721 replies to this topic

[KingKalvin]

made a lil comic about your proposed convergence

[Tal Kharn]

I've long asked myself why there was no mechanic that determined how much energy it required to fire different weapon system.

Currently a mech uses the same amount of energy (as in it doesn't matter) to fire 800 PPCs as opposed to 800 small lasers (silly numbers i know but if you could fit that number it would work under the current system). Why PGI? Weapons like gauss and PPCs required enormous amounts of energy to fire, ontop of reload time, cycle time, etc. It was actually often a reason in lore why a commando could not utilise a PPC even if it could theoretically fit the damn thing.

Whether engine size or some chassis specific figure, i simply feel that using heat alone to stop boating will mean that these weapons will continue to be the only viable competitive choice, which is a very sad thing for this game with so much potential and a stated ideological focus on player skill and variety.

I don't post often, but i fear that PGI will just tweak heat a bit and simply brush off the larger issue and focus on "fixing" PPCs alone, and thus will simply open the door for the next boated weapon system.

[BlackWidow]

OP. Thank you for this post.
How many times do we have to keep going over this before either PGI changes or players just suck it up and learn to counter. I personally don't have that big a problem with the PPC alpha strikes. I can either play that game myself or I can flank and snipe or flank and rush.
The problem, again, is derived from TWO things, both of which are bad translations from TT.
Pin point aiming and lack of heat damage.
This is a first person sim/shooter. Taking the ability of players to aim via RNG is not the solution. Although RNG would accurately simulate the hit tables from TT it would make for crappy game play. The best solution I have seen is so split up the arm/torso convergense around a wider reticle. Players could still aim but could not alpha all weapons to a SINGLE point. This would prevent pin point alphas. Again, this is a key statement. PINPOINT ALPHA. Nothing wrong with pinpoint accuracy and nothing wrong with ALPHA strikes. Even with 6 PPCs. The problem is PIN POINT ALPHA STRIKES. This is GAME BREAKING no matter how you balance weapons.
The other issue, which could help to balance the previous point is the heat damage table. Even with the proposed heat bonuses, it still isnt close to the original heat table penalties.
Implementing the original heat penalties from TT would actually put real risk to the current alpha strike behavior. One VERY rarely performed alpha strike in TT because the heat penalties would remove your mech from the game way too early.

[FaceRipt]

Strisk, on 07 July 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Why is everyone under the impression that travel times really don't matter at all?
In many situations projectile travel time and fall off makes a large difference in where you need to place your shot, this is especially important when making near shots from weapons in arms or long shots from weapons with slower travel time/more drop off (AC/20).

When trying to pop a light who is circle strafing you at 50m you cannot shoot directly at him with a projectile, you will miss every time, you must lead the target, which causes your weapons to converge on the ground under the target reticle, meaning your weapons are not converging at the distance where the mech you are trying to shoot is, meaning your shots will not all hit the same pixel of said mech.

It is much easier to pinpoint damage on an Atlas that isn't moving fast enough for your lead point to be on the ground, rather you can lead the CT by placing the reticle on his RT or LT or arm, this allows for much greater precision firing.

As far as cone of fire goes, either it will be big enough to make luck play a role in who lives and who dies, in which case I don't want it.....
or it will be small enough to not matter, in which case I still don't want it...

Yup thats my feelings about it as well.

random is crap, I mean come on do people really want to miss thier shots thanks to RNG saying they missed for the sake of a round dragging on for another minuite or two

I get the whole slow dance idea of mechwarrior but, that also depends on your teammates not being noobs and rushing open ground while the enemy has cover.

I tend to find most games i'm in where we rolled a team or got rolled extremely fast, happened because of poor team comms and poor cover use. I get wanting to go hug another robot so you can give him giant explosive hugs, but take your time getting there, nothin says you have to try and do it at the start of the round

[FaceRipt]

BlackWidow, on 08 July 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

OP. Thank you for this post.
How many times do we have to keep going over this before either PGI changes or players just suck it up and learn to counter. I personally don't have that big a problem with the PPC alpha strikes. I can either play that game myself or I can flank and snipe or flank and rush.
The problem, again, is derived from TWO things, both of which are bad translations from TT.
Pin point aiming and lack of heat damage.
This is a first person sim/shooter. Taking the ability of players to aim via RNG is not the solution. Although RNG would accurately simulate the hit tables from TT it would make for crappy game play. The best solution I have seen is so split up the arm/torso convergense around a wider reticle. Players could still aim but could not alpha all weapons to a SINGLE point. This would prevent pin point alphas. Again, this is a key statement. PINPOINT ALPHA. Nothing wrong with pinpoint accuracy and nothing wrong with ALPHA strikes. Even with 6 PPCs. The problem is PIN POINT ALPHA STRIKES. This is GAME BREAKING no matter how you balance weapons.
The other issue, which could help to balance the previous point is the heat damage table. Even with the proposed heat bonuses, it still isnt close to the original heat table penalties.
Implementing the original heat penalties from TT would actually put real risk to the current alpha strike behavior. One VERY rarely performed alpha strike in TT because the heat penalties would remove your mech from the game way too early.

SEE like this proposed change that would or could have an impact on the meta and gameplay without takeing away player skill and includeing RNG. It can be DONE

[MustrumRidcully]

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

SEE like this proposed change that would or could have an impact on the meta and gameplay without takeing away player skill and includeing RNG. It can be DONE

How would you implement "-2 attack"?

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

How would you implement "-2 attack"?

-X% damage.

[FaceRipt]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

How would you implement "-2 attack"?

Sigh, as stated by others that would be on pgi's end to figure out how a negative damage would be applied, i was more on about this being an idea that could be useful without advocateing for a RNG CONE OF FIRE THAT THIS GAME DOES NOT NEED

[DarkJaguar]

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Yup thats my feelings about it as well.

random is crap, I mean come on do people really want to miss thier shots thanks to RNG saying they missed for the sake of a round dragging on for another minuite or two

I get the whole slow dance idea of mechwarrior but, that also depends on your teammates not being noobs and rushing open ground while the enemy has cover.

I tend to find most games i'm in where we rolled a team or got rolled extremely fast, happened because of poor team comms and poor cover use. I get wanting to go hug another robot so you can give him giant explosive hugs, but take your time getting there, nothin says you have to try and do it at the start of the round

My proposal said NOTHING about an RNG, the effects are not random, the rounds still travel to where you aimed, just not the exact pixel. The only reason in the world I can imagine anyone defending pin-point aim is that they use the 6/4 ppc stalker or a gauss/ppc combo on a higherlander or CTF-3D, and are unwilling to accept change. Even pure pin-point aim with single fire weapons will lead to people like me coring you out. Pin-point at range needs to go, as does the current triple to quadruple DPS.

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

SEE like this proposed change that would or could have an impact on the meta and gameplay without takeing away player skill and includeing RNG. It can be DONE

Adding a cone of fire EMPHASIZES player skill. It minimizes people with no skill getting lucky enough to land 6 PPCs on one spot.

MustrumRidcully, on 08 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

How would you implement "-2 attack"?

He probably missed my conversion table earlier.

stjobe, on 08 July 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

-X% damage.

I hope you're joking? Please explain how my AC5 would deal less damage to heat in any way other than "Well, because it's a video game!"

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Sigh, as stated by others that would be on pgi's end to figure out how a negative damage would be applied, i was more on about this being an idea that could be useful without advocateing for a RNG CONE OF FIRE THAT THIS GAME DOES NOT NEED

MWO needs a Cone of Fire desperately.

[stjobe]

DarkJaguar, on 08 July 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

I hope you're joking? Please explain how my AC5 would deal less damage to heat in any way other than "Well, because it's a video game!"

It reloads slower under heat stress due to the barrel needing time to cool off. I thought that was common knowledge

That last part was a joke, by the way. Just so you know the difference next time

Oh, that last part was also a joke.

Seriously though, I'm not saying that's how they should do it, it was just an example of how one *could* implement a "-2 attack" penalty.

[DarkJaguar]

stjobe, on 08 July 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

It reloads slower under heat stress due to the barrel needing time to cool off. I thought that was common knowledge

That last part was a joke, by the way. Just so you know the difference next time

Oh, that last part was also a joke.

Seriously though, I'm not saying that's how they should do it, it was just an example of how one *could* implement a "-2 attack" penalty.

Okay, fair enough.

I would personally like my damage to be it's full value even beyond max range, just the target itself is more difficult to hit (due to the aforementioned cone of fire). This game is sterile right now, you KNOW you will never deal damage at 1800M with an Ultra AC5, and you KNOW that two of them will hit the same exact pixel no matter what range you're firing them at.

I think a preferable solution would be knowing that it's possible, but unlikely to deal 5 damage with a shell at 1800M, and that it's possible, but unlikely for two shots to hit the same pixel at any range but still hit the target.

As a side note, the most successful first person combat games back my suggestion of a "Cone of Fire", as they all use it, and people hardly ever notice.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 08 July 2013 - 09:24 AM.

[FaceRipt]

DarkJaguar, on 08 July 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Adding a cone of fire EMPHASIZES player skill. It minimizes people with no skill getting lucky enough to land 6 PPCs on one spot.



MWO needs a Cone of Fire desperately.

Ok so you clearly hate 6 ppc stalkers and seems to be at the core of your CONE OF ****** argument, you say it would add skill but tell me IF I AM AIMING AT SAID GAUSS ARM OF A HIGHLANDER OR PHRAC AND I MISS BECAUSE YOUR RNG COF SAYS I DID IS THAT FAIR OR BALANCED. A COF WOULD LEAD TO ELIMINATEING THE TARGETING OF SPECIFIC MECH PARTS IN FAVOR OF ALWAYS GETTING A HIT BY AIMING CENTER MASS.

AGAIN RANDOM IS NOT BALANCE OR FAIR. I WOULD RATHER HAVE SOME NOOBS OR SCRUBS GETTIN LUCKY WITH A HIGH DAMAGE SHOT THAN ME GETTING SCREWED ON ACTUAL AIMING CAUSE YOU CAN"T HANDLE SOMEONE HAVEING GOOD LUCK OR AIM.

[DarkJaguar]

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Ok so you clearly hate 6 ppc stalkers and seems to be at the core of your CONE OF ****** argument, you say it would add skill but tell me IF I AM AIMING AT SAID GAUSS ARM OF A HIGHLANDER OR PHRAC AND I MISS BECAUSE YOUR RNG COF SAYS I DID IS THAT FAIR OR BALANCED. A COF WOULD LEAD TO ELIMINATEING THE TARGETING OF SPECIFIC MECH PARTS IN FAVOR OF ALWAYS GETTING A HIT BY AIMING CENTER MASS.

AGAIN RANDOM IS NOT BALANCE OR FAIR. I WOULD RATHER HAVE SOME NOOBS OR SCRUBS GETTIN LUCKY WITH A HIGH DAMAGE SHOT THAN ME GETTING SCREWED ON ACTUAL AIMING CAUSE YOU CAN"T HANDLE SOMEONE HAVEING GOOD LUCK OR AIM.

If you're aiming at the Arm of a Highlander or Phract at 600m and you miss, it's because YOU as an unskilled player, elected to take a risky shot at range. That's balance. A skilled player would know their weapon and know that at 600m you've got about a 3m diameter beaten area. A skilled player would then apply that knowledge and aim more inward on the target, knowing that a hit is a hit, even if their weapons aren't up to being surgical at half a kilometer away. A skilled player would MAKE A HIT and be content with a hit.

An unskilled player would whine and complain that a cone of fire is unfair, and that he shouldn't have to play by big boy rules and that everything must hit exactly where he demands it hit, because no one has ever said no to him in his spoiled life!

But you as surely a skilled player, would apply that knowledge, and then wait until you're at a more reasonable range to target a specific location, like say 300m where your beaten area is now the size of an arm.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 08 July 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Sigh, as stated by others that would be on pgi's end to figure out how a negative damage would be applied, i was more on about this being an idea that could be useful without advocateing for a RNG CONE OF FIRE THAT THIS GAME DOES NOT NEED

It was a honest question. It's not possible to translate it directly without something like Cone of Fire, but we don't need to translate it directly, obviously. I just want some ideas.

Lowering damage could work, though I find it a bit hard to justify for ballistics or missiles. Lowering rate of fire might work..

I was always more in favor of lowering torso twist and arm movement speed, but I am not sure that actually bothers snipers. Could still be an additional option.

A better heat system is long needed, but it won't solve the alpha mentality for all weapon groups. You can try, but I doubt you would be able to implement a system where Gauss RIfles worry about heat (and that still has other weapons functioning, or would be realistically implemented by PGI. Most our simpler and more primitive ideas already have little hope of being implemented.)

Which is why I stick, for the foreseeable future, on restricting the combination of group fire and convergence. One of them must not be possible or severely limited when the other is in effect. The best way to stop alpha boats from being overly effective is by removing their pinpoint advantage.

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

How would you implement "-2 attack"?

stjobe, on 08 July 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

-X% damage.

DarkJaguar, on 08 July 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Please explain how my AC5 would deal less damage to heat in any way other than "Well, because it's a video game!"

stjobe, on 08 July 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

It reloads slower under heat stress due to the barrel needing time to cool off. I thought that was common knowledge

So thinking about this a bit more I think "-2 attack" might be better implemented as "+X% cooldown time". It's easier to justify heat giving increased cooling time than having it affect accuracy or damage.

Edit: And I see MustrumRidcully agrees

Edited by stjobe, 08 July 2013 - 12:10 PM.

[jeffsw6]

Helmer, on 06 July 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Being the community manager must be frustrating at times. Sometimes you want to say things, but can't. Don't want to say things, but are required. Sometimes you have to toe the company line, and sometimes you have to eat crow for issues outside your control.

We understand, but Garth's attitude that "PPCs are boring" is not helpful.

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but another thing that is bothering me...Missiles.

Why do missiles do splash damage at all? They're shaped charge weapons, they deal damage in a pencil thin zone directly in front of the warhead. Splash damage really should be removed at well, it doesn't feel right and makes the missiles more powerful than they should be.

I also don't understand why missiles need to have splash damage.

Tal Kharn, on 08 July 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

I've long asked myself why there was no mechanic that determined how much energy it required to fire different weapon system.

This has been suggested many times. I don't think the game needs another complex element for armament-balancing.

Also, MechWarrior is heat-limited. Energy-limited wouldn't be "Batman."

[kilgor]

Another thing PGI could do is remove Zooming and have the 'Mech shake when hit.

[Ph30nix]

Ya know what ive found in ever match ive played. The weapons used only play a small part in who wins and who loses.

if you don't understand what im talking about then you dont realize where the real problems are and never will because you are looking at this game in the completely wrong way.

[Jack Lowe]

Although I read your entire post I'm only going to comment at length on convergence as I see it being the core problem leading to the current meta. Although some of your other ideas are sound as well I would rather have convergence addressed first. This is because changes in it's implementation will affect every weapon in the game. This means that some may well "fix" themselves while others may develop problems that need addressed.

I won't make a secret of the fact I'm not a fan of C.O.F. Although I predominately run a Yen-Lo with a standard weapon load out, nothing fancy because of that weapons mix precision shooting is something I value. However pinpoint convergence at any range is not something I'm overly fond of either. There is a way however to retain the ability to make a precision shot at range without C.O.F. It is called divergence.

If the weapons are allowed to converge up to their effective range but then begin to diverge at the same angle and rise/run at which they converged because they will all have come from different aim points you will get weapons spread beyond that point. Even weapons in the same location will diverge up and down at minimum. The longer the shot the greater the effect, firing large alpha's will lose some of their appeal, but if a person corrects properly a single weapon can still be precise at extended ranges. The person correcting for the change restores skill to the equation and that seems to be where your idea has found most of its critics.

Although I love TT it's not the reason I go with this idea but the lore that indicates that the reason for the range limitations for these weapons is the degradation of target computer technology. So we put in the above mentioned mechanic to simulate the targeting computers inability to effectively track beyond the desired effective range. It's also an adjustable mechanic.

If it's deemed inadequate then perhaps assigning each weapon a deviation value beyond effective range at the beginning of the match. Because it's set at the beginning it's static for the match and therefore a skilled player can adjust to it still allowing precision aiming. Because each weapon is affected it will still create the spread effect desired thus limiting the usefulness of high alpha builds.

I also wonder if a minimum convergence shouldn't be contemplated, some chassis have their torso weapons recessed, others have no lower arm actuators. Both should have difficulties getting perfect convergence within a certain range. The recessed torso mounts (think catapult or stalker) should seem obvious. The missing lower arm actuators is because if they can't cant their weapons out even a single degree, meaning the weapons effectively, fixed why would they be able to cant them inward? Think jagermech, look at how it's built physically, if something gets close enough unless that thing bends it's arms inward there's no way in hell it can hit it.

In any case that's my thoughts on that subject hope it provides some points worth contemplating.

[DarkJaguar]

Jack Lowe, on 08 July 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Although I read your entire post I'm only going to comment at length on convergence as I see it being the core problem leading to the current meta. Although some of your other ideas are sound as well I would rather have convergence addressed first. This is because changes in it's implementation will affect every weapon in the game. This means that some may well "fix" themselves while others may develop problems that need addressed.

I won't make a secret of the fact I'm not a fan of C.O.F. Although I predominately run a Yen-Lo with a standard weapon load out, nothing fancy because of that weapons mix precision shooting is something I value. However pinpoint convergence at any range is not something I'm overly fond of either. There is a way however to retain the ability to make a precision shot at range without C.O.F. It is called divergence.

If the weapons are allowed to converge up to their effective range but then begin to diverge at the same angle and rise/run at which they converged because they will all have come from different aim points you will get weapons spread beyond that point. Even weapons in the same location will diverge up and down at minimum. The longer the shot the greater the effect, firing large alpha's will lose some of their appeal, but if a person corrects properly a single weapon can still be precise at extended ranges. The person correcting for the change restores skill to the equation and that seems to be where your idea has found most of its critics.

Although I love TT it's not the reason I go with this idea but the lore that indicates that the reason for the range limitations for these weapons is the degradation of target computer technology. So we put in the above mentioned mechanic to simulate the targeting computers inability to effectively track beyond the desired effective range. It's also an adjustable mechanic.

If it's deemed inadequate then perhaps assigning each weapon a deviation value beyond effective range at the beginning of the match. Because it's set at the beginning it's static for the match and therefore a skilled player can adjust to it still allowing precision aiming. Because each weapon is affected it will still create the spread effect desired thus limiting the usefulness of high alpha builds.

I also wonder if a minimum convergence shouldn't be contemplated, some chassis have their torso weapons recessed, others have no lower arm actuators. Both should have difficulties getting perfect convergence within a certain range. The recessed torso mounts (think catapult or stalker) should seem obvious. The missing lower arm actuators is because if they can't cant their weapons out even a single degree, meaning the weapons effectively, fixed why would they be able to cant them inward? Think jagermech, look at how it's built physically, if something gets close enough unless that thing bends it's arms inward there's no way in hell it can hit it.

In any case that's my thoughts on that subject hope it provides some points worth contemplating.

Good write-up, a lot of excellent suggestions and ideas. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the other things I brought up as well, but a key point you mentioned here actually mirrors my Cone of Fire suggestion in a different parallel fashion. The idea behind the cone of fire is that it should be combined with something along these lines (I personally think that Torso mounted/non lower arm actuator weapons should have a fixed convergence point, as they are aimed by torso twisting and have limited if any capacity to actuate beyond that). By having a cone of fire that is, at the weapons max rated range, still small enough to hit the torso of a hunchback even at that convergence point, you're not putting 6 ppcs into one pixel. Having a different convergence point for every weapon is a workaround to cone of fire that achieves a similar result, and it's graceful in it's simplicity. If cone of fire weren't implemented, I would want that, HOWEVER, I would still prefer a cone of fire. It's a cone, so while the long range shots are going to spread out a bit, when you get into an optimal range where your arm weapons are capable of converging and your cone is small enough to put every round into one hit location, a Cone of Fire gives you that tactical option to say "D**N THE MAN! FIRE ALL CANNONS!" and lay out a huge alpha strike.

Throughout this entire discussion I am always striving for one singular goal. Tactical diversity. A diverse game is a fun game, as it engages the mind. I think that having every weapon with a fixed convergence point that changes match to match but does not deviate from within that match would not be the best solution to achieve tactical diversity. By having to choose as a player between a long range, but chancy, shot or conserving your resources for a closer range but more likely shot it will encourage that diversity. With the current pixel perfect aiming, everyone and their brother thinks they're a crack shot. Let them as a player make an informed choice in a fire fight to take that 600m shot now, because their PPC may go wide if they don't really nail down that center of mass aiming.