721 replies to this topic

[Jonny Taco]

So glad to see this poll is not biased at all... We have the choice of siding with your opinion, or the choice of not siding with paul...

How about the people who think both of you are wrong? My guess is you don't really want to hear their opinion.

[Unbound Inferno]

lartfor, on 14 July 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

So glad to see this poll is not biased at all... We have the choice of siding with your opinion, or the choice of not siding with paul...

How about the people who think both of you are wrong? My guess is you don't really want to hear their opinion.

Then I suppose more of those people should vote in the "I don't care" option.

[Teralitha]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Alot of words.....

To summarize that long *** post you made...


Remove double heat sinks.... Problem solved!!

Edited by Teralitha, 14 July 2013 - 06:18 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Teralitha, on 14 July 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

To summarize that long *** post you made...


Remove double heat sinks.... Problem solved!!

You stopped reading too early, since you still haven't covered stuff like the Gauss Rifle. And I am not sure how you think that removing double heat sinks increases dissipation, which is definitely part of solving heat component of our balance problems.

And one could argue I have stopped writing too early, because I don't even go into why LRMs need to be boated thanks to PGI mechanics, too. I'll just say the way ECM (and its counters NARC and TAG) and AMS work is the reason for that.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 July 2013 - 01:36 AM.

[Cybermech]

ECM does not counter narc. was meant to be "tag" lolz
AMS was in a terrible state and now it functions.

People have been boating LRM's for a very long time.
They used to keep targeting the enemy for 8 seconds after you lost lock, couldn't hide behind anything, you could headshot people, leg fast mechs.
Players were still crying about them not being worth taking out.
I had to spend weeks pointing out that they were devastating, still lots of people raging about how useless they were.

Edited by Cybermech, 18 July 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Cybermech, on 15 July 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

ECM does not counter narc.

That's why I write "its counters" not "it counters". ECM counters are Narc and TAG, and if you want to use your LRMs, you need Narc or TAG, and if you need to sacrifice a ton of weight or more to make your LRMs useful, you better bring a lot of LRMs, otherwise you're wasteful and inefficient.

Quote

AMS was in a terrible state and now it functions.

AMS is still terrible - useless against a boat, but neuters anyone just using a single LRM. The way it works is fundamentally problematic and no amount of tweaking its damage or rate of fire will help that. It requires a complete paradigm shift to fix this.

[Taxxian]

Absolutely, everyone says boating is bad, yet they implement an AMS that can only be countered by boating...

[AndyHill]

I finally had the time to go through the OP with some thought. I won't go much into the numbers; I found that section an eloquent explanation of why MWO's approach so far has been so problematic and it's probably enough to say that I think your numbers would be a reasonably good starting point for balancing.

In the gameplay suggestions I have some differences in opinion.

I recognize the merit of the idea, but for personal reasons I wish to avoid it at all costs. You demonstrated an idealized situation, but the examples you demonstrated also contain for example the possibility that the low skill guy gets every shot to the core despite his wildly wandering aim while the high skiller spread wide despite holding his aim steady on target. That might actually be preferable in general, because randomness reduces the difference between n00bs and g0d5 of gaming, which, despite the objections of the latter (and mine, although I don't belong in the category) might be beneficial to the game.

However, the downside exists. I've played about 13000 matches of WoT, a game that has significant randomization in delivering damage to the enemy. I would estimate I've unleashed something between 100k to a quarter of a million shells in that game so I've seen it all. With some experience you get a very good grasp of the randomness and it becomes fairly transparent. The times you know you win because you lucked out are less fun than the times you lost due to bad luck are frustrating. A large part of this is personal preference, but if possible, I would avoid it.

There are some real issues with some forms of convergence, though. For example the suggested static convergence as well as convergence of only arm weapons would both actually buff the PPC stalker. If you place the convergence point at about 540 meters the smallish-profile stalker will still probably hit a largeish CT-sized target with all guns up to several hundred meters both in front and behind the point. When shooting at moving targets this would be actually be a buff compared to what we have now. The Gausspult would be able to hit one location at virtuall any point due to having its main guns so close to each other. Allowing arm convergence will allow such iconic alpha snipers such as AS7-RS, PPC Stalker and Boomjäger to exist as if nothing changed - except that their opponents just received a nerf.

There are also weapons that are not touched by convergence, such as the SRM and SSRM. You would be faced with the dilemma of balancing SRM and Streak so that they are useful for 'mechs taking one or two while still not being OP when a Splatapult jumps over the ridge behind you.

Cone of fire would definitely be realistic, but the realism argument carries some less desirable (for me) gameplay elements with it. For example, the cone of fire should naturally be at its highest when the 'mech is maneuvering. This would again only serve to help the high alpha sniper whose playing style is pretty stationary anyway.

Most importantly alone by itself CoF doesn't address the alpha and hide -gameplay that would remain dominant, because it's so useful to hit hard and hide before the opponent even has a chance to retaliate. Additionally, when you get instacored by a sniping Stalker you will know that it was luck, not good aim. That's not an improvement (getting instacored more rarely of course is, however). Less frontloaded heat system would help, but whenever you mention heat, the Gausspult just looks at you puzzled, wondering what that often mentioned heat actually is. There's always the cool alpha boat.

Making the weapons fire more times per 10s for the same DPS would lessen the effect of alpha sniping, but that in turn would encourage boating, since achieving firing solutions for different weapons at rapid intervals is excessively difficult (this is one of the reasons for boating in current meta as well). When you get a choice of making a lot of damage in one bang versus a sustained stream the former wins. There are situations where the big bang is better and where both are approximately equal, but I'm hard pressed to come up with any situation where the latter would be preferable. CoF would probably help quite a bit with the incompatibility between pinpoint alpha gameplay and the MWO segmented hitpoint system, but for high alpha gameplay it wouldn't do much IMRO.

Edited by AndyHill, 15 July 2013 - 06:37 AM.

[Tombstoner]

FaceRipt, on 13 July 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...meplay-systems/

This idea is better than your cone of fire - random sucks

But as usual I'm sure such an unskilled player as myself am wrong and as a founder you are right.

The thing is cones of fire exist for all ballistic weapons. They also exist for the best laser and GPS guided weapons systems money can buy for the US military.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition it has a 7 meter circle of hit probability. if someone can find something more accurate please do so.

Yes random sucks, but random is real

[Teralitha]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 July 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

You stopped reading too early, since you still haven't covered stuff like the Gauss Rifle. And I am not sure how you think that removing double heat sinks increases dissipation, which is definitely part of solving heat component of our balance problems.

Single heat sinks dissipate faster than double in this game. And they can be adjusted as needed.(if DHS were removed)

If you are referring to the guass rifle as in... boating 2 of them on a catapult or whatever... this is now, and has always been just fine. Unless your a noob. A K2 with 2 gauss has and always will be a noob killer. Its just one of those kinds of mechs that is good at killing inexperienced pilots but vs experienced pilots its no threat. It even requires skill to use it effectively.

I have never owned a K2, and I will never get one because they are too easy to kill. Its has its strengths, and its weakness.(and also the guass itself) Its a balanced mech. And a balanced weapon. Keeping or removing double heat sinks does not affect this weapon or its effective builds.

And LRMs... yes, I have been preaching it for a very long time... LRMs need a total rewrite to the MW4 LRM system.

Edited by Teralitha, 15 July 2013 - 07:33 AM.

[jeffsw6]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 July 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

AMS is still terrible - useless against a boat, but neuters anyone just using a single LRM. The way it works is fundamentally problematic and no amount of tweaking its damage or rate of fire will help that. It requires a complete paradigm shift to fix this.

That's why I keep suggesting that different projectile velocities from the different-sized LRM launchers would be a way to make LRMs more useful in small numbers. There seem to be a lot of posters who cling to "how would this work" like it's somehow impossible because of physics or something. That is silly.

If LRM5 had twice as much speed as LRM15 then fewer missiles fired from LRM5 launchers would be destroyed by AMS. It's as simple as that. I don't know that "twice as much speed" would be fair, but I think this is the simplest way to make LRMs viable when not boated.

[Lord of All]

jeffsw6, on 15 July 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

That's why I keep suggesting that different projectile velocities from the different-sized LRM launchers would be a way to make LRMs more useful in small numbers. There seem to be a lot of posters who cling to "how would this work" like it's somehow impossible because of physics or something. That is silly.

If LRM5 had twice as much speed as LRM15 then fewer missiles fired from LRM5 launchers would be destroyed by AMS. It's as simple as that. I don't know that "twice as much speed" would be fair, but I think this is the simplest way to make LRMs viable when not boated.

They would need different ammo then.

Oh and add a 4th to the poll.

4) I care but don't like the top 2 choices.

Edited by Lord of All, 15 July 2013 - 09:01 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Teralitha, on 15 July 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

Single heat sinks dissipate faster than double in this game. And they can be adjusted as needed.(if DHS were removed)

No, they do not. You sink 0.1 heat per second with single heat sinks, and 0.2 or 0.14 with double heat sinks.
Though if you say you want single heat sinks to dissipate faster than they do now, then okay, you may have a point and that would "kinda" balance Gauss Rifles just fine - PPCs and other long range energy weapons would be competitive then.

Quote

If you are referring to the guass rifle as in... boating 2 of them on a catapult or whatever... this is now, and has always been just fine. Unless your a noob. A K2 with 2 gauss has and always will be a noob killer.

It is one of the best things you can do with a 65 Heavy Mech. Easy to run, heat efficient, solid pinpoint damage. It's no more noob killer than Quad PPC Assaults are.

And then there is actual the examples of Triple Gauss Rifle mechs in the table top game in the Assault range. These are just like Quad PPC or Hexa PPC Stalkers, except no heat requirements.

Quote

And LRMs... yes, I have been preaching it for a very long time... LRMs need a total rewrite to the MW4 LRM system.

Well, at least we agree on something. Well, to some extent, I am not sure the LRM system was better, I don't remember it well enough.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 July 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[jeffsw6]

They really wouldn't need different ammo, but if that's how you want it to be implemented, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Not everything in the game has to be based on fictional in-the-year-3535-physics.

[AndyHill]

Tombstoner, on 15 July 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

The thing is cones of fire exist for all ballistic weapons. They also exist for the best laser and GPS guided weapons systems money can buy for the US military.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition it has a 7 meter circle of hit probability. if someone can find something more accurate please do so.

Yes random sucks, but random is real

http://defense-updat...igits/120ke.htm

[Unbound Inferno]

jeffsw6, on 15 July 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

That's why I keep suggesting that different projectile velocities from the different-sized LRM launchers would be a way to make LRMs more useful in small numbers. There seem to be a lot of posters who cling to "how would this work" like it's somehow impossible because of physics or something. That is silly.

If LRM5 had twice as much speed as LRM15 then fewer missiles fired from LRM5 launchers would be destroyed by AMS. It's as simple as that. I don't know that "twice as much speed" would be fair, but I think this is the simplest way to make LRMs viable when not boated.

You do realize what that would do for my 6x LRM5 A1?

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 15 July 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Deathlike]

Unbound Inferno, on 15 July 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

You do realize what that would do for my 6x LRM5 A1?

[Pht]

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

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

The lore, as far as 'mech combat, was *based on the TT values.*

We now know this is a fact: http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

Quote

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.

Simple. You don't turn the AC20 into a RoF Weapon.

[Lugh]

Tombstoner, on 15 July 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

The thing is cones of fire exist for all ballistic weapons. They also exist for the best laser and GPS guided weapons systems money can buy for the US military.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition it has a 7 meter circle of hit probability. if someone can find something more accurate please do so.

Yes random sucks, but random is real

http://www.dtic.mil/...oc?AD=ada437023

Your wish is my command :

page 41

The M256 main gun is a “precision,
direct fire weapon where accuracy is of the utmost importance” according to Army
Research Laboratory (ARL) responsible for the gun’s development (Morgan-Brown
2003). The goal of the ARL, published in its March 2003 electronic newsletter, is “one
shot, one kill” directed at a target as small as one meter square over a mile away
(Morgan-Brown 2003). While one lab strives to build the most accurate tank possible,
soldiers continue to test the systems in field laboratories from the NTC to Iraq. During
the Army’s 2001 Division Capstone Exercise (DCX) at the NTC, the Army tested its
latest M1A2 upgrade--system enhancement program (SEP). The M1A2 SEP performed
up to par, allowing gunners the ability to “kill” moving enemy armor at 3,400 meters,

Accuracy of 1meter on a round 120 mm

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 13 July 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

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,

Amazing. I even quote myself directly stating that a 1:1 conversion in all things should not be done, and VM ... STILL posts stuff like this.

Quote

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.

... and I have even posted that it's not necessary to use the 10 second recycle times, and how to keep the overall balance intact with different recycle times; and yet you're not even bothering to react with said.

Quote

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

Yeah, they actually mean midgets on pink tricycles jousting with styrofoam lances in times square! Language has inherent meaning. You can't get away from that by calling it an abstraction.

Quote

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,...

Pht, on 06 July 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Actually, we don't know how long the on time is for the lasers; because the solaris box set rules pushed the turn time down to 2.5 seconds and you could still fire all of your weapons; so we really don't know the recycle time of the weapons... which does not mean that we can't still have the balance from the parent system. Heat determines recycle times in the parent system; you want a fast recycle under ten seconds? Make it that much hotter... vise-versa for slower firing weapons. Balance preserved.

Quote

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."

You've made an elementary mistake. The actual recycle rates in TT aren't 10 seconds for everything. The actual recycle rates (can I fire this weapon this turn?) is controlled by the heat mechanic. The 10 second refire simply expresses another opportunity to pull the trigger. Run hot enough, and you're in shutdown, and you can't even fire.

Heat controls damage output for everything in the TT... and it does so in the lore, too.