41 replies to this topic

[Whompity]

LOL! Apparently they are all "bad ideas". Back to the drawing board, haha!

[DocBach]

Homeless Bill, on 26 June 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

Anything that is not movement penalties. For the love of all that is good in the world, please no movement penalties.

Besides my own solution, I'd pick Doc's. It's way too sim-oriented for mainstream gamers, but **** them. The only part I dislike is no convergence for torso weapons. Though it's unrealistic, I see no reason to make some chassis objectively better than others based on such an extremely useful capability. Balance > realism.

Otherwise, though, I'm a big fan. It's in-depth, it gives C3 and spotters more of a purpose, it would drastically alter combat, it's nothing like my proposal, and I totally dig it.

torso weapons would still have convergence, the idea is until you have the complete covergence lock where the reticle closes all the way the torsos would be converged on a single point with all the other weapons - the point is though getting to that would require you to get in much closer than current and sacrifice your mobility, be at low heat and be firing against a stationary 'Mech.

[DaZur]

My proposition: HARMONIZED WEAPON MOUNTS / RETICLES
(I had a post with animated graphics and everything but can't find it any longer)

Proposal speciifics: * LT MOUNT + TORSO + * RT MOUNT ** (LT / RT TORSO for armless mechs)

- Each mount has it's own reticle and weapons on that mount are slaved to it.
- LT & RT reticles attempt to harmonize with the TORSO reticle. (Toso reticle is fixed to the torso eye-point)
- Movement, enemy weapon impact & weapon recoil all affect / break harmonization (reticle wander) to which the targeting computer attempts to re-harmonize. The faster / more abrupt the mech movement the longer it takes to harmonize the reticles.
- targeting computers can be damaged and or temporarily affected by PPC .

What does it accomplish:
- Does not denig use and or viability of boats / high alpha builds or sniper builds, but does force them to stop / slow down in order to allow the reticles to harmonize to benefit from pin-point damage.
- Provides an active counter to boats / alpha & sniper through movement, weapon impact (de-harmonizes reticles) and temp-disable them through PPC as well as permanent disable them through damage.
- Works with any weapon type be it energy, ballistic or missile.

In short... It's a fix that does not rely on heat, dps or randomization of hit location. Clean and completely functional solution.

Edited by DaZur, 27 June 2013 - 07:19 AM.

[El Bandito]

Anything is better than current pin-point BS.

[DocBach]

DaZur, on 27 June 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

My proposition: HARMONIZED WEAPON MOUNTS / RETICLES
(I had a post with animated graphics and everything but can't find it any longer)

Proposal speciifics: * LT MOUNT + TORSO + * RT MOUNT ** (LT / RT TORSO for armless mechs)

- Each mount has it's own reticle and weapons on that mount are slaved to it.
- LT & RT reticles attempt to harmonize with the TORSO reticle. (Toso reticle is fixed to the torso eye-point)
- Movement, enemy weapon impact & weapon recoil all affect / break harmonization (reticle wander) to which the targeting computer attempts to re-harmonize. The faster / more abrupt the mech movement the longer it takes to harmonize the reticles.
- targeting computers can be damaged and or temporarily affected by PPC .

What does it accomplish:
- Does not denig use and or viability of boats / high alpha builds or sniper builds, but does force them to stop / slow down in order to allow the reticles to harmonize to benefit from pin-point damage.
- Provides an active counter to boats / alpha & sniper through movement, weapon impact (de-harmonizes reticles) and temp-disable them through PPC as well as permanent disable them through damage.
- Works with any weapon type be it energy, ballistic or missile.

In short... It's a fix that does not rely on heat, dps or randomization of hit location. Clean and completely functional solution.

very similar to my proposal, only i proposed that heat be factored in to the speed in which convergence occurs

[DaZur]

DocBach, on 27 June 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

very similar to my proposal, only i proposed that heat be factored in to the speed in which convergence occurs

I apologize for the similarities. You know what they say about "great minds".

Also aside from heat, your proposal assumes the default convergence to not be harmonized (the separate aim-points on the horizontal markers)... where mine assumes centric harmonization from the start.

I struggle with the heat because to me that feels like a double whammy where it's not necessary. The divergence of the reticles should be enough to mitigate the pin-point damage issues without unnecessarily playing with heat values.

I.E.. don't need to align the tires when you get an oil-change...

Edited by DaZur, 27 June 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[FireSlade]

I like Doc's suggestion the best since it allows predictability in the aiming penalties and is simple enough that anyone coming to MWO can pick it up quickly. The only problem that I saw with it, and I could have just misunderstood, is that if you have to aim ahead with weapons it would not converge with the target and that could be a big issue with lights/fast mechs. Also I agree with heat being a factor; as it is now people are using highly heat inefficient builds just so they can do as much possible damage aka the alpha builds. With it being a factor the pro players will develop better tactics to counter the problem and the newer/less skilled one would create heat issues in their mechs throwing their aim off and giving other players more of a chance for messing up. With the movement factor it would be more for realism but it would help out the big boys who can afford to run 2/3rds throttle while the lights running 150kph circles around them staying out of their crosshairs while they chew up the larger mech. Granted there should not be a big penalties with heat and movement but enough so that if you aim for their center of mass you will not hit with every weapon in the CT but instead hit a larger area spreading damage. This may also have the benefit of seeing more diverse builds and maybe you will see less PPC and more LBXs weapons; who knows which way the meta will head.

Edited by FireSlade, 27 June 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Convergence is one of those items that there will be no way to please the masses. If it is Mech based, only the fastest of the convergers(?) will ever get used. Same as damage output rules now.

What about leave convergence as is but force the pilot to pay for grouping weapons via an added requirement. That being for every weapon above 2 that is added to any groups required the installation of a Targeting Computer.

BT rule -

Quote

Inner Sphere version weighs one ton and occupies one critical slot for every four tons it controls (also rounded up)

Thus a group of 3 PPC's would require the addition of 21t/4t (rounded up) or 5t and 5 crits to carry a 3 PPC Alpha Grouping.

I have no idea why this was not done from day one really. Force the player to choice when building, Alpha groupings or more singular firepower.

[Ningyo]

I do not think the preventing weapons from being added to a fire group is a solution though, it would just force people to use a mouse with more buttons, or use macros to fire multiple with a single key.

As to weapons not converging on light mechs well, if you lead a target even now your weapons are converging on the point you aim at. This is part of why most better players aim for the legs, since their reticle is pointed to the ground at a similar distance so the weapons will converge and can all hit the same leg. Firing at the torso will often reduce convergence if you lead so it spreads the damage more. So at worst many of these would have the same issue.

Manual convergence is the exception which would actually allow better convergence for leading targets if used well.

So far it appears almost everyone wants convergence changed but there is a lot of difference in what people want, hmm still a fairly small sample though hopefully more people vote.

[Homeless Bill]

DocBach, on 27 June 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

torso weapons would still have convergence, the idea is until you have the complete covergence lock where the reticle closes all the way the torsos would be converged on a single point with all the other weapons - the point is though getting to that would require you to get in much closer than current and sacrifice your mobility, be at low heat and be firing against a stationary 'Mech.

I didn't see any mention of arms-only in your post, but the poll said it and the graphics were ambiguous, so I assumed OP had seen further clarification. Then I have no complaints; it would be different, but it would be fun.

[DocBach]

ah lol, I see now - it says "basically arms only and converge over time" more or less it is "all weapons converge over time," but the heat factors, movement conditions, ect would affect how quick that time is - the reticle would provide constant points of aim for the various weapons locations so it would not be vague or random.

this graphic describes how it would work - the top cross hair could also be assigned to head weapon convergence and the bottom to leg weapons as well. more or less perfect convergence could be possible, but the situation and pilot would have to work harder to make it happen.

Edited by DocBach, 27 June 2013 - 02:46 PM.

[Ningyo]

Sorry that was me misreading it, I will fix op post.

There is that a better short one line description?

Edited by Ningyo, 27 June 2013 - 03:58 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Nice post to bad no one at PGI gives a SH&T

[Otto Cannon]

DocBach's system has exactly what we need imho. I'm not optimistic about the chances of ever getting it implemented, but if you don't try you'll never know I suppose. Fingers crossed.

[Ningyo]

Btw Docbach, on the following your example HUD pictures do not give clarification or your text as far as I saw.

I believe in your method (and all other methods) convergence should never go further apart than weapons firing straight forward parallel to each other. I suspect that your thinking is the same but the size of you reticles spread would often only have this be true if you were at under 200m, so I would appreciate clarification.

A reasonable alternative for torso mounted weapons would be to have weapons start converged at their "range" number (270 for ML, 660 for gauss) And then only be able to converge to ranges between 1/2 and twice range (a ML could converge at 135-540m, a gauss from 330-1320m) this would make long range sniper weapons worse at brawling. Quirks could be added to some weapons like SL, or ML if it as desired to allow them to converge at even shorter ranges.


EDIT: Thanks for the clarification (see post below this), That was what I thought you meant, just making sure I understood properly.

Edited by Ningyo, 28 June 2013 - 10:49 AM.

[DocBach]

the mock up was not for scale, it was just a demonstration for how the crosshairs being the individual point of aim for different locations could look. I would say that the weapons shouldn't diverge beyond the point of being parallel - but certain actions like movement would cause the targeting computer to have to compensate and widen while it adjusts and reacts to combat conditions

[Zyllos]

Good thread.

Hopefully we will get a lot of votes to see where the active forum community stands.

Homeless Bill's and DocBach's ideas are in the direction we need.

Edited by Zyllos, 28 June 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[Ningyo]

This was in another thread recently, and I thought was of good value. It does not show things like the Precise, Accurate, but non pinpoint spreads you could get from the only Arm weapons converge or such models. But it does show how different models can affect spread. His #1 example is what we have now. #2 example would be like the cone of fire style of convergence. #3 would be like the recoil throwing off aim for weapons by the same amount in the same direction (still pinpoint just offset).

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 30 June 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Other than the fact that Streaks don't hit the CT constantly anymore, he is on the right track.

The weapons are perfectly precise, and they shouldn't be. Your weapon grouping shouldn't be pinpoint accuracy, it should be a cluster that gets wider and wider with range.



We have #1 right now, but what we need is #2.

We are dealing with a shooting platform that is not smoothly moving over terrain, using multiple weapons that are each independently calibrated, on a mech that may or may not be damaged and subject to environmental conditions.

Under perfect conditions you might get #1, battlefield conditions are anything but perfect.

[blinkin]

Ningyo, on 01 July 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

This was in another thread recently, and I thought was of good value. It does not show things like the Precise, Accurate, but non pinpoint spreads you could get from the only Arm weapons converge or such models. But it does show how different models can affect spread. His #1 example is what we have now. #2 example would be like the cone of fire style of convergence. #3 would be like the recoil throwing off aim for weapons by the same amount in the same direction (still pinpoint just offset).

i could go for this. currently i think LRM are acceptable and work well as a suppression weapon, but i would be ok with spreading the hits out into more of a shotgun effect as long as the damage is increased to compensate.

[Ningyo]

Ok someone posted a fairly detailed method of random cone of fire mixed with Arm/torso mounted convergence methods in a thread, adding it to this for completeness. It also has some nice tables on damage/DPS, and heat/HPS for MWO and TT.

Here is a link to the original post http://mwomercs.com/...er-fix-balance/ you should visit it if you wish to see comments and such on this method, though you are welcome to post here as well.

I spoiled most as it is long, though I left the specific part dealing with convergence unspoiled. (Note he wishes all his ideas used as a whole as the parts alone do not get his idea across, so reading the rest of his will give you a more complete picture on his reasoning and method.)

DarkJaguar, on 01 July 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Spoiler

Introduction
Let me begin this post with the disclaimer that none of this will ever happen. PGI has invested a ton of time and energy into an inherently flawed system, and has consistently proven that they are unable or unwilling to make a forward thinking decision to scrap a broken mechanic and start fresh. Additionally, as I plan this post to be more of an open letter, there will be a TL;DR version immediately following this disclaimer.

Spoiler

TL;DR
There’s really no short way to put this, please read the whole post. However, PGI utilizes flawed damage and heat numbers, plus convergence is screwing everyone but boats, I have ideas.

Damage
Okay, now, let’s consider some factors that go into balance with a mech game. The first and foremost factor to consider is damage.

Spoiler

As this table illustrates, MWO is –NOT- utilizing table top damage numbers (that have had 30+ years of balancing). Instead, they are using table top damage VALUES (mostly) with arbitrary recycle times. This nets an AVERAGE of 1.97 times the damage of table top weapons (3.94 if you don’t consider the doubled armor values). With weapons dealing twice the damage intended on AVERAGE (The spread ranges between .94 times and 10 times as much damage) it is little wonder that mechs die extremely fast in MWO.

If MWO utilized TT DPS numbers (or double TT DPS numbers, as the armor is currently doubled), that portion of balancing would be done. “But DJ!” you might say “No one wants to wait 10 seconds to fire their guns!”, that’s not an issue. To achieve the 2.00 DPS of the AC20, rather than fire one big shot of 20, why not 4 smaller shots of 5dmg every 2.5/sec, or even a 10 round burst of 2dmg shells over the period of 5 seconds followed by a 5 second reload time, or any combination thereof that results in a 2.00 DPS.

Heat
The next factor for balance is the heat output of a weapon. Once again, PGI has opted to use their own heat values as opposed to table top values. This though, has not always been the case. PGI has adjusted the heat values to try and balance the damage output of the weapons they have so egregiously unbalanced. The tables below illustrate the tweaking they have done.

Spoiler

It is interesting to note that ballistics and the lighter energy weapons have suffered the most, while the extremely boat-able PPCs have suffered the least, but across the board the average weapon generates 4.21 times more HPS than TT balance intended, with the worst “boat” offending weapons well below that. If HPS and DPS in MWO were consistent with TT values, DHS could be returned to their standard dissipation rates, AND trial mechs would actually be viable.

Convergence
The final factor I wish to discuss in this post is convergence, or how every weapon will travel directly to your reticle and converge on it exactly at the range indicated. There are several ways to lessen the effects of “convergence” and all of them should be executed concurrently. The first option I would suggest, is to have all torso weapons converge at their max effective range (I.E. torso mounted medium lasers converge at 270m.) While arm mounted weapons may continue to converge at the reticle but limit the inward convergence to a set number of degrees (the purpose being that arm mounted weapons cannot converge on a target within a certain range, still allowing hits, but spreading them out over the target). The next step is to add a bit of “randomness” to the actual impact point. This should scale with the number of weapons fired concurrently (as it taxes the targeting computer) but a good “Baseline” would be the number of degrees it takes to form the radius of a circle that covers a hunchback’s chest at that weapons max range. (about .25 degrees at 270m using medium lasers.). While single firing a weapon, perhaps half of that variance is used, while at four the full variance comes into play. See below for an illustration.



Finally, as a simulation of the load placed on the power supply of the mech, limit the number of weapons that can be fired concurrently (perhaps even assign a power consumption value to weapons, and a power output to engines). For example, using arbitrary examples, say a STD 300 engine can output 20MW of energy, medium lasers consume 3MW each, while PPCs consume 11MW each. In this scenario, 6 medium lasers could fire concurrently, but only 1 PPC could fire at a time (with the next one available immediately after the first is done firing). Now the heaviest weapons must contend with not only their firing variance, but can now only fire a limited number at the same time.

Spoiler

Conclusion
In conclusion, because balance is not a simple equation, nor is it a 2 factor problem. There are many more variables than just the ones I touched on, but the three listed above are some of the key features that I feel PGI has absolutely whiffed on. There’s a small chance that someone with influence will read this and take something valuable away from it, but the chance of PGI acting on these ideas is almost zero. They have invested so much time and energy putting bandages on a hemorrhaging wound that it would take a very large man indeed to admit that the pooch was screeeeewed and that the system needs an overhaul from the ground up. Thank you to anyone who has taken the time to read this far, and I look forward to any constructive discussion this may generate.

Edited by Ningyo, 02 July 2013 - 03:04 PM.