721 replies to this topic

[Multitallented]

I really hope they don't do a major re-work of the system before launch. The balance problems are merely a few numbers that need changing here or there. There doesn't need to be convergence re-work or a boating penalty. These are blanket changes that partially fix the problem while creating new ones. They're just going to waste time they could be spending on the features they need before launch.

[Orzorn]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

I would disagree with you Helmer, while PGI chose to use TT damage numbers, they did not use TT damage values. There's a huge difference between a PPC that deals 30 damage over 10 seconds and one that deals 10 damage over 10 seconds. Every number in TT is based on a 10 second abstract, by taking the damage numbers without accounting for the time scale, you've failed to actually take the proper values.

MWO ER PPC (10 SECONDS)
30 DMG (3 SHOTS)
33 HT (3 SHOTS)

TT ER PPC (10 SECONDS)
10 DMG (X SHOTS)
15 HT (X SHOTS)

It's a pretty huge difference, and I could literally apply it to every weapon in MWO (I have actually, see the charts in my OP)

I said the same thing very early in Closed Beta:
PGI chose to use the TT damage values but not the TT overall damage. In ten seconds, a PPC in the TT does 10 damage. But because MWO used different firing times without altering the damage, the overall damage in 10 came out to 30 damage.

If PGI had truly started with TT overall damage, they would have taken their decided on recycle time, and divided the damage by that number. So PPCs with a 3 second recycle time would deal 3.33 damage per shot. THAT would be true TT values.

[JokerVictor]

RG Notch, on 10 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Do you people seriously think there is going to some major reworking of any system before launch? Or are you just posting these for your own entertainment. I'll give you a clue, not one system will get any type of major rework before launch and once launched it's the way the game will be.
You can argue that's a bad idea all you want, but we have a limited time before launch. All we will get is band ****. Best to work on making the bandaids as good as possible or just stop posting.
Seriously, get a calendar ( PGI needs one too apparently as our July CDU is slipping to August) check how much time we have between now and launch (Sept 17 I believe) and realize we have the game we're getting at launch. Best decide how to tweak it or just get out.
And No, there won't be a delay. IGP wants this launched on that date and at launch we will get a "F2Ps are always in development" speech.
Seriously, if you want to argue with each other for arguments sake, go ahead. Nothing major is being reworked before launch. I don't support that idea, I'm just realistic.

Sad, but true. Which is why I'm probably not going to play this again. Game is just awful in the current form.

[Warge]

RG Notch, on 10 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Do you people seriously think there is going to some major reworking of any system before launch?

Tanis Half-Elven: "Do you see no hope?"
Raistlin: "Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it."

We don't now how the things are in PGI so all we can do - hope.

[Orzorn]

DarkJaguar, having just now sufficiently read your musings on the CoF, I can't express how much I agree.

Those who oppose CoF for skill reasons seem to be ignoring the fact that many games with high skill involved such as the classic Counter Strike, Team Fortress (1 or 2), and plenty of other FPS games dating back more than a century at this point have some manner of spread on rounds fired. Being skillful at these games involves learning the spread of weapons and learning at what ranges you use them at. The Heavy's minigun has a great spread, but that doesn't mean you can't be skillful with it. A good heavy can follow even the most juking scout across the screen, and a good heavy knows that you can kill people even quite a ways away with the minigun as long as you aim for their center.

I think the most important thing for others to remember about your ideas is that they do not work in a vacuum. They must be taken mostly as a whole, otherwise the system fails, just like PGI's initial implementation of the "TT mechanics". They left out vital details, and they suffered the results.

[Pht]

Orzorn, on 10 July 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

I said the same thing very early in Closed Beta:
PGI chose to use the TT damage values but not the TT overall damage. In ten seconds, a PPC in the TT does 10 damage. But because MWO used different firing times without altering the damage, the overall damage in 10 came out to 30 damage.

If PGI had truly started with TT overall damage, they would have taken their decided on recycle time, and divided the damage by that number. So PPCs with a 3 second recycle time would deal 3.33 damage per shot. THAT would be true TT values.

Don't forget that those numbers would need to be used in the combat mechanic they were designed to work in.

[BlackWidow]

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

How would you implement "-2 attack"?

Reticle shake. So simple it barely even merits discussion.

[Orzorn]

DarkJaguar, on 10 July 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Mechwarrior 4 Autocannon
Mechwarrior 3 Autocannon
Mechwarrior 2 Autocannon

Are you sure? Looks burst fire to me, as the enemy shooting at the camera is firing an autocannon, and it is decidedly not an AC2.

Mechwarrior 4 ACs, if I recall, were only aesthetically burst fire. They "shot" out multiple "rounds", but in actuality all of those "rounds" were just a single projectile.

So you're being fooled by the aesthetics of it, much like how pulse lasers in MWO look like they pulse on and off, but if you drag them across the ground they make the same pattern as a regular laser, proving they do not actually pulse.

[Orzorn]

BlackWidow, on 10 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Reticle shake. So simple it barely even merits discussion.

Or cone widening.
Plenty of FPS games do it with infinite ammo weapons like mounted miniguns. The more you fire the weapon, the hotter it gets, and the cone gets larger, forcing you to wait for it to cool down.

So if heat penalties were in, the -2 attack could increase the cone on your weapons.

Alternatively, -2 attack might translate to all your weapons having, say, 25% or so increased recycle time.

Even discounting CoF mechanics, I think MWO has desperately needed scaling heat penalties for ages. It makes running at the redline much too easy. Anything less than running at 99% heat as often as possible is reducing your damage potential.

[Pht]

Orzorn, on 10 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Or cone widening.

Or doing a simple math equation run through a database instead of calculating a cone with all the problems that entails. One which we already have the numbers and equation for. A simple plug-n-chug.

[Orzorn]

Pht, on 10 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Or doing a simple math equation run through a database instead of calculating a cone with all the problems that entails. One which we already have the numbers and equation for. A simple plug-n-chug.

Reticule shake (that is, when jump jetting) is already a cone mechanic.

They're effectively the same thing.

Unless you're just saying you want the reticule to shake and nothing else, which is aesthetic and overcome with a post-it-note cut into a dot.

Edited by Orzorn, 10 July 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Pht]

Orzorn, on 10 July 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Reticule shake (that is, when jump jetting) is already a cone mechanic. They're effectively the same thing. Unless you're just saying you want the reticule to shake and nothing else, which is aesthetic and overcome with a post-it-note cut into a dot.

I actually don't agree with reticule shake.

Shots should spread predictably based upon how conditions occuring when you pull the trigger affect your 'mechs ability to aim... and the color coding of the reticule indicates how far things will spread, so that the reticule is still useful.

[MustrumRidcully]

Auto-Cannons fire exactly one bullet in 10 seconds, that'S what the table top rules.
Just like you can swing a sword only once in 6 seconds in a D&D world.


Abstraction for gameplay purposes = Reality In the Game World Fiction

Pht, on 10 July 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

I actually don't agree with reticule shake.

Shots should spread predictably based upon how conditions occuring when you pull the trigger affect your 'mechs ability to aim... and the color coding of the reticule indicates how far things will spread, so that the reticule is still useful.

Reticule shake might not be predictable, but it's visible, so it's a question of your ability to react appropriately to the shake. Oh, and the lag compensation getting things right. Good luck with that, I suppose.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 July 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 July 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Reticule shake might not be predictable, but it's visible,...

Pht said:

... and the color coding of the reticule indicates how far things will spread, so that the reticule is still useful.

Gold and a tone for everything hits, red and a different tone for pretty much nothing will hit, and something else for partial lock. What hits exactly where based upon the 'mechs ultimate ability to get it's weapons aligned given the current condition.

Entirely visible and something that can more easily be tracked in real time than having a crazy dancing retiucle.

Besides which, the reticule in a mech in the lore doesn't tell you where your shots are all going to necessarily hit - rather, the position of the reticule indicates to the 'mech what it's trying to hit - which is mutually exclusive to having it dance around or change size/shape.

Edited by Pht, 10 July 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 July 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Auto-Cannons fire exactly one bullet in 10 seconds, that'S what the table top rules.
Just like you can swing a sword only once in 6 seconds in a D&D world.


Abstraction for gameplay purposes = Reality In the Game World Fiction

I'm going to go ahead here and just assume you're trying to say something other than what you just wrote, because I just spent a few posts explaining that what you wrote just isn't true.

Sure, the TT rules said one die roll to hit with an AC, but that's just because having 20-100 rolls is for every burst is quite impractical. In every description ever of ACs, whether in the TT rules or in novels, or anywhere else, they are described as fast-firing burst weapons. I even quoted Decision at Thunder Rift a few pages back.

The TT rules are abstractions of a much richer lore to make a playable game. There's simply no argument against ACs in the BattleTech universe being burst-fire weapons, look up any description of them and you'll see. The TT rules however, needed to represent that fact in rules for a game that was supposed to be playable in a few hours of spare time, on a kitchen table.

Hence the single to-hit roll representing either the complete miss or complete hit of the whole burst.

We don't need that abstraction in a computer game, the computer is quite fast enough to make those 20-100 computations - although it would probably be wise to reduce it down to 3-5 shots per burst for performance reasons.

Edited by stjobe, 10 July 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 10 July 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I'm going to go ahead here and just assume you're trying to say something other than what you just wrote, because I just spent a few posts explaining that what you wrote just isn't true.

Sure, the TT rules said one die roll to hit with an AC, but that's just because having 20-100 rolls is for every burst is quite impractical. In every description ever of ACs, whether in the TT rules or in novels, or anywhere else, they are described as fast-firing burst weapons. I even quoted Decision at Thunder Rift a few pages back.

The TT rules are abstractions of a much richer lore to make a playable game. There's simply no argument that ACs in the BattleTech universe were burst-fire weapons, look up any description of them and you'll see. The TT rules however, needed to represent that fact in rules for a game that was supposed to be playable in a few hours of spare time, on a kitchen table.

Hence the single to-hit roll representing either the complete miss or complete hit of the whole burst.

I wrote exactly what I wanted to see, but there are irony tags all around it. Don't you see that on your browser?
Often when I write something completely and uttlerly stupid and dense like that, you just have to remember the irony tags.
Sometimes I am really that stupid and dense, and I prefer you not to mention that, okay?

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 July 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

I wrote exactly what I wanted to see, but there are irony tags all around it. Don't you see that on your browser?
Often when I write something completely and uttlerly stupid and dense like that, you just have to remember the irony tags.
Sometimes I am really that stupid and dense, and I prefer you not to mention that, okay?

Sorry, my sarcasm detector... hang on... *bang* *bang* *bang*... No, it's broken all right. Dammit, third time this week, and the warranty just expired... *sigh* SO hard to get quality equipment these days...

[Pht]

stjobe, on 10 July 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Sure, the TT rules said one die roll to hit with an AC, but that's just because having 20-100 rolls is for every burst is quite impractical

In fact, if you look in megamek, there is an unoffical setting to do a to=hit roll for AC's doing double-fire. One to-hit for each round fired, instead of going onto the cluster hits table.

[General Taskeen]

Scarcer, on 07 July 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Rename MG to HMG

Commenting on this specifically. I'm not sure why that is needed. The MG was already decent in Battle Tech, but its ammo could explode if hit causing massive damage (if not using CASE) and also had short range. The MW3 incarnation was the closest yet in any Mech game. And the HMG already is in Battle Tech, does better damage, but with even shorter range, and less ammo.


Anyways, onto the thread. I read through nearly 10+ pages so far. Quite a read.

As long as MWO can become the 'feel' of Table Top, then that's all that matters.

What I like best from taking Table Top is the following balancing factors: The TT values for weight and crit space for every piece of equipment or weapon. That is the bread and butter of the Mech building aspect.

From there, its a matter of adjusting the TT values either mathematically to real-time, for damage, heat, cool downs, or ammuntion per ton. This can also be abstracted. For instance, MW:LL in its later (and more balanced forms) started to abstract TT Heat and TT Weapon Damage and TT Armor Levels, and adjusted weapon cool downs and ammunition as necessary.

So for example, where TT has a heat cap of say '60,' MW:LL abstracted that by changing it to a "cap" of 999 Celcius maximum heat. The "safe" zone is 750 Celcius, where as going over that red line of 750 will go into automatic shut down. Over riding above that zone causes various heat penalities. A PPC is abstracted to raise heat by 160.5 and firing x4 PPC's = 642, and firing anymore will automatically bring you into the danger zone. Single Heat Sinks and Double Heat Sinks were then made both effective by abstracting the 'heat disappation per second.' All of those aspects combined are still very similar, merely abstracted rather than taking exact TT numbers.

While each Mech Warrior game has its specific problems, each Mech Warrior game just made things 'work' with specific concept of a weapon or equipment that worked in a real-time concept. MW:LL, for example, was by no means perfect, but they reached a level of fidelity for the basic concept of their weapons by taking what worked in other Mech titles and improving upon it. By combining what worked and improving upon past ideas and applying them in MWO can lead to a great game for everyone, while addressing the core issues that have also been apart of practically every Mech warrior game, things like 'full customization unbalance' or the whole pin-point thing where there are no heat penalities that affect aim at high heat, etc.\

You can still maintain the feel of TT, which is the important part. Again, at the basic level, Mech Building with TT weights and crit spaces can work (even if it is abstracted mathematically, but at its base level it is easier to understand). On a weapon by weapon basis, for example, if you can still fire that weapon and expect it do how you 'think' it should work in TT, a medium laser being the "middle of the road" average damage, range, heat, etc. laser.

Edited by General Taskeen, 10 July 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[General Taskeen]

RG Notch, on 10 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Nothing major is being reworked before launch. I don't support that idea, I'm just realistic.

Probably not before launch no. But, they did say the Test Server 'realm' would be for testing out their major content features and testing new overhauls that have already made their rounds over and over again on the forums.

No way in heck, realistically, will there be major overhauls on a patch by patch basis for the live servers until it has been tested thoroughly.

Edited by General Taskeen, 10 July 2013 - 11:02 AM.