84 replies to this topic

[Chuff]

+1 simply for the Occam reference

[arghmace]

Talrich, on 03 July 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

• Huge: Ac20 and Gauss = -2 dmg per subsequent
  
• Large: PPC (+ER PPC), Large Laser (+pulse), AC10 = -1 dmg per subsequent
  
• Medium: Medium Laser (+pulse), AC5, UAC5 = -0.5 dmg per subsequent
  
• Small: Small Laser (+pulse), MG, Flamer, AC2, LBX10 pellet = no penalty

For Highlanders with 3xPPC and 1xgauss, they now do 45 damage.
This proposal would leave them with a still powerful 36 damage at range.

The damage would depend upon calculation order. Right now you calculate PPC, PPC, PPC, Gauss at damages 10, 9, 8, 9 for a total of 36. The Gauss gets a whopping 3 x -2 penalty. But if you calculate Gauss first and then the PPCs you end up at 15 + 9 + 8 + 7 = 39 so 3 more damage.

[FunkyFritter]

Wouldn't the Occam's Razor solution be to remove the high alpha weapons entirely?

[Theronlas]

FunkyFritter, on 05 July 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Wouldn't the Occam's Razor solution be to remove the high alpha weapons entirely?

Except if you try doing that, eventually the only weapon left will be MGs.

Personally I like the reduced max heat + severe penalties for exceeding 100% by much, combined with higher dissipation. That way you can equip 4-6ppcs but if you try firing them all at once you can expect to blow yourself up. I dont really have a problem with the damage from a pair of AC20s or Gauss, especially the ACs since they are such short range, though this might need to be revisited if mechs capable of mouting more than 2 become available (maybe a recoil mechanic if fired en-mass).

[MustrumRidcully]

FunkyFritter, on 05 July 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Wouldn't the Occam's Razor solution be to remove the high alpha weapons entirely?

My take on Occam's Razor is:

If Convergence + Group Fire means Boating Rules
then either convergence or group fire has to go.

I am currently favoring to remove group fire. Everything is server enforced to chain-fire.

Alpha Striking just means firing all your guns in a row. It doesn't mean anyhting more in Battletech either. TT doesn't distinguish between 5 weapons fired at once or 5 weapons fired in a single turn. The turn is the smallest time unit TT tracks.

Basically alpha strike is more about firing your LRMs and your PPCs and your Medium Lasers at a target, even if your hit chances are ridicilously bad with some of those weapons, and even if it overheats you, simply because it's your best or only chance right now to turn the tide of the battle.

[superbob]

Forced chain-fire and chain-fire delay for some weapons might actually be a temporary fix that would work - instead of heat penalties. Say, at most fire 2 PPC at a time, with 500ms delay before firing next two. Similar delay for firing each gauss/AC20. Basically limits instant pin-point damage which is a problem, while not penalizing boating in some weird fashion.

Maybe some similar mechanic for large lasers, but I wouldn't touch anything smaller than that.

Although that still leaves room to mix 2PPC + Gauss Rifle and still do crazy damage, just with a bit more variety. Also, this would best work on a weapon class basis, so people can't mix PPC with ERPPC for 4*PPC alphas. Which then gets somewhat close to calculating the maximum amount of instant dakka you can unleash (max number of big weapons) which is somewhat like the targeting computer overload solution.

So maybe we apply one of each of these ideas? That would make MWO very friendly to newbies, so much easier to understand if you only need a 20 page manual to understand just how weapons interact. Kinda like how flamers generate exponential heat after 10sec burn, because they're so OP.

[Talrich]

mike29tw, on 04 July 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

I'm more convinced that you will fix the game if you fix the heat system.

Until Gauss mechs re-break it.

Lykaon, on 04 July 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

I do not see how this reduction to damage using a deminishing returns value does anything that simply boosting armor values can't do and boosting armor values is much less complicated.

Boosting armor values would do greater harm players who are using chain fire, stock mech builds, using single and dual PPCs, and weapons with varied engagement ranges. A key advantage of damage diminishing returns is that it scales in proportion to the amount of front loaded damage.

I think it's a good sign that there are complaints that this won't totally stop boating, because I think that's right. This won't stop people from taking viable 4 PPC builds, or dual 20's. They'll just be a little less dominant than they are now.

I would also love to see a stock-mech-only gameplay option, if and when the community is large enough to split the player-base that way.

[zraven7]

This makes sense, because the other day, I fired 2 guns at the same time, and of course, one bullet got smaller just before it hit the target.

Seriously, this is not a good option. It makes no sense, and it involves math more complicated than a lot of people want to deal with.

[Shae Starfyre]

I believe they should implement a mix of solutions:

Convergence as Bill stated that takes into affect Actuators, and limiting what you can Group, Not take it away, but make it part of the building process and can only be done a specific way).

Weapon Links as a Component (.5 tons, One Critical Space).

It can only link between weapons on the same hard point Location ( or to adjacent systems or to bridge caps between weapons systems).

Example, to Link two Arm Mounted Weapons (Both Arms); you would have a link in the center torso, and a link in each side torso; that's 1.5 tons, a chance for an enemy to destroy the link, thus the system.

This would require a 6 PPC stalker, potentially, 3 tons of weapons links (this would be like a heat modification though, hrm, as they wouldn't be able to add a few more HS).

If I remember Bills statement on convergence, they can all meet to a single point at their relative max ranges, anything further and they cross, and anything too near, they are parallel.

Add in Weapon Links, and you have a combined, complete, realistic solution.

Then your HUD is modified to show your Linked Weapon Systems with the ability to chain them normally.

Freedom with real consequence.

Edited by Aphoticus, 05 July 2013 - 05:57 AM.

[Talrich]

zraven7, on 05 July 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

This makes sense, because the other day, I fired 2 guns at the same time, and of course, one bullet got smaller just before it hit the target.

The more realistic option is the current implementation of high-energy-single-point-of-impact-quick-death. Even more realistic would be no giant robots. Tanks are simply more economically feasible, and present a lower target profile.

Realism does not equal fun. Damage diminishing returns is not recommended for fidelity to Newtonian physics, but it may improve game play and fun.

[superbob]

After mulling this over for a bit, I think the "energy grid" solution might work, that is, beyond certain capacity, the 'Mech wouldn't be able to recharge energy weapons at normal rates. Additionally I see some potential for a secondary and optional "hydraulics subsystem" responsible for loading ammo.

Hydraulics load would be calculated by ammo weight, so AC20 and Gauss ammo would overload most 'Mechs not designed for these weapons, as well as 'Mechs not designed to boat too many LRMs.

Light 'Mechs like the Raven wouldn't even have the hydraulics to load ammo, instead relying on energy grid (think electric motors) to load machinegun ammo/NARC/SRMs, since these are relatively light. Strapping an AC20 would mean slower fire rate and slow laser recharge times (if anyone puts lasers on AC20 ravens) after each shot.

While this wouldn't stop people from 6PPC alpha strikes, it would penalize them in a (somewhat) fluff-friendly way, make people alpha-strike less in general, add more depth to 'Mech customization and essentially be a stepping stone to curbing cheesy hi-alpha builds. Also, that's one or two other thing to display on the idle monitors in the cockpit.

tl;dr add cooldown penalty for putting big weapons on a chasis they don't belong. Reduction in DPS might deter some people. While this won't fix how OP PPCs are now, this system would reward balanced builds in general.

[zraven7]

Talrich, on 05 July 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

The more realistic option is the current implementation of high-energy-single-point-of-impact-quick-death. Even more realistic would be no giant robots. Tanks are simply more economically feasible, and present a lower target profile.

Realism does not equal fun. Damage diminishing returns is not recommended for fidelity to Newtonian physics, but it may improve game play and fun.

Except your in a game with a lot of people where realism, to a degree, is fun. We all suspend disbelief enough as far as mech weight is concerned. Weapon physics needs to at least make sense.

[BoPop]

yea... I don't think I've played a game yet that didn't have SOME "build" rise to the top. just seems to always happen, doesn't it?

I don't know the solution but I DO know that the lack of maps coupled with the lack in variation in enemies is getting sort of...old. "Oh, a 6 ppc stalker, i'll go this way" "Oh, nm, a gauss PPC highlander over there." *sigh*

It's not that the builds are powerful that makes them sad, it's that it's like, ALL you see on the battlefield. so you're basically going to get splatted a few times and die, or splat a few times and win, it's all just ho hum. it just forces one to take a "if ya can't beat 'em join 'em" mentality, and that's sorta blah.

I've noticed a tad more mix up in builds since the overheating penalty and terrain alterations though. JJ's are becoming more valuable, the cockpit shake keeps too much high alpha long range pop tarting at bay and the terrain simply makes it difficult for slow big boating mechs to get too advantageous positions quickly sooo, we can hope.

good OP. we'll see, I suppose.

[Kmieciu]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

My take on Occam's Razor is:

If Convergence + Group Fire means Boating Rules
then either convergence or group fire has to go.

I am currently favoring to remove group fire. Everything is server enforced to chain-fire.

Alpha Striking just means firing all your guns in a row. It doesn't mean anyhting more in Battletech either. TT doesn't distinguish between 5 weapons fired at once or 5 weapons fired in a single turn. The turn is the smallest time unit TT tracks.

Basically alpha strike is more about firing your LRMs and your PPCs and your Medium Lasers at a target, even if your hit chances are ridicilously bad with some of those weapons, and even if it overheats you, simply because it's your best or only chance right now to turn the tide of the battle.

The easiest and most intuitive solution is to put global cooldowns on all the pinpoint instant damage weapons:
http://mwomercs.com/...mbat-with-gcds/
If it took 1.5 seconds to fire 4 PPC (one shot every 0.5 second) they would be pretty well balanced against 5 Large Lasers.

[MaddMaxx]

mike29tw, on 04 July 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

I think the real question is, WHY DOES ANYONE HAVE THE HEAT CAPACITY TO FIRE 4 PPCs?

I'm more convinced that you will fix the game if you fix the heat system.

I would not argue that at all. I would, however, ask, why was the PPC's stats reduced? If I remember correctly, the players asked to have it that way.

So now, the Players don't like the result of their granted request and ask again for a reversal. All it shows the Dev is that the Players really never look long term for the changes they request. Thus they have to resolve said issues themselves. Not sure how anyone can blame the Dev for doing what the players wanted really.

Or did they not adjust them properly and "the Players" actually knew it but wanted to play with OP long range weapons and see the outcome and now don;t like said outcome.

[Roland]

MaddMaxx, on 08 July 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

I would not argue that at all. I would, however, ask, why was the PPC's stats reduced?

Because at that point in the beta, the netcode was terribad, and PPC's were extremely unreliable. That unreliability, coupled with their heat, made them unusable.

Now that they are faster, and the netcode is so much better, PPC's would get used even if they had their heat restored to prior levels.

[Roughneck45]

One of two options I would go with.

Return the PPC to it's original values. People never used PPC's before because hit's would not register and the projectile was too large making it cause splash damage rather than pinpoint damage. So they buff the heat, projectile speed, and recycle to make it more attractive. But then they also changed the projectile size and improved hit detection.

PPC was flawed, they buffed the stats, then fixed the flaws, and it kept its buffs.

Or, change the hardpoint system and give us something similar to MW4, and just make it impossible to take more than 3 PPC's.

First option sounds way more appealing to me, but those were the two I could think of that may change things without just putting a band-aid on it.

OR

They could just make brawling weapons better across the board, so that they can actually beat PPC's quickly when they make it to brawl range.

Edited by Roughneck45, 08 July 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[OznerpaG]

couple ideas:

1) instead of decreased damage returns for alphas have increasing heat the more weapons you fire at once. add 10% heat per same weapon fired in an alpha - say if you fire 1 ERPPC you add 11 heat + 10% so 12.1, but if you fire 2 you add 22 heat + 20% = 26.4 heat instead of 22, and if you fire 3 you'd add 30% so 42.3 heat instead of 33 heat. for an MLas (4 heat) it'd be more reasonable - 4.4 for 1, 9.6 for 2, 15.6 for 3 fired, etc. maybe heat can be reduced in some weapons a tiny bit to compensate - put ERPPCs down to 10 heat so they still use 11 heat to fire a single shot, put MLas down to 3.6 heat to bring them up to 4 for a single shot, etc. this could apply to your entire weapons loadout or only to having multiples of a single weapon type.


2) only 1 weapon can recharge/recyle/cooldown at a time. an ERPPC takes 4sec to recycle to fire again so if you fire 3 at once you would have to wait 4 sec to get the 1st one ready to fire again, 8sec for the 2nd one to be ready, and 12 sec for the 3rd one to be ready. so if you wanted to do a 2nd alpha, you'd have to wait 12sec for all 3 to be ready to fire. if that's too extreme you could also only have 1 weapon be able to recycle at 100% speed at a time while all others might only recycle at 20% (or whatever) speed until the 1st weapon has finished recyling. again this could apply to your entire weapons loadout or only to having multiples of a single weapon type.

[MaddMaxx]

Roland, on 08 July 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Because at that point in the beta, the netcode was terribad, and PPC's were extremely unreliable. That unreliability, coupled with their heat, made them unusable.

Now that they are faster, and the netcode is so much better, PPC's would get used even if they had their heat restored to prior levels.

I am quite certain, that if you hit a Mech with those PPC's you applied the damage the same as with every other Ballistic based weapon of the time. Why no one liked them was they required "leading" your target, and guess what, most players, even the "Leet" just couldn't get exemplary numbers when they couldn't "lead a target" worth a damn.

So the speed was increased. If they get slowed down, the same thing will happen. Just different folks will complain, because the first group would have to the ultimate hypocrites to ever say that they were having issues hitting enemy Mechs now, right? What with HSR and some pretty good net-code in play.

Go ahead, heat them up and also slow them down. I would be very curious to see the Community reaction @1200.

[Talrich]

JagdFlanker, on 08 July 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

1) instead of decreased damage returns for alphas have increasing heat the more weapons you fire at once.

Heat based approaches don't work because ballistic weapons (especially Gauss) are not primarily limited by heat; they're limited by ammo and weight. A damage modifier is easier to apply to different weapon types.

JagdFlanker, on 08 July 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

2) only 1 weapon can recharge/recyle/cooldown at a time. an ERPPC takes 4sec to recycle to fire again so if you fire 3 at once you would have to wait 4 sec to get the 1st one ready to fire again, 8sec for the 2nd one to be ready, and 12 sec for the 3rd one to be ready. so if you wanted to do a 2nd alpha, you'd have to wait 12sec

There are two reasons I don't think this is equally good. Firstly it doesn't prevent large noobie-hosing alpha strikes. It just spaces them out.
Secondly it only limits PPCs in brawling range. When sniping from a distance, waiting 12 seconds often isn't a real inconvenience.

For those reasons, I still think PGI either needs a comprehensive solution, like Homeless Bill's, or a simple solution like damage diminishing returns, which will incent staggered fire, and slightly decrease damage to victims, without prohibiting it for those who really want to play that way.