721 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Void Angel, on 09 July 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Snide ignorance (it's not 'basic math;' it's emergent utility based on many additional and sometimes non-numerical factors including: viable tactics, 'mech speeds, and some weighting of average player skill v. utility in the hands of top players. You can't just plug numbers into a "basic" model and say "see, I fixed it!" You're like a toddler who's proud of making a mess in the kitchen while failing to make cookies.)

Hm, I guess it is ignorant to assume that they can count, perform basic division and multiplication to come to the conclusion that in a system based off different shots hitting different parts doesn't work when you have multiple shots hitting the same part. My mistake.

[Khobai]

Quote

See, my problem with this whole "make an AC/20 spread it's damage over 10 seconds" thing is that it kills the feel of the weapon. The thing that makes the AC/20 scary isn't the raw damage output. It's the fact that it can put all that damage in one place.

The AC/20 should NOT spread its damage over 10 seconds. But if you have two AC/20s on a mech, both should not ALWAYS hit the same location for 40 damage. The shots need to hit different locations most of the time.

[Strisk]

Khobai, on 09 July 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

The AC/20 should NOT spread its damage over 10 seconds. But if you have two AC/20s on a mech, both should not ALWAYS hit the same location for 40 damage. The shots need to hit different locations most of the time.

They'll only hit the same location if one of the following is true,

The mech being shot at is not moving
The mech being shot at is moving very slowly and/or is very large (less important with faster projectile speeds (PPC))
The terrain behind the mech being shot at is high enough that weapons hit the same hitbox
The weapon is hitscan (lasers)
The firing mech is shooting weapons from the same location (all LT, for example)
*edit* there may be more reasons I stopped listing them...

The reason this is true is because weapons converge under the reticle only, not at your target, to hit a target moving laterally across your line of vision you must lead the target, forcing your weapons to converge under your reticle, which is now pointed at the ground behind your target, causing the convergence to happen behind the mech you are trying to kill, not on it

I've seen a jager shoot close range at a treb and miss both AC/20 because they went in between the arms....is it common? certainly not, but it is possible, so let's not pretend it can't happen in the current system...

Edited by Strisk, 09 July 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[Pht]

Man, I must be slipping. Void didn't pick on me.

At least directly, anyways.

[saintchuck]

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.

It's the truth and this isn't an application for a research grant so he's not required to kiss arse.

[Teralitha]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

In fact sometimes I get the feeling many members at PGI have the Frakenmech mentality themselves because that's how they want the game to be, without trying to face what it is.

So yeah. What I'm basically saying is the only reason they can't fix is, is they don't understand it and refuse to reopen community dialogue with higher end players and units to get valuable weapon data. They should be relying on lower tier users for interface feedback and such, instead, since they are far more helpful to that sort of design (Us hardcore people just.. get used to things.)

Im thinking they already tried listening to (allegedly) top tier teams and players a long time ago and that is why the balance is messed up. Someone convinced them(or they convinced themselves) on the theory of perfect imbalance, but as it was explained to them many times in many ways going back into closed beta that it will not work in this game. You cant use that theory with this game design. Its been preached from the hilltops many times. Im sure they heard it, but chose to listen to .. um.. "experts." Or they think they themselves the experts and the rest of us morons.

As far as the original post is concerned, the idea for a multishot AC20 is just fail. What do you think the AC2/5/10 does? I hope the devs have enough sense to ignore that suggestion.

As far as heat issues... the simple answer was, and still is to remove double heat sinks, and simply adjust the numbers of single heat sinks. But they spend resources programming it in, and taking them out will never happen even if its the biggest thorn in the side of proverbial balance. Which it is. My intuition tells me that stubborness and arrogance will always prevent such a positive change.

Modifying weapon values is not the answer, not when the problem of having 2 heat scales is the underlying issue. You can certainly modify weapons to try and "fix" the balance issues but its not the root cause.

Your heat scale is the root of all the balance issues. Weapon values are secondary. PGI get it through your damn thick heads.

I did not like this topic's suggestions, but the reason for the topic and discussion is worth considering. That something drastic needs to be done to fix the balance....

Quote

Some will say:" Just remove DHS then". But that's not a good solution. We can just lower the heat threshold and increase the dissipation so that you can't skimp on heat sinks as consequence-free as you can do it now.

Uh... removing the DHS would be the exact same thing only removing DHS makes more sense.... and dollars.

Eldagore, on 01 July 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

As I write in most every "balance this" thread I read:

No. FIRST fix hit detection. THEN we can actually see what is not working, and what is sort of working, and what is working fine. Right now, nobody knows, because nobody can know. HItscan/multihit(missiles) weapons can for any shot lose 0-100% of the hit detection/dmg registered to the target, even though it shows up at stats at end of match. AC20, gauss, PPC also miss occassionaly. However, doing all dmg most of the time on a big number like an AC20 is immensly superior to hitting an average of 50% with a mediocre to large number like lasers all the time. So AC40 jagers, PPC boats and gauss/ppc rule, because they are reliably hitting for big numbers while simultaneously still being broken like the other stuff is.

Once hit detection gets fixed, we can see what is actually what and go from there.

No. Many players do not have hit detection issues. Or its off then on every other patch... We have already seen the effects of it. And no, that is not the first thing that needs fixed.

Edited by Teralitha, 10 July 2013 - 04:09 AM.

[Victor Morson]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Stop bringing TT number sheets into this. It's a terrible idea even if you think it would work.. I've seen games try and try to get it right. It's just terrible in a sim.

Ideas, not hard rules, people.

Teralitha, on 10 July 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

Im thinking they already tried listening to (allegedly) top tier teams and players a long time ago and that is why the balance is messed up. Someone convinced them(or they convinced themselves) on the theory of perfect imbalance, but as it was explained to them many times in many ways going back into closed beta that idea will in this game. You cant use that theory with this game design. Its been preached from the hilltops many times. Im sure they heard it, but chose to listen to .. um.. "experts." Or they think they themselves the experts and the rest of us morons.

Absolutely nothing at all that has happened in MW:O is anywhere near the definition of "Perfect Imbalance" and anybody saying what you are does not understand the concept remotely.

Also, the competitive community (not the hardcore TT people) has been calling for the same fixes for over a year now and all of them would have avoided our current situation. Take a look at my sig to see just how long.

So no, PGI didn't "get themselves into this" by listening to anybody.. esp. the one segment of the community that has consistently been calling problems and providing solutions.

I'm going to throw my hands in the air if we get a butchered TT damage set and wild convergence the pugs want for our trouble, because well, just damn.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 July 2013 - 01:27 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Hey Guys! I see you've been arguing about introducing "cone of fire" into the game.

I don't know if you noticed, but PGI has already implemented "cone of fire":

It is called jumpjet shake.
It is called machine gun spread.
It is called LBX spread.
It is called SRM spread.

PGI might as well introduce "cone of fire" while group firing in the next patch.

And there is nothing we can do about it.

[SerEdvard]

Regarding convergence, could a simple, alternative solution be to:
1) have weapons converge at a distance 10-15% beyond the object under the crosshairs, rather than exactly at the distance of the object, and
2) remove all weapon convergence on the vertical axis (optional).

The intent of these changes being that weapons converging slightly beyond the object will spread out the individual weapon impacts laterally forfired by weapons mounted on the left/right/center hardpointsof the attacking mech by about half the width of the target mech, thus hitting different locations on the target (or some weapons missing all together). This would also mean that weapons fired from the same side of a mech (say, 2 lasers in the right arm) would converge to the same horizontal location, but a 1 laser mounted in the RA and one in the LA would hit adjacent hitboxes on the target. Removing vertical convergence wouldn't have as much of an affect, but would add about 5-10 m worth of spread for weapons depending on the hardpoint location which shouldn't affect "skill" too much but also spread the damage out somewhat.

I'd draw a simple diagram to illustrate this idea, but it's almost 3 am and I need to be up for work in a couple hours...

Edited by SerEdvard, 10 July 2013 - 01:46 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tombstoner, on 09 July 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

At this point in Beta all that's happening is a repeat of every single conversation that happened in closed beta just with new people. The same counter arguments and miss conceptions from both sides get recirculated.

True. That makes it a bit sad, because man, we already knew all this and told PGI about it.

We may have different approaches to the problems, and different perspectives, but if you follow the feedback as a developer, you should get a good picture of the issue.

[Teralitha]

stjobe, on 02 July 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

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.

And the random factor in this game is how each player plays..... We dont need any artificial randomness added apart from that.

[Warge]

Khobai, on 09 July 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

The AC/20 should NOT spread its damage over 10 seconds.

2 seconds maybe?

[jeffsw6]

Warge, on 10 July 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

2 seconds maybe?

That would be similar to chain-firing two Large Lasers. Is that how an AutoCannon should work? Sounds like a pretty dramatic change to me.

[FiveDigits]

I'd like to thank you for your efforts on the OP and throughout the thread Dark Jaguar ... and all the constructive contributors as well.
I used to do the same (especially on heat balancing), but it's just too frustrating for me to continue. We urge the devs to rework their broken game mechanics and provide tons of well thought-out, often even mathematically proven, suggestions. They get ignored or we get a "we are working on it" response followed by a convoluted band aid "fix" months later that creates two new imbalances while attemtpting to correct one.

Keep up fighting the good fight!

[Teralitha]

Victor Morson, on 10 July 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

Absolutely nothing at all that has happened in MW:O is anywhere near the definition of "Perfect Imbalance" and anybody saying what you are does not understand the concept remotely.

Sure I do. Thats why I said it wont work here. Im pretty sure thats what they have been trying to implement this past year, and its just not working. Otherwise, why would the balance be so messed up and they think its fine?

[Teralitha]

Helmer, on 04 July 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

....well.... it's a bit too far in the process to make a major overhaul.

And that is why we are saddened. Because this game NEEDS an overhaul like a flower that needs the sun. Its going to die.

Garth Erlam, on 05 July 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

This is a great post here, thanks, I think it sums up the TT/MW4/MWLL/etc groups all vying for what is 'actual MechWarrior.'

The only difference with MWO is... No one thinks its actual mechwarrior.

[Teralitha]

jeffsw6, on 09 July 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I'll repeat, though, that I think the problem is Paul himself. Remember, game-play is everything. Graphics, SFX, etc. that will attract someone to a game, but it won't keep them. WoT has ****** graphics compared to MW:O, yet you have pointed out, WoT has a lot of players. WoT also has (see below) a good matchmaker and far better balance.

You guys have all your eggs in Paul's basket. Millions of dollars invested, dozens of jobs (how many people will PGI have to lay-off if MW:O flops?) and all the potential, future revenue from MW:O if it becomes successful.

Paul has demonstrated failure after failure, when it comes to balance. Why do you continue to carry all your eggs in his basket? Seems to me that you need more employees involved in that decision-making process. Pat him on the back about the graphics and give him some help when it comes to the weapons.

I see Im not the only one who thinks Paul is the problem. However... all my posts about it get deleted, this one must have been missed by the moderators.....

[Warge]

jeffsw6, on 10 July 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

That would be similar to chain-firing two Large Lasers.

So what?

jeffsw6, on 10 July 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

Is that how an AutoCannon should work?

They should "work" with short bursts.

jeffsw6, on 10 July 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

Sounds like a pretty dramatic change to me.

Such was in all MW 1-4 games. For single shots there are Gauss and rifles (not in present timeline).
Also this would nerf 2*AC20 Jagers...

Edited by Warge, 10 July 2013 - 06:09 AM.

[jeffsw6]

Teralitha, on 10 July 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

I see Im not the only one who thinks Paul is the problem. However... all my posts about it get deleted, this one must have been missed by the moderators.....

Perhaps because my post is a little more diplomatic than some others I've seen on that subject, and a little more focused on PGI's big picture -- revenue. We all want them to make money. There's not a lot of posts now saying, "omg these mechs are over-priced," or "who would pay $80 for a mech pack?!" There are only posts saying that balance needs work, urgently, before the game flops and the developers are all out of work.

Warge, on 10 July 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

They should "work" with short bursts.

I'm not opposed to AC/20 working that way. It's just very different than what we have today (obviously.)

[Warge]

jeffsw6, on 10 July 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

I'm not opposed to AC/20 working that way.

All ACs should work that way cause they called autocanons not rifles. That's why I liked them. Hope I'm not alone in this.

jeffsw6, on 10 July 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

It's just very different than what we have today (obviously.)

I hate how ACs act now. Also new horrible sounds. MGs - my love.