing an alpha to put quick damage on a general area of the target. It seems to me that this approach would slow the game slightly while giving top pilots a chance to shine. At every level it would reduce the 'instant death' effect.

It's not a perfect solution but I think it would probably work as well as any of the alternatives without gimping the mechlab or changing the heat system and affecting weapons differently. I expect plenty of people will violently disagree though.

[Reno Blade]

Yes you are right. It just seem thats the typical "excuse" if we ask for any kind of "random" behavior...

[Bhael Fire]

I think people need to use cover and tactics more if they want to live longer.

Most matches I have no problems staying alive until the end...and if I don't it's because I did something reckless, impatient, or just plain stupid..or my teammates did and they left me outnumbered. That is, if a match takes less than 4 or 5 minutes, that means one team is just being careless.

I honestly think most of the weapons are just fine as they are; if anything some of them need to be buffed a bit (i.e., MGs, flamers, NARCs, and pulse lasers).

[Reno Blade]

Most weapons are fine as a single gun, but they synergize with each other to exponentially increase the effect (see PPC boating).

The ideas thrown in here are ment to prevent the exponential gain with multiple weapons of the same type without hurting the single gun the same.

Most ideas may seem knee-jerk brutal, but it's not a big change if you try to imagine these ingame.

[Axen Marik]

I like some of your ideas and would like to add one of my own here because I think it would be a good fit.

I would like to see a more extensive damage models over a mech instead of the BT standard arms, side torso, center torso, rear torsos, head and legs. Split them into further parts and provide benefits to targeting smaller sections.

Current mode:
H
RA - RT - CT - LT - LA
RL LL

Proposed: break down section into Upper, Lower and Middle where applicable.
H
URA - URT - UCT - ULT - ULA
LRA - MRT - MCT - MLT - LLA
LRT - LCT - LLT
URL ULL
LRL LLL

Potential penalties for destroying lower sections:
Arms: balance reduction, Weapon convergence efficiency decreased
Torso: twist reduction, upper rotation reduction in the direction of travel for the affected side, for CT engine containment fails, mech destroyed (potential for adding explosions without them always happening
Legs: addition penalty to turn speed of mech in the direction of travel for the affected leg

Upper sections:
Arms: lower arm falls off increases balance effects on the mech by additional percentage
Torso: effective takes out the entire arm like current side torso destruction. percentage chance of mech falling over when turning away from destroyed side due to tonnage being unbalanced. for CT engine containment fails, mech destroyed (boom?)
Legs: replicates current leg destruction mechanics + proposed turn speed reduction in the direction of travel for the affected leg

Middle sections:
LT/RT: Arm reflex reduction, engine speed reduction, heat efficiency decrease all potential effects when critically hit, if XL engine, mech dies (boom for XL engines?)
CT: same as normal CT now, mech dies, direct engine hit forces emergency shutdown (no boom?)

Edited by Axen Marik, 24 June 2013 - 02:13 AM.

[Mechteric]

Axen Marik, on 24 June 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

I like some of your ideas and would like to add one of my own here because I think it would be a good fit.

I would like to see a more extensive damage models over a mech instead of the BT standard arms, side torso, center torso, rear torsos, head and legs. Split them into further parts and provide benefits to targeting smaller sections.

I don't think that will happen simply because it would also require you to then spend your armor points across all those new locations. 18 locations to distribute your armor is just excessive. Plus if there's mechs with a certain portion of their hitbox more easily hit than others (for instance the hunchback's hunch) it would then have half the hitpoints it does now and is therefore easier to remove.

I think having internal component damage affecting the mech with the effects you proposed would be nice however.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 24 June 2013 - 07:23 AM.

[Syllogy]

Slower does not = more fun for most people.

Also, please illustrate a single FPS out there that does not have any 1-shot kill mechanics.

[Reno Blade]

Syllogy, on 24 June 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Slower does not = more fun for most people.

Also, please illustrate a single FPS out there that does not have any 1-shot kill mechanics.

A 1-shot mechanic is never fun if everyone on the field uses it. You can't honestly say that it's more fun if everyone is sitting in a corner with a sniper in your FPS of choice.
If nobody runs around the map, tries to throw grenades, or cap the flag, the game becomes very boring very fast.

Slow = fun in this game means:
Fighting with someone one-on-one rises your adrenaline, because you trade shots and can turn/twist and shoot untill someone gains the upper hand. (leaving the teamplay out for a moment)

Playing in all "1-shot" builds would leave the whole fighting part out and reduce the one-on-one to a western style, high-noon, who-draws-faster battle.

I'm not talking about the game becomming so slow that you fight for 10+ minutes.
Currently the game is waiting for 10 minutes and shoot for 3 minutes from high mountains or from behind cover. Whoever tries to flank will be shot on sight in seconds. Some people can't even get a shot off.
It may be fun for the fast-trigger shooters, but it is definitely not fun in the long run for most, specially not for the ones that die first in most games (many times new members).

[Noesis]

I think it's important to retain some kind of immediacy to player capabilities so that the game doesn't become a list of average mechanics that makes things predicable as no real edge provides the capability to make things have any kind of effecting change to fights.

As such it has the potential to make the game more dull due to the loss of any kind of more immediate effecting changes and all weapons categories brought into line of a similarity. There would actually be a lack of adrenaline since the longevity of battling removes the fear factor associated with some weapons fire.

The heat scale suggestion is the most worrying as it is an outright nerf to energy weapons, as it reduces the heat cap and applies penalties at lower heat which will be more effecting to weapons which utilise high heat. It doesn't do anything in terms of attempting to rebalance these weapons groups as a result or even consider applying higher heat dissipation as the natural balancer to heat cap reduction for alpha.

Fire suppression would be reduced and it would enable people to be less concerned about movement due to the overall reduction to immediacy of effect.

It would also mean that organised groups would have more capabilities as they utilise force multipliers with applied teamwork over other style of game play.

Reduction of some skill effects would have a greater impact to some Mech types over others. Movement for instance a big factor between being able to connect and defend for some larger Mechs against smaller and faster adversaries. Similarly with the Burst fire which will require consistent aiming will make it harder for slower Mechs to connect in a fur ball against faster counterparts. Likewise the consistent aiming whilst would be nice to reward would make it much more appealing for Mechs standing still than on the move. Thus maintaining the Meta more towards the sniper Meta role and certainly not the Brawler.

When you consider that in realistic terms it is only a few problematic weapons like PPCs actually causing issues this seems like a complete change to the game mechanics with a number of potential pitfalls to ruin the gaming experience for a number of situations. With the potential to make things worse as a gaming experience, not provide fun in some scenarios.

If considered to be implemented likely taking a large portion of development and testing time and having a need to restore confidence with having an new understood and balanced baseline until the effects of these changes were rebalanced. This likely extended the introduction of CW and providing a longer period before players are confident with a balanced weapons profile. This since for any strategical concerns players need to understand the capabilities of the tech as understood as their effective use on the field.

Also when you consider that there are more direct developments in the program like heat scale penalties, future drop limitations and likely others to help with a better configuration of game meta and Mech choices that will help to bring the overall damage down as per the average Mech on the field to help with game longevity you could easily question whether any of it is actually necessary and as you say simply an over reaction to the present condition.

Since if it doesn't actually address the limited number of problems there are at present but attempts to completely change the game mechanics and perhaps simply create new FOTM, other imbalances and questionably make the game more dull in the process whilst over complicating the game with a number of new balancing characteristics as a maintenance overhead, well then it just seems to me to be a wish list too far for purposes. And TBH I really would prefer to see some individual and immediate style effects left in the game so that it doesn't overall turn into a more predictable format as capabilities in the class and roles converge as opposed to maintaining these kind of distinct capabilities.

[Reno Blade]

Noesis, on 24 June 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

...

Fire suppression would be reduced and it would enable people to be less concerned about movement due to the overall reduction to immediacy of effect.

It would also mean that organised groups would have more capabilities as they utilise force multipliers with applied teamwork over other style of game play.

...

I don't know what you mean with this.

Also it sounds as if you believe the changes would reduce damage or something?
Section 4 may lower the damage taken if you cant hit with multiple projectiles only. You will still do the full damage to anyone that cant run/turn/twist same as now with laser and small ACs.
Section 3 would actually increase damage taken on some scenarios (hitting multiple locations), but would spread the damage to lower the concentrated fire.

I know that there is a lot to do and a lot in the pipeline, but the game currently gets more and more frustrating and I can forsee this getting worse with better tech (clan tech).

[Noesis]

If direct fire support doesn't offer a more immediate deterrent as a risk to closing on positions then it reduces that roles capabilities.

More organised teams will be able to present and have practiced better focus fire techniques. This combined with the less immediacy to individuals capabilities to potential redress this and subsequent casualties potentially creating a more identifiable capability with the difference in numbers especially if they are collecting damage in a shared and managed way as some more advanced teams do.

The resulting domino effect of this imbalance in numbers will make the game much more viable an outcome for organised teams as a result. And it isn't that I don't think that organisation shouldn't be rewarded it is just a spin off effect of trying to pull everything into averages that make the game more predictable.

My concern with damage being spread as mentioned before is this reduction of individual effect or immediacy of some game play. However some of your suggestions have the potential to outright Nerf groups of weapons i.e. lowering overall DPS for a match or apply new mechanics which provide consistent aiming to be rewarded. Which whilst a nice idea in some situations or scenarios it might create a significant destabalising effect or greater "imba" as I tried to identify and especially more so if you intend to further limit Mech capabilities with skill reductions and further heat penalties to further reduce these capabilities.

I still think that the current subtle changes to address more specific problems and reduce the go to meta choices which we haven't had the opportunity to even see being applied yet to the game and the resulting effects might be sufficient that trying to rewrite game mechanics which ultimately may not be needed. This since there are realistically only a few problem areas to address or have been addressed but we are waiting for the announced development to be applied. TBH it only takes a few subtle tweaks in the current game settings and mechanics to do this without over complicating with a whole list of potentially unwarranted extra ones which in all honesty you cannot predict the resulting outcome for can you?

Edited by Noesis, 24 June 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Axen Marik]

CapperDeluxe, on 24 June 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

I don't think that will happen simply because it would also require you to then spend your armor points across all those new locations. 18 locations to distribute your armor is just excessive. Plus if there's mechs with a certain portion of their hitbox more easily hit than others (for instance the hunchback's hunch) it would then have half the hitpoints it does now and is therefore easier to remove.

I think having internal component damage affecting the mech with the effects you proposed would be nice however.

There wouldn't be a need to change how you distribute your armor in the mechlab, they would just have to set it up so the sections get split up further for targeting and damage purposes. We're talking about armor here, so basically if you have a mech now and it's left torso has 40 pts of armor, then each of the sections essentially have 40 pts of armor.

Right now as it is, your mech takes damage anywhere up and down the side torso, the whole side torso takes the damage. The change I'm proposing will make targeting require a bit more precision to knock a mech out of a fight, but give it a bit more potential longevity defensively.