721 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Ninja Thor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Randomness is not something that belongs in a game of skill.

This is so wrong it hurts. Just about every skill-based activity there is, be it in a computer game or in real life, have elements of randomness. True skill lies in compensating for and adjusting to that randomness - like a gust of wind over a golf course, or the unevenness of the ice on a hockey rink, or the bounce of the ball on a soccer pitch.

Besides, the majority of suggestions I've read about convergence or cone of fire are arguing for the introduction of a very small amount of randomness - not enough to eliminate skill, just enough to eliminate pin-point accuracy.

If you don't understand why having pin-point accuracy in a game where all other variables are based on random hit chance is bad, I suggest you read some of the very many threads there have been about these issues.

[Nebelfeuer]

Some fixes that by oientating back towards the TT would adress a lot of issues MWO has atm.

[Zaptruder]

There's a couple reason why PGI will always be behind the curve.

1. their main balance guy is incompetent. Truly. Like he just doesn't know what he's doing and the reprecussions that the changes he makes has on the game.

2. Which would be ok, if he were more willing to iterate - just keep throwing out small changes until SOMETHING works. All else fails, just keep iterating.

3. Except he's too damned stubborn and proud - believes that the tangential game mechanic fixes are the one or two things that the game truly needs to rebalance the game.

Whereupon implementing those changes, finds that they either stuff the game in some other way, or simply don't do enough, or worse and most often, ends up revealing some other inherent balance issue that they believe some other grand system fix that takes months to 'test' and implement will sort out... and then we're back to square one.

4. Doesn't listen to their experienced user base - because they don't know how to sort the signal from the noise. If you give all of your userbase an equal rating, you're going to get a lot of noise in that signal.

But identifying the signal... ISN'T THAT HARD. You just have to look for posters that have considered the problem from multiple perspectives, tested their conjectures and ideas and bring them to logical conclusions. That display an understanding of the history of balancing that's occured in the game.

So... when you got all those things happening at once, it makes it incredibly difficult for you to make the right changes that will properly balance the game such that a wide variety of builds and weapons are viable and on a roughly equal footing.


In the best case scenario, all their long term fixes and solutions pan out eventually and works together to correct the balance of the game (i.e. dropship mode, heat scaling, whatever else they have planned). In that scenario, your player base is waiting months and months for the game to be fixed, all the while customer retention is dropping and customer recruitment is been poisoned by players that are tired of an obvious and fixable metagame that just hasn't changed in months and months and months of play.

That's the best case scenario. The worst case is that these changes and long term plans don't amount to squat, or they end up pushing the meta onto other issues inherent to the design flaws of the game, and we go back into the cycle of waiting for months and months before even an *attempt* at a solution is made to rectify the most pressing issues in the game.

[Korlandril]

Ha. Ive been playing this game since closes beta and the one thing i do know is...none of your opinions matter. Just dont bother wasting your time with these big articles and stuff like that.

Its pointless. Just except this is an arcade stye, broken unbalanced game thats a mockery of everything that was ever cool about Mechwarrior. This is not Mechwarrior. This is just somthig that looks like it and impersonates it. It should never have been an online game. MWO, all it is now, is no better than a basic multiplayer mode for a Campaighn based game ...oh wait...the really cool part doesnt exist. and it wont.

community warfare, houses fighting eachother, you know actual storyline...thats not going to happen. same game modes, same min-max insta-die FPS we have now, just different names and load screens for those matches.

Have fun with the game the way it is, this is all your gonna get and i would be embarrased if i was PGI at how badly theyve put this together.

[Riall]

/Signed.

The convergence stuff needs to change and this is a great suggestion regarding it.

[xDeityx]

DarkJaguar, on 01 July 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

PGI has -NEVER- used TT numbers. They used TT damage values, but did not stick to the intended DPS of TT weapons. an AC5 in TT does 5 damage in 10 seconds, an AC5 in MWO does 5 damage in 1.5 seconds. These numbers are not even close to one another.



It's an open letter because it is directed to PGI, but it is open for everyone to read.

You'll note that I asked not why it's an open letter, which is the question you answered, but rather how it differs from every other forum post that is directed to PGI but open for everyone to read. Does addressing a post to the devs suddenly turn it into an open letter?

My point was that it is rather dumb to call a forum post an open letter. Open letters are actual letters that are sent by mail that are also published separately for the public to read. This is just a forum post to the devs.

[Novakaine]

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

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.

Spoiler

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.

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.

Watch out the Defenders will get ya.

[DarkJaguar]

Schrottfrosch, on 02 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

And this is the problem - most people think that an AC/20 HAS to apply all its damage to one hitlocation - which means the weapon has the right "feel" (same case with Gauss and PPC).

At the same time though the overall feeling of the game of giant metal-behemoths slugging it out is getting oneshotted by those weapons, as soon as you sport more than one. Them it becomes more like planetside 2, where someone with a shotgun comes around the corner and your squad is suddenly dead...

And now imagine 'mechs with 3 AC/20s, 3 Gaussrifles and not to mention Clan Ultra AC/20s and light Gaussrifles...

You know why I would rather play Hawken or Planetside 2 atm?
Because I can respawn within 10 seconds and execute revenge easily and a low TTK (time to kill) is thus no problem...

While in mechwarrior I have to wait at least 30 seconds to find a match - another 15 for the countdown and power up - then another minute to maneuver around and make contact with the enemy - when now I die due to 2 dual AC/20 volleys within 5 seconds it is just plainly frustrating. Not to mention, that my mech is locked for the rest of the game (which can take up to a total of 15 minutes). Also my 'mech doesnt feel awesome exactly if that happens...

And just to throw a number into the room - imo an alpha strike should exceed 18 damage by not much - why? Because thats eventually a kill with one alpha strike (18 armor on head) - the max damage of a slug from an AC/20 (in case for example of the Chemjet cassette, which fires 3 shots per cassette) should be around 6 - because you can field 3 AC/20s at some time in the future, the massive recoil of 3 AC/20s fired at the same time should lead to quite some deviation of the remaining 2 shots coming from the cassettes of each AC/20 which makes those hit other locations like left right torso or eventually go wild...

Well said, and excellent images! Where did you get the mechlab one?

Ninja Thor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

The damage is about where it should be. If you want TT values please go play TT. DPS is a stat that should only be talked about in a game where you can auto hit I.E. WoW.

Battletech & Mechwarrior weapons are all based on DPS, and were balanced based on DPS. To completely change the system with arbitrary values is shooting yourself in the foot and ruining the feel of the game.

Ninja Thor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

As stated in your chart the A/C 2 has the highest DPS in the game if you moved all weapons to this formula most everything would become useless. People take an A/C 20 for high one shot damage. If DPS was the goal high alpha weapons would never be used. When a game becomes about DPS only the highest DPS ever gets played.

It's funny you say that, the highest DPS weapons are also the highest alpha weapons currently. So what you're saying is "I wouldn't change my loadout at all if you implemented this!" As far as "Most everything being useless", right now everything but a few keyweapons are useless, and those key weapons are grossly out of balance. That coupled with armor already being doubled just makes a tangled web of treating the symptoms instead of the disease. What's so bad about an AC20 that deals that 20 damage in 3 or 4 shots over 10 seconds? Why must the game have a 'One shot kill' mechanic for you to enjoy it? By moving the weapons to a faster cycle time with lower damage to match TT DPS numbers the pace of the game will increase and become more enjoyable as a whole. No more will a player wait 3 minutes to get into a fight, only to die in 30 seconds. Now you'll wait 3 minutes to get into a fight, and probably live about that long once you're there -IF- you use cover and concealment properly.

Ninja Thor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

The heat I agree on. It needs to be tweaked.

Thanks.

Ninja Thor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Convergence. No. Just no. Randomness is not something that belongs in a game of skill. A convergence penalty at high heat levels I could live with but if I have time to line up the shot it should hit where it is aimed.With the DPS changes you provide plus the convergence garbage would shift the game 100% to brawlin warrior online. Where you just get so close you can't miss.

You should have to close to insure a hit, that's the whole point. You missed one key point though. With the convergence changes I proposed, at the max range of a weapon if you aim at it's center of mass you are still guaranteed a hit on anything the size of a hunchback or larger. Pin-point aiming leads to "Alpha-strike" online. What's the point in that, where 99% of your mech designs are useless because they don't deal 40+ damage to one pin point location? I find brawls more fun personally. Anyway, please read my convergence ideas again and really think about it. Using current weapons as an example (not trying to get into a realism argument here) weapons have an inherent cone-of-fire. Every small variable comes in to play, from how tight the barrel is screwed in, down to the difference in powder, primer, and and bullet weights. In my mind, I can justify a bit of inaccuracy in a weapon pretty simply, you're in a giant walking tank that's thumping around on the ground and being hit by high energy weapons. The servos that move the weapons around won't be 100% accurate, but they're higher quality on the longer range and heavier weapons (imagine what the recoil force of an AC20 does to those servos?), additionally ballistics suffer the same ammunition and manufacturing based degradation of current weapon, but that's maybe 1/15th of a degree. That same 1/15th of a degree exists now in energy weapons because of the beam stabilization lens that tries to keep your beam on a fixed point when you fire, so between the servos and the inherent variance in the weapons, 1/4 of a degree isn't a huge amount, and it's even less than that on the bigger longer range weapons.

Ninja Thor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

The power load stuff is just absolute garbage. Not even going to take the time to go over just how badly that would screw this game.

It wouldn't at all, all it would do is prevent several energy hungry weapons from firing at the exact same moment in time.

Ninja Thor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

We have to move away from TT thinking and provide meaningful feedback on the system as it stands. Most of the weapons in the game are balanced and PGI is taking a good approach here of late with small tweaks. It's better than it has ever been before and posts like this just dilute what we should really be doing. They are not going to change the system because going by TT is a really dumb idea that would NEVER work in a real time game based on players skill.

No they aren't, most of the weapons in game are over powered, it just happens that they're not all overpowered to the same degree. PGI is putting pool-patches on the titanic, small fixes won't do it, the whole system is flawed. It's not better than it ever has, it's the same it always has, and posts like this are valuable for a game developer to maybe take a second and look at what they're doing. They will never go to TT because they didn't start that way, it's not a dumb idea, it's actually a pretty good idea, and it WOULD work in a FPS game based on player skill, skill would be all the more apparent as a matter of fact.

[jeffsw6]

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

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.

The reason they die extremely fast is because WE CAN AIM.

In TT there is no torso-twist also, which means that a high-RoF weapon like an AC/2 or UAC/5 that has to be constantly kept on-target to be useful has no penalty.

"People like you," who do not understand the above two things, are a huge part of the problem. Yes, PGI's balance is junk. No, TT values won't work, unless you are willing to go to a cone-of-fire or dice-roll model. Most people think that would be terrible.

Get a clue, man. You wrote a wall of text but you failed to understand the most basic problem underlying MW:O's balance issues. :/

[DarkJaguar]

jeffsw6, on 02 July 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

The reason they die extremely fast is because WE CAN AIM.

In TT there is no torso-twist also, which means that a high-RoF weapon like an AC/2 or UAC/5 that has to be constantly kept on-target to be useful has no penalty.

"People like you," who do not understand the above two things, are a huge part of the problem. Yes, PGI's balance is junk. No, TT values won't work, unless you are willing to go to a cone-of-fire or dice-roll model. Most people think that would be terrible.

Get a clue, man. You wrote a wall of text but you failed to understand the most basic problem underlying MW:O's balance issues. :/

A wall of text that you apparently did not read. Here's a picture.


As I stated in my OP, these ideas are not to be considered separately. Everything needs to happen together, it's a system. Now, you can AIM you say? Look at the ilklustration, if you're a high skill player, the only difference you would notice is that some of your shots at the CT might hit the left or right torso, cool, it happens. If you're a moderate skill player, some of the shots that would have hit the left or right torso before, now miss or hit the arms, legs, head, or CT. If you're a low skill player, some of the shots you took will miss, some will hit other locations, hell some of your misses might hit by luck, but the overall effect is the same. Using a slight variance as I have suggested along with everything else I typed means that the truly gifted shooters will not suffer, but those lackluster pilots who are successful solely because they can put a 6 PPC alpha onto the CT of the biggest target they can find at 500m will suffer from it.

So, my friend, please go back, read my post, and try to COMPREHEND what it is I am conveying, instead of a knee jerk reaction to the first 5 words taken out of context.

[IdjitKicker]

Let's hope PGI listens to even some of the common sense in this thread !!!

[Felicitatem Parco]

IdjitKicker, on 02 July 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Let's hope PGI listens to even some of the common sense in this thread !!!

If I were an employee that read a thread that starts like this:

"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."

... then I would not be very likely to read it all and take the author very seriously. It's insulting, dismissive, and not likely to strike a harmonious chord with the folks it's aimed at. If someone started their Research Grant with a presentation tone like that, then you can bet they'd get exactly zero funding.

[DarkJaguar]

Prosperity Park, on 02 July 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

If I were an employee that read a thread that starts like this:

"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."

... then I would not be very likely to read it all and take the author very seriously. It's insulting, dismissive, and not likely to strike a harmonious chord with the folks it's aimed at. If someone started their Research Grant with a presentation tone like that, then you can bet they'd get exactly zero funding.

With the way the game is currently progressing, if I started the thread any other way, it would have the exact same result. Thank you for not reading beyond the first paragraph though prosperity, very constructive.

[peerless]

DarkJaguar, on 02 July 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

As I stated in my OP, these ideas are not to be considered separately. Everything needs to happen together, it's a system.

You know I generally agee with you... but I'm going to pull a Justin Allard and turn on you for a bit.

Your post has a few problems in getting its point across. Firstly, your thread title kind of sucks. It doesn't sum up the point of your thread while being a tad condescending to the developers(who may or may not deserve your ire, thats not the point). They have little reason to want to read this thread.

Your thread has too many ideas. It throws numbers at people who most likely don't want to read spreadsheets and then gives them a fantastic excuse not to read them with your detailed but less provable ending. Although you see them as connected(and they can be) the first portion of the OP is able to be independent of the second portion. It should really be 2 or 3 threads if you want to get support. Don't let one idea hold back the other.

Normalization of numbers really needs to happen. A medium laser that feels like a Large Laser that generates heat like 2 "proper" PPC's is distinctly not a medium laser. You explain how MWO isn't using tabletop numbers but by adjusting the MWO dps instead of the TT dps, you didn't provide people of what those numbers should look like compared to what they are used to.

Convergence... I'm against screwing with convergence more than they already have until the weapons feel like the weapons they are named after. We may have a very different experience under those values. I'm also against cones of fire for anything that shoots in one click. There are many ways to mess with aim. I'd save (very gentle) RNG cones for Ultras and RACs, personally. As for the energy output limits, you won't find that in fluff(Fusion generates way more power than a mech needs pretty much ever) but it would really only "fix" PPC's. I'm not sure its worth implementing just for that instead of adjusting PPC's to more appropriate values.

Remember this thread has 4 states of approval... possibly 6. I like/hate the numbers, I like/hate the convergence and maybe I like/hate the power thing. Thats a lot of different opinions to debate in one thread is the main point I'm getting at I think.

[Victor Morson]

Prosperity Park, on 02 July 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

... then I would not be very likely to read it all and take the author very seriously. It's insulting, dismissive, and not likely to strike a harmonious chord with the folks it's aimed at. If someone started their Research Grant with a presentation tone like that, then you can bet they'd get exactly zero funding.

And I was a customer and read a post that started like this:



I'd just give up caring.

EDIT: We've been nice. We've been really enthusiastic and hopeful. We keep hoping, and we keep getting entirely ignored as they screw up not just a game, but a franchise, through this sort of arrogance.

There's a bitter bile growing on these forums, and I admit, I am infected by it. If you even briefly scan my posts from the beginning of the year to now, you'll see my tone shift sharply from very police and nice, to frustrated, to where I'm at now, which is extremely cynical and maybe even spiteful.

If the Community Manager was doing their job, this wouldn't be happening. If the gameplay balance guy (Russ, I think, primarily?) was doing their job, none of this would be happening.

This is doubly as infuriating because there are literally dozens of people I could lock in a room alone with the weapons XML file for a couple hours and do a better job than them at this point.

Watching them get so close, then totally blow it is frustrating, esp. when they're taking the whole franchise out with them. We might never get another MW game again. But instead of listening to a community that has played this franchise for decades and seen the good, bad and ugly on balance they continue to make random dart-board style changes.

Yes, I'm getting a bit bitter. Many people are. Lots more just left without saying anything. But the nice way wasn't helping, so at this point, I think people have stopped caring about being nice.

If you have access to the team, maybe ask the community manager to do his job and update on us what is happening in greater detail than "BIG THINGS" and a vague "AWARE OF PROBLEMS?"

Edited by Victor Morson, 02 July 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[Ningyo]

Well I do not agree with much of your post, but you did think a lot of it out well, I added a link to this thread and a quote of your post on my thread covering a variety of convergence methods. http://mwomercs.com/...48-convergence/

I would like to point out that damage wise while yes they have done some modifications much of this is because either the weapons were complete crap in TT (AC/2) OR they work differently in a first person shooter. I will not say they have done a great job of balancing them, but going with the TT values would fail as well.

On heat the real problem is they left out more minor heat penalties before automatic shutdown. They have started to implements after shutdown penalties which is good, but it would make balancing high heat builds much easier if they had penalties starting at 20 below max threshold or so.

On convergence, not my favorite method, I prefer Docbach's or arm only convergence methods, but many do like the Cone of Fire yours seems based off.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

OP cannot possibly be more correct. MWO is not BT, it's just a bastardization of the franchise at this point.

[doKtor kALT]

Schrottfrosch, on 02 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

And this is the problem - most people think that an AC/20 HAS to apply all its damage to one hitlocation - which means the weapon has the right "feel" (same case with Gauss and PPC).

At the same time though the overall feeling of the game of giant metal-behemoths slugging it out is getting oneshotted by those weapons, as soon as you sport more than one. Them it becomes more like planetside 2, where someone with a shotgun comes around the corner and your squad is suddenly dead...

And now imagine 'mechs with 3 AC/20s, 3 Gaussrifles and not to mention Clan Ultra AC/20s and light Gaussrifles...

You know why I would rather play Hawken or Planetside 2 atm?
Because I can respawn within 10 seconds and execute revenge easily and a low TTK (time to kill) is thus no problem...

While in mechwarrior I have to wait at least 30 seconds to find a match - another 15 for the countdown and power up - then another minute to maneuver around and make contact with the enemy - when now I die due to 2 dual AC/20 volleys within 5 seconds it is just plainly frustrating. Not to mention, that my mech is locked for the rest of the game (which can take up to a total of 15 minutes). Also my 'mech doesnt feel awesome exactly if that happens...

And just to throw a number into the room - imo an alpha strike should exceed 18 damage by not much - why? Because thats eventually a kill with one alpha strike (18 armor on head) - the max damage of a slug from an AC/20 (in case for example of the Chemjet cassette, which fires 3 shots per cassette) should be around 6 - because you can field 3 AC/20s at some time in the future, the massive recoil of 3 AC/20s fired at the same time should lead to quite some deviation of the remaining 2 shots coming from the cassettes of each AC/20 which makes those hit other locations like left right torso or eventually go wild...

I'll also just leave these pictures here:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Holy **** bro, your post made me wet my pants ! The mere idea of having Auto Cannons properly built into an FPS game like you've posted in those pictures ... This would make this game 'proper', but who are we kidding? The train already left the station ...

Edited by doKtor kALT, 02 July 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[Aullido]

DarkJaguar, on 02 July 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

If the points I have laid out are executed, Armor should be returned to normal values (instead of x2). A team of mechs working together should be able to burn down and enemy pretty quickly (Atlas's CT maxes out at something like 80 in TT, usually 60/20 if I'm not mistaken?) Either shoot their rear armor, or focus their CT down with concentrated fire. At the end of the day, this game is supposed to be about team work.



Table Top is a great STARTING point, but it would be foolish of me to think that it would be a one shot thing. The other stuff I added in is my best attempt at translating the random hit locations and the heat effects from table top into an FPS.

With due respect I disagree on one point: Tabletop disperses damage over the whole mech and you failed often (lots of fun nursing a cripple) but mechwarrior is a real time game and aiming matters. Your convergence ideas are good and alleviate the problem, not sure if enough.

Edited by Aullido, 02 July 2013 - 04:01 PM.

[Jonny Taco]

OP claiming mwo dmg values are broken because they don't use TT = OP needs to stop posting.

TT numbers are not only badly balanced for a TT game, they are also NEVER EVER EVER going to work in a mmo fps.

I thought this line of ignorant thinking was leaving us, seems I'm wrong.


MWO dmg values need to be balanced for MWO, mirroring TT dps values WILL NEVER get you balance in this game, period. ALSO, a battletech game does not need to mirror TT values to feel like a battletech game... TT dice rolling and numbers are there to SIMULATE mechs shooting at eachother... No where in any of the books does it say a ppc has to do 10 damage or an ac20 has to do 20, infact, it states quite the opposite...

In conclusion... Suggesting TT dps values for a fps is bad and you should feel bad.

Edited by lartfor, 02 July 2013 - 04:28 PM.