84 replies to this topic

[hammerreborn]

Homeless Bill, on 03 July 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

While it seems simple and effective on-face, I don't like primarily it because it's arbitrary, counter-intuitive, and extremely difficult to communicate to the player. I just don't see a world in which people would be okay with damage randomly disappearing (especially since that's almost impossible to communicate; how do you tell the player their last shot did 6 fewer points of damage than it should?). Why not just force the damage to be spread if you're going to steal it anyways?

Plus, alphas are totally a valid tactic. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to pound them with everything in your arsenal, I just see no reason it should all go to one spot.

Additionally, even with diminished returns, pinpoint damage is still a viable option. The numbers you proposed there seem pretty generous. 38 damage to a single location? Even 30 is stretching it in my opinion.

It would also involve a lot of fiddly ******** in implementation to avoid macros. How far apart can shots be? Does it depend on the gun? I think it's ultimately messier than my solution while fixing fewer of the root causes.

Because basing convergence on a set of random values specific to each weapon, and having any effect happen pre firing causing weapons to vastly veer off course for no logical reason at all isn't arbitrary, counter-intuative, or difficult to communicate to the player at all.

Edited by hammerreborn, 19 July 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Nryrony]

Why not just limit specific weapons with an equipment limitation:

Max 1x AC20 allowed
Max 3x PPC /ER PPC allower...

Thisway we wouldn't need boating limitations and the normal gameplay/balance wouldn't be affected.

Overall, the biggest problem in my opinion is that "bullet" weapons (I'm counting PPC here too), concentrate thier dmg in one burst, wich hits only a single location. Which leads to quick core kills, or in case of light/medium mechs atleast to quick loss of limbs. - This can not be intended.

You can fix this by giving the weapons a degree of splash dmg, or make the work like lasers, with an 0,5 sec hit "cast".

Another solution would be to make them more unprecise, especially when they go out of optimum range. So that 4 PCCs won't hit the same spot, if all of them hit.

Edited by Nryrony, 19 July 2013 - 03:15 PM.

[Talrich]

Nryrony, on 19 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Why not just limit specific weapons with an equipment limitation:

Max 1x AC20 allowed
Max 3x PPC /ER PPC allowed...

Limits like you propose would prohibit future stock mech builds. Also, if you allow 3 PPC's and 1x gauss, you're going to see them fired in unison for a 45 point single panel hit; just like the 4xPPC stalker, but worse since it's more damage and less heat.

Better in my thinking to allow 3PPC+1Gauss mechs to exist, but have their alpha inflict 36 damage (10+9+8+9) rather than 45.

[Pinselborste]

Solution would be to drop TT stats and Balance weapons for a realtime game where you aim yourself.

[Joseph Mallan]

hammerreborn, on 19 July 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Because basing convergence on a set of random values specific to each weapon, and having any effect happen pre firing causing weapons to vastly veer off course for no logical reason at all isn't arbitrary, counter-intuative, or difficult to communicate to the player at all.

Convergence:
Lasers; Really accurate
Ballistics: Not as accurate due to environmental (wind) and chemical (propellant doesn't explode exactly the same every time) inconsistencies.
Missiles: Are not guided, therefore are not likely to hit one location consistently.

That is pretty easy to explain to most people isn't it?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 July 2013 - 05:57 PM.

[hammerreborn]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 July 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Convergence:
Lasers; Really accurate
Ballistics: Not as accurate due to environmental (wind) and chemical (propellant doesn't explode exactly the same every time) inconsistencies.
Missiles: Are not guided, therefore are not likely to hit one location consistently.

That is pretty easy to explain to most people isn't it?

Of goody random hit locations. Those are the best!

[Talrich]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 July 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Ballistics: Not as accurate due to environmental (wind) and chemical (propellant doesn't explode exactly the same every time) inconsistencies.

It's really hard to explain why a giant robot in 3050 should have a less accurate ballistic cannon than a tank from the year 2010. Even 1950's targeting computers accounted for wind, and MWO engagement ranges are actually pretty short.

[Nryrony]

Talrich, on 20 July 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

It's really hard to explain why a giant robot in 3050 should have a less accurate ballistic cannon than a tank from the year 2010. Even 1950's targeting computers accounted for wind, and MWO engagement ranges are actually pretty short.

That's what I'm trying to tell battelfield players for years now the tank camera and target shaking are not realism its balance.

But at least in MW convergence/precision plays a big role. That's why the clans where so devastating, it wasn't all about the weapons and the pilot skill but for its targeting computers that allow for more precision.

[Qrbaza]

how about increase cooldown on weapons if shot more than 2?
fire 1x ppc = 4 * 1 sec cooldown
fire 2x ppc = 4 * 1 sec cooldown
fire 3x ppc = 4 * 2 sec cooldown
fire 4x ppc = 4 * 2.5 sec cooldown
fire 5x ppc = 4 * 3 sec cooldown
fire 6x ppc = 4 * 3.5 sec cooldown

This would make you think twice to alpha in close combat. Noone would really like to have weapons on cooldown longer than 8 sec...

[Bagheera]

General Taskeen, on 03 July 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Autocannons - They are full damage. Why not go back to the roots, and simply make them fast fire AC burst fire weapons, firing X amount of shells where if you hit with all the shells, you are doing a lot of damage, just possibly spread out. It solves all AC types in one go.

And makes them immediately inferior to every other option in the game. If ACs get their damage broken up into multiple shells, then PCCs have to get the same treatment. And not your hitscan option either, because that would still be inherently superior given the weight and ammo restrictions for mounting ACs. Making ACs worse (especially 2s, 5, and 10s - really those need to be "solved?") isn't going to solve any of the games problems.

[Talrich]

Qrbaza, on 20 July 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

how about increase cooldown on weapons if shot more than 2?

Increased cooldowns punish high alpha, but they don't prevent it. This lowers DPS, but not alpha damage. That's a reverse of the real problem. When you're a victim of a 40+ point alpha, you're still hosed. Having your attacker on cool down is little consolation.

Qrbaza, on 20 July 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

This would make you think twice to alpha in close combat. Noone would really like to have weapons on cooldown longer than 8 sec...

Snipers won't mind that much. Brawlers would mind the longer cooldown, but this is just like the heat penalty, a longer cooldown is harming the weaker meta play-style (brawl) without impacting the troublesome meta play-style (high alpha snipe).

[Qrbaza]

how about to apply only on longrange weapons like ppc, gaus and other stuff leaving medium range and close range weapons unefected?

[Fulcrom Kerensky]

The OP's proposal is probably the best one I have read since joining these forums. I like the idea and hope PGI will atleast entertain it for awhile.

[Talrich]

Qrbaza, on 21 July 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

how about to apply only on longrange weapons like ppc, gaus and other stuff leaving medium range and close range weapons unefected?

You might be right, though I thought a modest medium laser penalty might allow reasonable boating (like the Hunchback 4P and others) and allow the medium laser's heat to go back to its previous value someday (a separate crusade of mine). Also, despite the AC20 being a medium-to-close range weapon I think it deserves to be grouped with the other high-alpha weapons.

[Tehtos]

Talrich, on 19 July 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Limits like you propose would prohibit future stock mech builds. Also, if you allow 3 PPC's and 1x gauss, you're going to see them fired in unison for a 45 point single panel hit; just like the 4xPPC stalker, but worse since it's more damage and less heat.

Better in my thinking to allow 3PPC+1Gauss mechs to exist, but have their alpha inflict 36 damage (10+9+8+9) rather than 45.

Easy to explain breaking of the limits using chassis quirks.

I would go farther and limit weapon sizes. For example max 1 huge weapon, 2 large weapons, 6 medium weapons, or 12 small weapons. The number of hard points would farther limit the number of weapons.

Any mechs that doesn't follow those rules stock are treated as quirks. The AWS-8Q is allowed an extra PPC in its arm, even if it already has 2 large weapons in its torsos. The HBK-4P is allowed 2 ML (1 in each arm) even if it already has 6 MLs in its torso.

[Volomon]

This thread is eleven days old from the last post or over month from the first post. I'm not sure this thread was around when they changed the Alpha Max and heat. Because I know you can't do four PPCs any more. I couldn't even do three.

Edited by Volomon, 02 August 2013 - 05:54 PM.

[Skyfaller]

Qrbaza, on 20 July 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

how about increase cooldown on weapons if shot more than 2?
fire 1x ppc = 4 * 1 sec cooldown
fire 2x ppc = 4 * 1 sec cooldown
fire 3x ppc = 4 * 2 sec cooldown
fire 4x ppc = 4 * 2.5 sec cooldown
fire 5x ppc = 4 * 3 sec cooldown
fire 6x ppc = 4 * 3.5 sec cooldown

This would make you think twice to alpha in close combat. Noone would really like to have weapons on cooldown longer than 8 sec...

that still is 60 damage focused on one spot out to 1km or so. You do not fix the problem that way, you merely make it happen less often. Its the same failed mentality behind the heat scale penalty system.

[Lightfoot]

Make the mechs tougher. Problem solved. And it is the actual problem. If you go to any previous MechWarrior game you see that 2xGauss or 2xAC20 is balanced and not a Deathstar, not even 4xERPPCs, which are also too hot.

Add overlapping hit-boxes and you solve the convergence problem too.

It's so weird that a relatively few players can see that it's not the damage, it's that the mechs are too weak to the damage. Maybe you needed to play the previous MechWarrior games to see this is what is going on.

[Talrich]

Volomon, on 02 August 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

I'm not sure this thread was around when they changed the Alpha Max and heat. Because I know you can't do four PPCs any more. I couldn't even do three.

Yes the initial post predated the heat penalty, but it's still relevant because large pinpoint alphas are still a problem, especially for mediums. The heat penalty hasn't addressed 2-3 PPC + gauss. Heat will never solve gauss.

Lightfoot, on 02 August 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

Make the mechs tougher. Problem solved. And it is the actual problem.

I disagree. A straight increase in armor will nerf AC20 Hunchbacks. I have yet to hear anyone suggest that AC20 Hunchbacks are the problem. Increasing armor across the board also impacts single PPC builds, which again are not the problem. Increasing armor might be a good idea, but it's a distinct issue from large alpha strikes.

[TOGSolid]

Talrich, on 07 August 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Yes the initial post predated the heat penalty, but it's still relevant because large pinpoint alphas are still a problem, especially for mediums. The heat penalty hasn't addressed 2-3 PPC + gauss. Heat will never solve gauss.

I disagree. A straight increase in armor will nerf AC20 Hunchbacks. I have yet to hear anyone suggest that AC20 Hunchbacks are the problem. Increasing armor across the board also impacts single PPC builds, which again are not the problem. Increasing armor might be a good idea, but it's a distinct issue from large alpha strikes.

The first increase in armor is part of the series of bad band-**** that got us here in the first place. That should have been everyone's first clue that something was wrong. Another armor increase would just make things worse.