387 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Tegi baby, thanks for continually bumping this thread and keeping it on the front page, appreciate the help getting the idea out there, bro.

Edited by DocBach, 07 July 2013 - 06:42 PM.

[Tegiminis]

I take solace in the fact that this thread being frontpage doesn't matter, because no matter how incompetent PGI is, they aren't nearly bad enough to put such a terrible balance idea like this into the game.

gg no re.

Spoiler

Edited by Tegiminis, 07 July 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[DocBach]

Tegi baby, whatever lets you sleep at night brother

Spoiler

Edited by DocBach, 07 July 2013 - 07:01 PM.

[DocBach]

another bump to the front courtesy of yourself and four more votes agreeing this suggestion is a good idea.

[Tegiminis]

Because game development is a democracy. PS: this thread has been on the front page for a while so I'm not actually doing anything. ggwasclose.

[Dr Killinger]

FPS games have had an expanding cone of fire for more than a decade. This is slightly more complicated, but I think it is an elegant and easily understandable solution to a problem that has plagued the franchise in almost all of it's iterations over many years.

I don't understand why we need pinpoint accuracy under all situations. Competitive FPSs don't feel the need to force this.

[kesuga7]

good suggestion

[Dr Killinger]

Lightfoot, on 25 June 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

What is wrong with MWO is that the recharge rates are doubled so the battles are lasting half as long. That's all that needs to be fixed. Battles need to last longer, 'Mechs need to be tougher. Do that with triple armor or shrink the vital hitboxes. Problem solved.

Changing recharge time won't reduce alpha. Alpha is the massive issue here, and always has been in MW. We could fiddle with armour, but then what use will a smaller laser/MG/AC2 be? It will exacerbate the problem by forcing everyone to only ever use huge weapons, especially because we won't be able to boat the smaller ones in a way that would allow them to strip away the enormous amounts of armour.

[Theodor Kling]

First and foremost: Good idea. I realy like it. Especially the bonus for pulse lasers and a way to integrate C3 and targeting computers.

But I would suggest to change optimal range to medium TT ranges, short is just too short for this game. 3 hexes on the table is a fine brawling range, 90m in MWO though feels like "just 2 more steps and I could punch him ( if we had melee )".
And maybe remove range dependency alltogether, at least at first. Because it would be pretty hard to implement I think: How is the range for your crosshairs defined? On a boating build it's easy, sure. But on a mixed loadout? Take the stock JM6-S: Torso weapons is easy, 2 ML, so ML governs the range for convergence. But the arms mount AC2 and AC5 each. So which governs range for convergence? The AC2 or the AC5? The one in the active weapon group? but that would mean changing active group when the engagement distance changes, which would be a bit much micromanagement for the player. Or is it on a per weapon basis? That would work as a mechanic, but would be hard to display on the hud.

Another question: How are missiles handled? LRMs and Streaks don care much for convergence ( although it would be nice to have this as a seperate mechanic: the longer you aim at the enemy target brackets before fireing, the tighter the grouping ) But SRMs ( and later MRMs) are direct fire wepons. They already have range dependent spread, so I'm not sure if they should be affected by your system.

[Chavette]

Tegiminis, on 07 July 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

gg no re.

Soon you'll probably be having "no re" to the forums.

[DocBach]

Theodor Kling, on 07 July 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

First and foremost: Good idea. I realy like it. Especially the bonus for pulse lasers and a way to integrate C3 and targeting computers.

But I would suggest to change optimal range to medium TT ranges, short is just too short for this game. 3 hexes on the table is a fine brawling range, 90m in MWO though feels like "just 2 more steps and I could punch him ( if we had melee )".
And maybe remove range dependency alltogether, at least at first. Because it would be pretty hard to implement I think: How is the range for your crosshairs defined? On a boating build it's easy, sure. But on a mixed loadout? Take the stock JM6-S: Torso weapons is easy, 2 ML, so ML governs the range for convergence. But the arms mount AC2 and AC5 each. So which governs range for convergence? The AC2 or the AC5? The one in the active weapon group? but that would mean changing active group when the engagement distance changes, which would be a bit much micromanagement for the player. Or is it on a per weapon basis? That would work as a mechanic, but would be hard to display on the hud.

Another question: How are missiles handled? LRMs and Streaks don care much for convergence ( although it would be nice to have this as a seperate mechanic: the longer you aim at the enemy target brackets before fireing, the tighter the grouping ) But SRMs ( and later MRMs) are direct fire wepons. They already have range dependent spread, so I'm not sure if they should be affected by your system.

I'm thinking that range should actually be factored into convergence speed rather than a limitation of total convergence, with movement speed being the primary limitation to maximum convergence. My idea for handling range would be to use the range profile of whatever the shortest ranged weapon in the group is selected. I think if it just used the shortest ranged weapon it could cause people to boat just specific ranged weapons to avoid the penalty.

Since SRM's have a spread, and LB-X have a spread, hopefully a system where pinpoint aim isn't completely there, weapons that spread could be used to hopefully poke holes in damaged or critical areas, sort of how they have utility in the source material.

Edited by DocBach, 08 July 2013 - 07:03 AM.

[jollyrancher1]

I prefer a hard set weapon fire limit than a convergence change, simply because you cant test this change to game play very easily. Just load up on 4 or 6 ppc and fire in volleys of 2 or 2 ac20 and put on chain fire. That is how the gameplay would change with a hard limit on number of weapons that can be fired at once and poof, people could still effectively boat ppcs and ac20s, but the pinpoint would be gone.


Here is a link to the forum for full info about ways to curb high alpha builds:
http://mwomercs.com/...t-alpha-builds/

[DocBach]

jollyrancher1, on 08 July 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

I prefer a hard set weapon fire limit than a convergence change, simply because you cant test this change to game play very easily. Just load up on 4 or 6 ppc and fire in volleys of 2 or 2 ac20 and put on chain fire. That is how the gameplay would change with a hard limit on number of weapons that can be fired at once and poof, people could still effectively boat ppcs and ac20s, but the pinpoint would be gone.


Here is a link to the forum for full info about ways to curb high alpha builds:
http://mwomercs.com/...t-alpha-builds/

I checked out that link, your description is inaccurate;

standing still would allow for greater maximum convergence, but the speed on which the reticle converges is based in part by enemy moving speed; by standing still the enemy would be able to quickly have their weapons converge on an immobile target.

For example, I am in a PPC stalker and I want to try to snipe, I pop out over the hill. Because convergence is no longer instantaneous, I have to hold my reticle over my target who is moving, exposing myself to counterfire; because he is moving, my weapons take longer to converge. Because I am not moving, enemies converge quicker upon me and I take accurate fire the whole time waiting to make that perfect shot. If I decide to peak-a-boo like current and shoot without waiting or my reticle to converge I can still hit him, but my damage would be spread out over the 'Mech instead of directed to a single location.

The main idea is if you want absolute accuracy you either have to use single fire, or stand still and take the time to get convergence, all the while exposing yourself to counter-fire.

Edited by DocBach, 08 July 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[Theodor Kling]

DocBach, on 08 July 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

I'm thinking that range should actually be factored into convergence speed rather than a limitation of total convergence, with movement speed being the primary limitation to maximum convergence. My idea for handling range would be to use the range profile of whatever the shortest ranged weapon in the group is selected. I think if it just used the shortest ranged weapon it could cause people to boat just specific ranged weapons to avoid the penalty.

Since SRM's have a spread, and LB-X have a spread, hopefully a system where pinpoint aim isn't completely there, weapons that spread could be used to hopefully poke holes in damaged or critical areas, sort of how they have utility in the source material.

I can live with convergence speed affected by weapon range, but even with the groups shortest range weapon guiding it, the display problem remains.
I for one prefer to have my backup medium lasers on weapon group one for the ease of using left mouse button for the twitch fireing in a brawl, and weapon group 2 and 3 ( right and middle button) got to more aim intensive weapons. So usually active group is short ranged, probably lasers ( or tag because you hold that for long times often), while 2nd and 3rd group got another range. The easiest way to implement would probably to show the crosshairs for the active group. but that would mean switching active group alot during combat. I am not totally against it. But it would mean a lot of getting used to, which might put off lots of people, coming on top of changed aim mechanic.
Long story short: For ease of implementation and softening the change I would prefer to skip range dependent convergence factors apart from the an automatic, weapon independent factor. I know it´s not ideal

[MustrumRidcully]

DocBach, on 07 July 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

If you believe that, you obviously didn't read the suggestion;

it suggests the standard reticle be maintained solely for chain fired weapons, and a floating reticle for grouped weapons that constricts the longer you hold the reticle over the target. It forces a player to choose between breaking up his groups and firing weapons in chain fire mode for instant, pinpoint accuracy, or working to get group fire accurate.

But it still means that when you are willing to wait a bit, your group fire mech delivers pinpoint alphas.

It still remains very questionable that a convergence delay for group weapons can ensure that people chain-fire more or fire without convergence.

I would rather avoid these risks and go throug the complex and long steps finding the "perfect" delay that makes either choice balanced and equal. I'd rather just get rid of group fire + convergence.

Group Fire or Alpha Strike => No Convergence
Chain Fire => Convergence

No way to game the system. If you fire too fast, you get no convergence, no matter how long you spend holding the reticule on target.

We still have so many other problems to fix after we have dealt with this!

Just because we eliminate alpha-strike PPC boating doesn'T mean weapon stats are suddenly balanced. There are still weapons that are too hot, too cool, too difficult to use, deal too much or too little damage, the heat cap is still too high, dissipation too low, boats are still a good idea because recycle rates and projectile speeds are all over the place.

If we come up with a complicated solution for every of these problems, we spend a lot of time with a broken game.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 July 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[Aim64C]

Dr Killinger, on 07 July 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

I don't understand why we need pinpoint accuracy under all situations. Competitive FPSs don't feel the need to force this.

They made a Battletech game that was similar to the fps trend. It was called MechAssault.

Why do competitive fps games have cones of fire? Mostly because programmers are lazy and it's much easier to simply assign a random cone of fire rather than to simulate the random bouncing of the barrel of a weapon along with its accuracy.

The other, most important thing, is that these games don't really revolve around segmented armor and partial destruction like MechWarrior has. Shooting center mass and hitting the foot is the same as shooting center mass and hitting dead on - it depletes the same health-bar.

DocBach, on 08 July 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

I checked out that link, your description is inaccurate;

standing still would allow for greater maximum convergence, but the speed on which the reticle converges is based in part by enemy moving speed; by standing still the enemy would be able to quickly have their weapons converge on an immobile target.

For example, I am in a PPC stalker and I want to try to snipe, I pop out over the hill. Because convergence is no longer instantaneous, I have to hold my reticle over my target who is moving, exposing myself to counterfire; because he is moving, my weapons take longer to converge. Because I am not moving, enemies converge quicker upon me and I take accurate fire the whole time waiting to make that perfect shot. If I decide to peak-a-boo like current and shoot without waiting or my reticle to converge I can still hit him, but my damage would be spread out over the 'Mech instead of directed to a single location.

The main idea is if you want absolute accuracy you either have to use single fire, or stand still and take the time to get convergence, all the while exposing yourself to counter-fire.

Just when I thought we couldn't turn this game any more into TurretWarrior.

You never quite explained... why is it that the guy you are chasing was moving? What does he get out of the whole deal?

That's right. Nothing. His accuracy is in the hole because he's moving. Which is precisely why no one will pilot mobile designs and everyone will gravitate toward high-alpha builds while tip-toeing around to try and get the drop on each other.

Or... actually - there will be some diversity.

Even in their present state - LRMs and SRMs would be infinitely more useful than any direct fire build, particularly when LRMs are used in the direct fire role.

It will become LRMWarrior if they actually make LRMs a viable weapon system.

[DocBach]

The movement speed of the enemy determines how fast your weapons converge.

If Mech A is standing still trying to get a shot on Mech B who is running 90kph

Mech A will have to stand still in the open exposed for several seconds while Mech B's weapons have already converged as Mechs who are not moving have weapons converged on them much quicker.

Stationary against moving target = stationary target can gain a little tighter of convergence, but enemies can converge quicker against it, have to expose themselves to enemy fire while trying to get convergence on a moving target

moving against stationary target = convergence isn't as tight, but enemy weapons converge much slower on them and their weapons converge much quicker against the stationary 'Mech.

Current hill humping designs which can fire all of their weapons in a single hole from 1000k out would not be able to make those same shots, they would have to expose themselves to enemy fire to get convergence. Because effective range is also a factor in convergence now, players sitting on the periphery of battle will take much longer to have their weapons converge as well, requiring players wanting perfect accuracy not only have to be still, but in their weapon's short range, which is about 1/3'd of the max range. Firing at max range would be less accurate then firing from a moving 'Mech.

Edited by DocBach, 09 July 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[soarra]

DocBach, on 09 July 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

The movement speed of the enemy determines how fast your weapons converge.

If Mech A is standing still trying to get a shot on Mech B who is running 90kph

Mech A will have to stand still in the open exposed for several seconds while Mech B's weapons have already converged as Mechs who are not moving have weapons converged on them much quicker.

Stationary against moving target = stationary target can gain a little tighter of convergence, but enemies can converge quicker against it, have to expose themselves to enemy fire while trying to get convergence on a moving target

moving against stationary target = convergence isn't as tight, but enemy weapons converge much slower on them and their weapons converge much quicker against the stationary 'Mech.

Current hill humping designs which can fire all of their weapons in a single hole from 1000k out would not be able to make those same shots, they would have to expose themselves to enemy fire to get convergence. Because effective range is also a factor in convergence now, players sitting on the periphery of battle will take much longer to have their weapons converge as well, requiring players wanting perfect accuracy not only have to be still, but in their weapon's short range, which is about 1/3'd of the max range. Firing at max range would be less accurate then firing from a moving 'Mech.

can part of the phoenix project money go to DocBach to get on PGI's payroll to balance this game out

Edited by soarra, 09 July 2013 - 07:40 AM.

[Aim64C]

DocBach, on 09 July 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

The movement speed of the enemy determines how fast your weapons converge.

If Mech A is standing still trying to get a shot on Mech B who is running 90kph

Mech A will have to stand still in the open exposed for several seconds while Mech B's weapons have already converged as Mechs who are not moving have weapons converged on them much quicker.

Stationary against moving target = stationary target can gain a little tighter of convergence, but enemies can converge quicker against it, have to expose themselves to enemy fire while trying to get convergence on a moving target

moving against stationary target = convergence isn't as tight, but enemy weapons converge much slower on them and their weapons converge much quicker against the stationary 'Mech.

Unless you're talking radically different convergence times - it's not going to matter. The high-alpha streak will prevail. You're forcing the light mech into a situation where it must focus for a long duration on its target - this destroys damage mitigating principles of MechWarrior, and also creates a perfect firing opportunity for the defending mech (which is often going to be larger and pack a more destructive arsenal - even if it is taking an accuracy penalty).

Quote

Current hill humping designs which can fire all of their weapons in a single hole from 1000k out would not be able to make those same shots, they would have to expose themselves to enemy fire to get convergence. Because effective range is also a factor in convergence now, players sitting on the periphery of battle will take much longer to have their weapons converge as well, requiring players wanting perfect accuracy not only have to be still, but in their weapon's short range, which is about 1/3'd of the max range. Firing at max range would be less accurate then firing from a moving 'Mech.

That's even worse.

There won't be a battle to be on the periphery of. No one will do much in the way of moving. Everyone is gong to stay nut-to-butt behind a few buildings. A few adventurous teams will waddle out under the cover of ECM and just spray and pray anything that moves.

The first team to actually advance a position loses automatically.

Unless they use LRMs.

You're using the argument that "a mech is exposed to fire to get convergence" - but the reality is that what you're talking about means that there's almost no reason to worry about exposure unless it's to the whole team and they all happen to spray you with vital ammunition.

soarra, on 09 July 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

can part of the phoenix project money go to DocBach to get on PGI's payroll to balance this game out

Sure. Why not.

After this gets implemented, I will return and tell you: "I told you so." Yes. I'm that vain. I'll find the whole thing quite hilarious.

Then solo a whole team in my C4 until LRMs get nerfed to 0.2 damage per missile so they can be in line with every other weapon.

[Lord de Seis]

I like it, it would definitely be worth a try for a few weeks to see what it does