721 replies to this topic

[Mongoose Trueborn]

It's impossible for lesser skilled players to fully understand what the game needs. It will be argued until the end of time because NOBODY wants to think of themselves as dumb. Everyone wants to be right about every thing and the simple fact of the matter is that you can't possibly know as much about something as someone that is clearly better than you at it.

I know that's hard to read, understand, and accept. I'm sorry but I don't know how to clearly explain myself so that everyone can understand it sometimes.

Michael Jordan will always know better than you about basketball, deal with it.

Tiger Woods will always know better than you about golf, deal with it.

Peyton Manning will always know better than you about football, deal with it.

Until the playerbase and devs realize, understand, and accept this truth of nature any chance this game has at success is a shot in the dark. Maybe they get lucky and get it right, maybe they don't. If they do they won't understand the reason why.

Whatever the "balance" you think will work will be diced and analyzed by the elite until they figure out what gives them a tactical advantage to kill you better. They will use that, whatever it is, and dominate the game. Copy cats follow and you have a meta.

[DarkJaguar]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 13 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

It's impossible for lesser skilled players to fully understand what the game needs. It will be argued until the end of time because NOBODY wants to think of themselves as dumb. Everyone wants to be right about every thing and the simple fact of the matter is that you can't possibly know as much about something as someone that is clearly better than you at it.

I know that's hard to read, understand, and accept. I'm sorry but I don't know how to clearly explain myself so that everyone can understand it sometimes.

Michael Jordan will always know better than you about basketball, deal with it.

Tiger Woods will always know better than you about golf, deal with it.

Peyton Manning will always know better than you about football, deal with it.

Until the playerbase and devs realize, understand, and accept this truth of nature any chance this game has at success is a shot in the dark. Maybe they get lucky and get it right, maybe they don't. If they do they won't understand the reason why.

Whatever the "balance" you think will work will be diced and analyzed by the elite until they figure out what gives them a tactical advantage to kill you better. They will use that, whatever it is, and dominate the game. Copy cats follow and you have a meta.

I'm not sure I'm tracking on your point? Are you saying that the translation I provided isn't a good one because I'm not as skilled a player as you? Why do you have to be Michael Jordan to understand the rules of basketball? When was the last time Michael Jordan wrote a rule used by the NBA? Doesn't the NBA write rules into it's charter -BECAUSE- of players like Michael Jordan?

On another point, to bring back up the CoF argument (or, as it should probably be better labeled Circular Error of Probability, CEP for short). To draw an analogy with real life, the main gun on the M1A1 has a CEP of 35m at 8000m range. That means that 50% of all shots fired will land within 35m at a range of 8000m. If you reduce the range to say 600m, the CEP is now 2.6m.

That number is actually pretty close to what I recommended, with my ideal situation being WA=R100@MR where WA is Weapon Accuracy, R100 being a radius of 1.65m (diameter 3.3m), and MR being a weapons max optimum range. So, an AC5 would have a R100 of 3.3m @ 600m, a pretty reasonable CEP if you ask me.

[The14th]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

...

Now your numbers rely on everybody holding their triggers down. And since that is generally not true, this turns into a massive damage nerf across the board. The DPS numbers from the TT require the optimal conditions of turn-based play.

Edited by The14th, 13 July 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think it's technically impossible to reconcile Lore with TT values.

How do you turn an AC/20 - a weapon that deals 20 damage TO ONE BODYPART (hence why it was balanced with 14 tons of weight and short range) - into a RoF weapon that fires 4 slugs/10 seconds? Those 4 slugs will hit different locations, and you have now broken TT rules.

So, it's technically impossible to reconcile TT rules and BT Lore.


Also, as a secondary point, the OP uses the term "heat efficiency" incorrectly in my opinion. The Heat efficiency of AC/2 in TT is 2 because it deals 2 damage/heat. In MW:O, the Heat Efficiency of AC/2 is 2, because it deals 2 damage/heat. Nobody is trying to inflict "time" against their opponent, we are trying to inflict damage, so heat efficiency of damage-producing weapons should be measured in damage/heat.

If you think the AC/2 is now "20 times hotter" than in Tabletop, then you also have to say that it's 20 times more powerful, which leads to a 1:1 ratio between the two environments.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 July 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[DarkJaguar]

The14th, on 13 July 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

And now your numbers rely on everybody holding their triggers down. And since that is generally not true, this turns into a massive damage nerf across the board. The DPS numbers from the TT require the optimal conditions of turn-based play.

What? How is that requiring to hold your triggers down? Yes, it requires optimal conditions to deal the full damage. I never said I was trying to make TT real time, I said I was trying to balance the game and maintain the feel of Mechwarrior/Battletech while introducing more varied gameplay and tactical choices. I'm doing this through translation of a 10 second abstract. Furthermore, Advanced TT rules do have provisions for glancing blows, and partial laser fire for reduced heat. Also, a flat 10 second recycle time is boring, which is why I opted not to use it, a flat 10 second recycle time also would not do much to address the massive alphas, and would be rather unworkable with a TT inspired heat pool/scale. That's why I translated from english to german, instead of english to gibberish.

[DarkJaguar]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I think it's technically impossible to reconcile Lore with TT values.

How do you turn an AC/20 - a weapon that deals 20 damage TO ONE BODYPART (hence why it was balanced with 14 tons of weight and short range) - into a RoF weapon that fires 4 slugs/10 seconds? Those 4 slugs will hit different locations, and you have now broken TT rules.

So, it's technically impossible to reconcile TT rules and BT Lore.


Also, as a secondary point, the OP uses the term "heat efficiency" incorrectly in my opinion. The Heat efficiency of AC/2 in TT is 2 because it deals 2 damage/heat. In MW:O, the Heat Efficiency of AC/2 is 2, because it deals 2 damage/heat. Nobody is trying to inflict "time" against their opponent, we are trying to inflict damage, so heat efficiency of damage-producing weapons should be measured in damage/heat.

If you think the AC/2 is now "20 times hotter" than in Tabletop, then you also have to say that it's 20 times more powerful, which leads to a 1:1 ratio between the two environments.

To your first point, a direct translation is possible, but it's boring. I instead translated it to the feel.

To your second point, yes the ratios on an AC2 are consistent as far as heat and damage goes to a point, it deals 20x as much damage to your enemy and 20x as much heat to you. Armor was doubled, so really it only inflicts 10x as much damage, HOWEVER heat cap was more than doubled (it starts at quadrupled and goes down the more HS you add.) So you're now looking at a weapon that does 10x the damage for 2.5x the heat. Furthermore, every weapon was buffed at a different multiplier. If we had a flat multiplier across the board (which is actually more of what I'm proposing, all of my numbers are example only) then the game would maintain the feel of Mechwarrior/Battletech a hell ofa lot better.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 13 July 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

If you think the AC/2 is now "20 times hotter" than in Tabletop, then you also have to say that it's 20 times more powerful, which leads to a 1:1 ratio between the two environments.

Too bad the MG isn't 20 times more powerful. An Ac/2 and MG do the same damage in TT. Hence, an example of whackiness in the translation by cherry picking from TT there, and instituting arbitrary values elsewhere.



The game doesn't have to be chained around translating the "10" seconds. MW:LL completely redid their game by not being completely bunkered down by TT damage/heat values. Everything is based on the rate of fire in a minute, as with weapons are in reality, where-as everything else was scaled upward as far as the translation of TT values go, but at the same time they maintained the 'feel' of most weapons. You take an AC/20, and it fires 30 rounds a minute, and fires a single round that does massive damage like you 'expect' it to.

[DarkJaguar]

General Taskeen, on 13 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Too bad the MG isn't 20 times more powerful. An Ac/2 and MG do the same damage in TT. Hence, an example of whackiness in the translation by cherry picking from TT there, and instituting arbitrary values elsewhere.



The game doesn't have to be chained around translating the "10" seconds. MW:LL completely redid their game by not being completely bunkered down by TT damage/heat values. Everything is based on the rate of fire in a minute, as with weapons are in reality, where-as everything else was scaled upward as far as the translation of TT values go, but at the same time they maintained the 'feel' of most weapons. You take an AC/20, and it fires 30 rounds a minute, and fires a single round that does massive damage like you 'expect' it to.

Yeah, my biggest issue is with the asymmetry introduced by taking damage but not considering the time scale, thus ending up with wonky numbers.

[The14th]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

What? How is that requiring to hold your triggers down? Yes, it requires optimal conditions to deal the full damage. I never said I was trying to make TT real time, I said I was trying to balance the game and maintain the feel of Mechwarrior/Battletech while introducing more varied gameplay and tactical choices. I'm doing this through translation of a 10 second abstract. Furthermore, Advanced TT rules do have provisions for glancing blows, and partial laser fire for reduced heat. Also, a flat 10 second recycle time is boring, which is why I opted not to use it, a flat 10 second recycle time also would not do much to address the massive alphas, and would be rather unworkable with a TT inspired heat pool/scale. That's why I translated from english to german, instead of english to gibberish.

I seriously need to spell it out for you? Your dps translation requires a higher rate of fire, but in the non-optimal conditions of real-time combat there may not be enough time to actually get off each shot that fast AND on target. You took a single attack roll and split it up into three sub-rolls, forcing the player to hit all three AND in the same spot to equate the same effect. This turns into a massive buff for armor values, as you have to work harder just to hit the same accuracy as the rng TT rules (which I don't have to tell you is not pinpoint). With damage at a higher spread and/or lower dps than the TT, you have preformed a massive damage nerf.

P.S.- Your translation analogy is trite, as the more accurate relationship is PGI is attempting to create a new dialect.

[AndyHill]

The14th, on 13 July 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

You do realize that for that math to hold up in real time we would only be allowed to make one shot every ten seconds no matter how many weapons you have, right?

It would allow you to fire as many times per 10 seconds as you have weapons on board.

[DarkJaguar]

The14th, on 13 July 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I seriously need to spell it out for you? Your dps translation requires a higher rate of fire, but in the non-optimal conditions of real-time combat there may not be enough time to actually get off each shot that fast AND on target. You took a single attack roll and split it up into three sub-rolls, forcing the player to hit all three AND in the same spot to equate the same effect. This turns into a massive buff for armor values, as you have to work harder just to hit the same accuracy as the rng TT rules (which I don't have to tell you is not pinpoint). With damage at a higher spread and/or lower dps than the TT, you have preformed a massive damage nerf.

P.S.- Your translation analogy is trite, as the more accurate relationship is PGI is attempting to create a new dialect.

How does it turn into a massive buff for armor? You're still able to aim, granted it's not pixel perfect, but for the most part you're still hitting the location that you're aiming at. It's an attempt to balance damage agaisnt the ability to aim.

So no, it's not a direct translation of english to english, it's translating the same words into a new language, which requires different consonants and vowels to be used in different locations. I'm not asking for the same words, I'm asking for the same meaning. You have grossly misunderstood my post, and I recommend you go back and read it to try and better comprehend what I have said.

As to "Well in TT a PPC only fires once and hits one location", TT uses a 10 second abstract. a real time shooter would be very boring with a direct translation, so I have translated it to maintain the feel of Mechwarrior, while speaking in the language of FPS.

[YueFei]

The14th, on 13 July 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

I seriously need to spell it out for you? Your dps translation requires a higher rate of fire, but in the non-optimal conditions of real-time combat there may not be enough time to actually get off each shot that fast AND on target. You took a single attack roll and split it up into three sub-rolls, forcing the player to hit all three AND in the same spot to equate the same effect. This turns into a massive buff for armor values, as you have to work harder just to hit the same accuracy as the rng TT rules (which I don't have to tell you is not pinpoint). With damage at a higher spread and/or lower dps than the TT, you have preformed a massive damage nerf.

P.S.- Your translation analogy is trite, as the more accurate relationship is PGI is attempting to create a new dialect.

The damage per round in TT is balanced around possible mech movement speeds. In TT, where crossing a piece of ground between two pieces of cover might expose you to a single round of enemy fire, in MWO, crossing that same piece of ground exposes you to 3 full salvos of pin-point alpha damage before you get safely into cover. Even with doubled armor, against highly accurate players, most of that damage is incredibly focused, rather than striking multiple armor panels.

This skews the relationship between fire and movement, heavily favoring a kind of trench warfare, because movement is so damned risky in MWO.

Maybe we should make all mechs run at double speed also?

[DarkJaguar]

YueFei, on 13 July 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

Maybe we should make all mechs run at double speed also?

Nah, we should have each mech with a speed multiplier that's completely arbitrary, just like the weapons and heat multipliers. Atlas should go 1x Speed, Cataphract should be 4x, Hunchback 6x and Spider 10x.

[Sereglach]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I think it's technically impossible to reconcile Lore with TT values.

How do you turn an AC/20 - a weapon that deals 20 damage TO ONE BODYPART (hence why it was balanced with 14 tons of weight and short range) - into a RoF weapon that fires 4 slugs/10 seconds? Those 4 slugs will hit different locations, and you have now broken TT rules.

So, it's technically impossible to reconcile TT rules and BT Lore.

Using your own point here against you. Currently we have an AC20 doing all 20 damage to one body part instead of firing a burst that could hit different body parts, however lasers fire a beam that can spread it's damage all over a mech based upon it's duration of energy burst and the damage it does over that duration. In TT the energy weapons do their damage to one body part, as well.

Now that sets double standards, and assists in ruining the balance of the game. We need one uniform standard. By using the tabletop DPS and HPS values, and creating a uniform ratio of damage and heat across all weapons, we don't have to have numbers that are PURE tabletop, but we can carry it over to MWO with great effect and balance.

So over 10 seconds a PPC would do 10 damage and 10 heat. That could be through firing with a 5 second recycle time with 5 damage and 5 heat, or it could be firing ever 3.4 seconds with 3.4 heat and 3.4 damage. Either method would create a balanced weapon that still hits hard, does what it's supposed to do, and sticks very close to TT HPS and DPS values to maintain the feel and balance of the game.

At the same token an AC10 does 10 damage and 3 heat over 10 seconds. That could be through firing 3 times for 3.4 damage and 1 heat with a 3.4 second recycle time, or it could be firing every 5 seconds for 5 damage and 1.5 heat. Same as above, this establishes a balanced weapon that maintains it's hitting capacity and lore based feel. The shots could also be in bursts so that the two 5 damage bursts could be 5x1 damage shells over a .5 second burst. Ammo could be adjusted accordingly based upon the make and model of weapon, and how it fires over time.

All these different ways of balancing the weapons also ties directly into offering people different makes and models of weapons to purchase and place on their mechs. They could have an AC20 that fires one 20 damage shell every 10 seconds, or they could buy one that's firing 4 5x1 shell bursts over 10 seconds. They do the same damage, but they are two completely different ways of fielding the same weapon. This gives people more flavor and more variety in their weapon system choices.

There's a lot that can be done to balance the game in this fashion and give people the weapons they want. It also maintains the true feel of Battletech universe and most importantly . . . it keeps things BALANCED!

[Victor Morson]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I think it's technically impossible to reconcile Lore with TT values.

I entirely agree. While I think Dark Jag has put a ton more thought and is far more reasonable than some other people pushing this (Hi, PHt!) 1:1 conversion, I still kind of wish he'd stop because it's derailing every thread it gets brought up in with an idea that only an extreme minority are interested in seeing and that I think would be unhappy even if they had it, in the end.

I just really wish this would stop coming up in every thread focusing on improving what MW:O is right now; they aren't going to go back and reset everything to TT to make the 5 vocal people here happy. They aren't even listening to us when there's overwhelmingly negative feedback. My point is if they're going to ignore 90% anti-3PV polls, for example, they sure aren't going to TT'ify this game based on two or three people.

I think going to TT for ideas and such is fine - I keep using the example that I'd like movement penalties when you're running hot. However, I in no way want the specific numbers from TT used to achieve this end, by any means.

It's just not practical or will ever work in a real time environment. The only TT game that's even remotely comparable to a sim is Solaris because it's simulating far less time-per-turn.

EDIT: TT rules are, by necessity, an abstraction. People need to understand this and stop taking them literally.

EDIT 2: I will admit you might be able to get TT weapon damage values working in some kind of ecosystem, but you need to be willing to adjust the ROF and heat scales, allowing them to do far different levels of damage in a 10 second period than they would in CBT, rendering the entire point moot anyway. This is mostly directed at people going "Uh-uh, the AC20 does 20 damage so it all would work."

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 July 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[von Pilsner]

Aullido, on 11 July 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

I play hardcore WWII aircraft simulators. On those games we have cone of fire but we don't mind because that actually help us to hit.

I enjoy IL-2:1946, IL-2 CoD, and the DCS series. I do not recall any of these having a random cone of fire (which is what people mean on this forum). Are you talking about horizontal and vertical convergence or do some flight sims actually have a random cone of fire element contributing?

[Unbound Inferno]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I think it's technically impossible to reconcile Lore with TT values.

How do you turn an AC/20 - a weapon that deals 20 damage TO ONE BODYPART (hence why it was balanced with 14 tons of weight and short range) - into a RoF weapon that fires 4 slugs/10 seconds? Those 4 slugs will hit different locations, and you have now broken TT rules.

So, it's technically impossible to reconcile TT rules and BT Lore.


Also, as a secondary point, the OP uses the term "heat efficiency" incorrectly in my opinion. The Heat efficiency of AC/2 in TT is 2 because it deals 2 damage/heat. In MW:O, the Heat Efficiency of AC/2 is 2, because it deals 2 damage/heat. Nobody is trying to inflict "time" against their opponent, we are trying to inflict damage, so heat efficiency of damage-producing weapons should be measured in damage/heat.

If you think the AC/2 is now "20 times hotter" than in Tabletop, then you also have to say that it's 20 times more powerful, which leads to a 1:1 ratio between the two environments.

I would ask how do you reconcile recharge times when it was a per turn basis?

How do you justify pinpoint group-fired convergence without a target when it was a random hit per shot prior? Or even skill of a shot when its a clear sight knowing it lands exactly THERE?

Or even the heat scale?

Those are just a few, but those are major questions that can easily lead to answers as to why we are having so much problems with what has been chosen here.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 13 July 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[Bushrat]

I think PGI should hire Dark Jaguar as a consultant. I think PGI should fix this stuff ASAP... even before doing any other work on the game.... forget new mechs, forget new maps or features.... get this fixed before we all lose faith in PGI. PGI, please make it a high priority!

It is obvious the game needs work... after all its still in beta. I am seeing many players leave the game hoping that these balance issues will be sorted out and then come back. I have been trying to play the game, but get frustrated by the same problems we are talking about here. I love Battletech and want to see this game work. How did these things work so well in previous versions of Mech Warrior? They obviously sorted out their balance issues.

[stjobe]

Prosperity Park, on 13 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I think it's technically impossible to reconcile Lore with TT values.

How do you turn an AC/20 - a weapon that deals 20 damage TO ONE BODYPART (hence why it was balanced with 14 tons of weight and short range) - into a RoF weapon that fires 4 slugs/10 seconds? Those 4 slugs will hit different locations, and you have now broken TT rules.

So, it's technically impossible to reconcile TT rules and BT Lore.

So how do you explain MWO's lasers? The ML, for instance, does 5 damage to a single location in TT. In MWO, it can spread all over the target, and even miss partially.

If the lasers can do it, so can the ACs.

[DarkJaguar]

stjobe, on 13 July 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

So how do you explain MWO's lasers? The ML, for instance, does 5 damage to a single location in TT. In MWO, it can spread all over the target, and even miss partially.

If the lasers can do it, so can the ACs.

And that's part of balance. The root cause of the issue is that while they took one thing from TT, they neglected to take a whole mess of supporting elements. I would be perfectly happy with completely arbitrary numbers if they fixed the balance. As a matter of fact, a lot of the numbers I have offered up are arbitrary EXCEPT in that they maintain the Dmg/Heat/Time scale from TT.

If the AC2 is going to do 10x as much damage and 2.5x as much heat (see here for where those numbers came from...) then EVERY weapon should do 10x dmg and 2.5x heat.

On the other hand, if you want to "Make a Game as close to TT as has ever been done in Mechwarrior before" as MWO was billed early on, and part of the reason I threw down $120 for founders, then at least have the values you start with be based on TT values, and not the damage numbers with random recycle times thrown on.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 13 July 2013 - 02:06 PM.