Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
Now, I'll admit fights are over too fast, but I see no reason to re-balance every single weapon instead of just increasing armor/internal health again. It's a much easier and much less risky way of accomplishing the exact same thing.
I would disagree, this is a bandage on a gushing wound. By increasing the armor and structure, you’re stealth nerfing the weapons, but unevenly. A weapon that is already underpowered in comparison to other weapons will now be even MORE so, giving players even less of a choice in what to bring. The game would then either turn into “Weapon of the week online” or “Look at all the different colored PPCs! Online.” I think the current weakness of the current numbers is that they were taken out of the system they were designed for and put into an FPS environment without considering what the weapons intent were in their original form. We’ll get more on that later when you talked about time though…
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
I think reverting to TT numbers is a total waste of the close-to-the-finish-line point we're at now. Problems I see with TT numbers (regardless of how it worked on a boardgame, it's just not the same as realtime):
I don’t think it’s ever too late to realize you’re going down the wrong path. However, I agree, table top numbers should NOT be used. Table top values should. The difference being that the numbers from TT were designed to be as much damage as that weapon does on average over X time. The Values though fill in “X” with 10 seconds. From there it can be extrapolated that an AC20 deals 20 points of damage in 10 seconds, this means that it could deal 2 damage every second, or 4 damage every 5 seconds, or anything that equals 20. From there it’s a lot easier to translate to real time.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
• In General - We're close to relative balance right now. As much as I respect that tabletop was pretty well balanced (hell, I even cite tabletop as the reason for my balance/convergence proposal), its numbers simply don't take into account realtime factors. Even if was close, it would still require a lot of messing around. Why take the chance when they've just got to tweak a few numbers?
Agreed on TT not being perfect, or including real time in it’s factors. But I think this needs to happen because I don’t feel we’re close to balance right now.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
• Autocannons - I really like how autocannons work right now. I like that the lighter ones are great for fire support and cockpit shake, while the heavier ones are the perfect one-shell punch. I think that's fine for diversity, as opposed to making the damage profiles dependent on manufacturer. I do think manufacturers would be cool to add later as variations in burst fire, recycle time, and other stats, but I also think changing what we have now is a waste.
Such a huge part of the problem with the game right now is high amounts of damage being directed at a single location with a few weapons. By adjusting everything to the same time scale, you’re forced to break up the the weapons damage into chunks to get the uniform multiplier. In doing this, you partially address the high-alpha meta that is currently in play, but you also make those few weapons that –DO- hit really hard, mean something, because there’s a VERY long recycle time afterward. So while I’m not really opposed to Autocannons being a one shot punch, I think from a gameplay perspective, breaking them up to allow faster fire without having to use a time scale that would make mechs all instantly die is a better idea in my opinion.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
• Ignoring the Rebalancing of the Time Scale - As said up top, I really think it will force fights in close, they'll have to re-balance the timeframe for realtime, or they'd have to slow everything down (which would be terrible). Tabletop numbers simply don't account for realtime gameplay, and I think anyone that won't admit to how important that timeframe balance is for the pace of combat is kidding themselves.
I think time balance is the second biggest problem currently, and while I agree that the table top values wouldn’t be 100% perfect out of the gate, I believe you are wrong in TT accounting for time in an adequate manner that it can be translated into real time.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
• Heat - I'll admit that I like a lower heat cap, but I think this is not the way to approach it. You ignore that while the PPC Stalker will just shutdown immediately, so will anything running single heatsinks. Single heatsinks will become the ultimate cruel joke to new players. The stock Hunchback 4P (8xML + 1xSL, 23SHS) will also shutdown from firing once (8x3 + 1 = 25; 25 > 23 --> shutdown). Anything running single heatsinks will immediately be even worse than they are now. I vehemently disagree with the idea of DHS getting even better than they are now compared to SHS. While you say a stock variant may put out 4 - 5 times as much damage under the current system, a swagged-out 'mech with DHS can only put out about 3 times as much. That artificial addition to the heatcap is the only thing making SHS builds as competitive as they currently are(n't) - without it, they'd be complete ****.
Bill, I addressed this with a graphic earlier in the thread.
This is the current heat system as it functions over a period of 10 seconds, using this
STK-3F.
This chart shows how that same build would react under the heat proposal in my OP.
Next, I reformatted the chart to show how that same build would act in my proposed time scale, with my proposed values.
Finally, this chart depicts how a STOCK STK-3F would act with my proposed time scale and values.
Now keep in mind that both of these charts are “sterile”, meaning that they represent 10 seconds of continuous fire from a stationary platform, and that the damage shown is “Potential damage”, not “damage dealt”.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
• (New) Player Experience - My thoughts on pacing: people should be able to fire all of their weapons a couple times without shutting down. Newbies in particular will have a hard time adjusting to a system so harsh. I'm maybe not a fan of how high the heat cap is, but drastically lowering it (particularly on SHS build) is not the way to go in my mind.
I agree with this 100%, and I think my charts above show that this was one of my goals to accomplish, and I was fairly successful at it.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
I'm definitely a fan of some penalties for running super-hot, but I'd change a couple things. I would rather they come in around 80% with a higher heat cap than 100% with a lower heat cap. I think it's more intuitive to players to know that at 100%, it's shutdown time unless you override (at which point you start taking damage). I also wouldn't make them as harsh, particularly in terms of speed. I'd rather see a percentage reduction that, at it's worst before shutdown is about 50%.
This is just changing reference points on the scale, if through careful analysis this is determined to be the best reference points, then I’m all for it.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
Convergence
I think your proposal for accuracy goes too far. Problems I have with it:
• Total Loadout vs Weapons Fired - Basing cone of fire on the weapons carried rather than the weapons fired is a bad approach. I might as well not mount a couple medium lasers as backup on a heavy-hitter because their accuracy will be **** no matter what. I think you absolutely have to address what is being fired together, rather than essentially make an arbitrary hardpoint restriction (more like a penalty) system that causes cone of fire.
• Convergence - I think setting it manually for each weapon is cumbersome, unfriendly, and difficult to adjust to. Having it fixed gives certain chassis massive advantages while having others assume the position. I think your proposed changes aren't necessarily bad, but they are a huge change in gameplay. I see forcing players to think about convergence as inherently bad, because it will turn off most mainstream gamers. I would be fine with it, I've publicly said I totally support Doc's convergence system, but I think it's ultimately the more dangerous direction for the game to go.
• Cone-of-Fire - This basically just goes back to the first point about how it should be based off fired weapons instead of loadout in general. Twitch shots are skilled. Some of the cheesiest kills I've made have been incredibly skillful shots. I should have been rewarded for those - I just shouldn't be able to instagib them. I intensely dislike the removal of pinpoint capability.
The “Target Computer Loading” was just an alternate idea that could be taken ot left. It’s intent was to make boating high alpha damage weapons more difficult. The reasoning behind making it based on the total loadout as opposed to “what’s fired” is twofold. 1) Your targeting computer is trying to track every weapon at all times, it doesn’t know what you’re going to fire. 2) The server doesn’t know what you’re going to fire either, so this would cause a delay between pulling the trigger and the rounds going down range. One issue I see with your proposal, is what’s to stop someone from making a macro that fires 4 PPCs individually .1 second apart to completely avoid these penalties?
Again, manually setting convergence was an idea I was tossing around. Perhaps this could be under an “advanced settings” tab, with every torso mounted weapon set to it’s MOR from the start. I think having stuff set at one point while people learn, and then give them an opportunity to change it later would be a great feature. Furthermore, because a weapon’s convergence is fixed in game, it gives more reason to arm mount weapons, where they are more vulnerable.
Cone of Fire. Please reference
this thread. My CoF (From here on out called “CEP”) idea doesn’t prevent those twitch shots from happening, nor does it cause misses in a weapon’s optimal range. At most, it will spread the damage out across the target instead of focusing an alpha strike on one location.
Homeless Bill, on 13 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:
Time
I agree that damage-over-time profiles should get some more attention, but, again, I don't think this is the way to go about it. I see a 10-second duration on a laser beam, and I laugh my *** off. Like most things here, I think we're too close for such a drastic change. In terms of damage profile variation, here's what I think the game needs:
• Pulse Lasers - They need a total re-work. I don't care if it's increased rate of fire, decreased beam duration, front-loading damage, or whatever - it just needs a new concept to be different from standard lasers.
• Manufacturers - As stated previously, I think slight variations should come down to them adding several styles of each weapon.The damage profiles of most weapons are fine right now; manufacturers are an easy thing to add post-release to increase variation.
Again, this is arguing values. Something I do not wish to do. I don’t care if what we end up with is 4x faster than TT, as long as it’s even across the board.
Edited by DarkJaguar, 14 July 2013 - 08:17 AM.
14
