84 replies to this topic

[Talrich]

Respectfully submitted, please consider the following proposition for addressing single-weapon-type, single-panel alpha builds.

• Assumption one: No solution will please everyone; each solution set is a compromise between immersion (a.k.a. realism), legacy rules (tabletop), and current game-play.
  
• Assumption two: Choices still mater, and the best solution is the one that displeases players the least.

A Walk through other options:

Spoiler

Option 1: Leave as is.


Pro:

• Simplicity.

Con:

• 4xPPC, or 3xPPC + Gauss builds enjoy battlefield advantage, leading to decreased variation in builds.

Option 2: Convergence


What it is: Others have described this approach well. For one example see Homeless Bill's thread here: http://mwomercs.com/...oats-and-clans/

Pro:

• This is how other shooters address this issue.

Cons:

• Single-panel convergence solutions still obliterate a mech, albeit less frequently or with less pilot control over which panel, depending on the proposal and implementation.
  
• Long range DPS drops, while close-up brawlers will still hit single panels. This doesn't solve dual 20's.
  
• I just don't believe this can be implemented and balanced before launch (Sept 17th). It's probably just too much for PGI or the community to handle that quickly.

Option 3: Escalating Heat Penalties

What it is: Paul described it here: http://mwomercs.com/...14#entry2442114

Pro:

• It's a stretch, but after you're killed by a 4-6x PPC mech, your lance mates might be able to avenge you?

Con:

• It doesn't address builds which include gauss, and barely impacts dual 20's.
  
• Future chassis and variants that can equip dual gauss plus a PPC will break this constraint.
  
• Whether skillfully or randomly hit, the victim of the massive 40-60 damage alpha is still cored, dead, or missing a side torso.

Option 4: Hardpoint sizes

What it is: It mixes concepts from MW4, where a hardpoint that had a machine gun in the stock variant can't rather absurdly substitute a gauss rifle into the same spot.

Pro:

• Greater chassis differentiation for players with many mechs
  
• Truer to tabletop and the Battletech and Mechwarrior lore

Con:

• Very restricted customization options, which will particularly limit players with few mechs
  
• This limitation breaks when stock dual-gauss plus PPC mechs arrive

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Personally I was unsatisfied with the previous options and therefore propose a fifth option; damage diminishing returns. At first might sound like the troublesome heat penalties, but I find it differs in important ways. Damage diminishing returns is a direct anti-synergy to address the powerful synergy of combing single weapon types.


Returning to the problems we are trying to solve:

• Problem #1 - single weapon type alpha strikes hitting a single panel are too powerful.
  
• Problem #2 - PGI has shared that overall DPS is too high.
  
• Problem #3 - The simplest solution, decreasing damage of single weapons, would penalize their appropriate use (think one AC20 in a Hunchback or Atlas).

Therefore I suggest that each subsequent simultaneously fired weapon incur a diminishing return damage penalty. For starting numbers, I propose the decreases scale based on four sizes:

• 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 = -0.3 dmg per subsequent
  
• Small: Small Laser (+pulse), MG, Flamer, AC2, LBX10 pellet = no penalty

How about some examples?


Now, 1, 2, 3, and 4 PPCs does 10, 20, 30, and 40 damage respectively.
Under this proposal, PPCs would do 10, 19, 27, and 34 damage respectively.

Now, 1, or 2 AC 20's does 20 and 40 damage respectively.
Under this proposal, these AC 20's would do 20 and 38 damage respectively.

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

Here's more examples for multiples of a single weapon type:


So now, the pros and cons of this approach....


Option 5: Damage diminishing returns

Pro:

• As directly as possible addresses the problem and not the symptoms.
  
• Many chassis, variants, and builds remain viable. 4xPPC mechs will still be quite good, and playable
  
• Better deal for aggressor and victim using high alpha
  
• Approach works for high and low heat weapons

Con:

• This solution is largely arbitrary. I have no justification other than thinking it may be the best we can do with the options we have.

Have at it. I welcome your thoughts.

Edited by Talrich, 20 July 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Otto Cannon]

I don't think any of the anti-convergence points actually apply to a good system, you just need a spread wider than a single torso location which still applies at close range. Possibly the time to implement it would be too long, but that still applies to most other solutions.

This is a good thread on the subject too: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[PanzerMagier]

I LIKE THIS IDEA. It is a super solution that keeps all angles of point of views happy, IMO. It's the biggest crowd pleaser I've ever seen. I would be disappointed in PGI, if they didn't even at least commented on this idea. It's logical. It encourages mixed weapon builds, It gives a good drawback to alpha strikes. Best of all, it nerfs ppc boats.

[Stoicblitzer]

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

Option 5: Damage diminishing returns

Pro:

• As directly as possible addresses the problem and not the symptoms.
  
• Many chassis, variants, and builds remain viable. 4xPPC mechs will still be quite good, and playable
  
• Better deal for aggressor and victim using high alpha
  
• Approach works for high and low heat weapons

Con:

• This solution is largely arbitrary. I have no justification other than thinking it may be the best we can do with the options we have.

Have at it. I welcome your thoughts.

i usually ignore long posts like this but your demeanor at the beginning enthralled me. i'm glad i didn't ignore it. seems like a simple solution that's worthy of more discussion and i hope that the devs see this. you broke down pretty much every proposed solution objectively and offered your own. it would encourage more diverse builds as people try to avoid the damage reduction penalty and still allow people to come up with crazy **** like 6xppc stalker.

[BlackDrakon]

Before lowering damage on those wpns, why don't we just wait for them to buff srms?

[HansBlix WMD]

The idea kind of makes sense. If two bullets hit the same shred of armor at the same moment they can't both damage it. Or if you've put a hole in a side torso, the next PPC might just pass right through instead of hitting something.

[General Taskeen]

Instead of dimishing return damage, why not just make things make more sense:

Lasers - Keep burn time concept (have to hold on one panel to do the full damage. Lasers are probably the only thing closer to being 'balanced'

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.

Pulse Lasers - Reduce damage, but majorly increase the fire rate. Doing small damage, really quickly to add up to the 'equivalent' damage.

PPC's - Make them a fast beam, so I guess like a laser, but a lot quicker. Add other features like heat transfer and messing up huds to make it 'unique-ish'

Gauss - I don't know, keep it as a high damage slug, and balance according to cool downs.

[Stoicblitzer]

BlackDrakon, on 03 July 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Before lowering damage on those wpns, why don't we just wait for them to buff srms?

i agree somewhat but large pinpoint alpha will still be a problem imo.

HansBlix WMD, on 03 July 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

The idea kind of makes sense. If two bullets hit the same shred of armor at the same moment they can't both damage it. Or if you've put a hole in a side torso, the next PPC might just pass right through instead of hitting something.

don't think it matters if it's realistic or not.

Edited by Stoicblitzer, 03 July 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[HansBlix WMD]

Stoicblitzer, on 03 July 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

i agree somewhat but large pinpoint alpha will still be a problem imo.


don't think it matters if it's realistic or not.

It matters to me! (seriously though, I think it does matter a little for immersion. this is supposed to be a sim, right?)

[Stoicblitzer]

HansBlix WMD, on 03 July 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

It matters to me! (seriously though, I think it does matter a little for immersion. this is supposed to be a sim, right?)

it's supposed to be a sim. 35-45 dmg pinpoint alphas have made this into a fps imo. like playing a sniper in bf3. several 1-shot "alphas" and enemy down. this solution could make the game more balanced and simulatorish.

Edited by Stoicblitzer, 03 July 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[HansBlix WMD]

Stoicblitzer, on 03 July 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

it's supposed to be a sim. 35-45 dmg pinpoint alphas have made this into a fps imo. like playing a sniper in bf3. several 1-shot "alphas" and enemy down. this solution could make the game more balanced and simulatorish.

Speak the truth!

[YueFei]

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

Option 2: Convergence

What it is: Others have described this approach well. For one example see Homeless Bill's thread here: http://mwomercs.com/...oats-and-clans/

Pro:

• This is how other shooters address this issue.

Cons:

• Single-panel convergence solutions still obliterate a mech, albeit less frequently or with less pilot control over which panel, depending on the proposal and implementation.
  
• Long range DPS drops, while close-up brawlers will still hit single panels. This doesn't solve dual 20's.
  
• I just don't believe this can be implemented and balanced before launch (Sept 17th). It's probably just too much for PGI or the community to handle that quickly.

You misunderstood Homeless Bill's proposal. When convergence is lost during a simultaneous alpha-strike, all weapons fire in parallel. It is *not* a random cone-of-fire in which all shots randomly fly toward. Thus, even at point-blank face-hugging range, you will *not* get all of the shots into a single armor panel. Imagine a 6xSRM6 catapult hugging you, and firing everything at once. Under Homeless Bill's system, his SRM6's fire straight ahead with no convergence. You probably will be struck by 3xSRM6 on the left arm and 3xSRM6 on the right arm. Hell, if you torso twist to the side, his salvo might miss completely.

The nice thing about this is that you can still fire a long-range alpha strike with reasonable expectation of getting some shots onto the target... you just won't get all of it to strike the same armor panel.

[Appogee]

Fix convergence please.

[Homeless Bill]

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.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 03 July 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[Drakari]

This solution much more directly addresses the issue of stacking whatever weapon is currently the "most OP" than any other option, encouraging balanced builds with several weapon types and not trying to tie into a system that needs significant changes already (i.e. heat). That said, it's also pretty... lazy? I mean, I don't like facing down 6x ERPPC stalkers, but do we also have to nerf 4x AC/2? What about the future when there are more weapons with high burst damage and long range, I mean we could already do ERPPC, PPC, Gauss, ER LL and be completely unaffected by this change without a decidedly massive change in tactics or effectiveness. That aside, how do you plan to handle chain fire, or macros? Is it a flat damage reduction just for having all those weapons equipped, only applicable to specifically simultaneous strikes, or some kind of timed alternative? It's an idea, but one that has no basis in reality or history, and only seems great because a very small number of weapons are just so much better than the others.

I personally think that the best solution is just to have any weapons without actuators which fire simultaneously also fire in parallel. That would affect all torso-mounted weapons, and the "arm" weapons of those mechs that don't really have arms just little nubs for extra weapons. This particularly affects large weapons (which are the main problem right now, and are difficult to mount in actuated arms due to slot requirements), overall nerfs alpha sniping especially of the poptart variety (Firing each weapon independently with a slight delay would negate this issue, retaining the same absolute DPS and precision, but mandating a more constant line of sight and providing more time for recipients to rethink their positioning), has only a limited impact on brawling (specifically, it will be more difficult to fight lighter opponents because you can't bring your whole arsenal on them at once, and against similarly-sized opponents considerations will have to be made whether you want to focus fire on one segment with paced shots or just go for all-out DPS with full salvos), and still allows all builds to be viable, albeit changing the relative difficulties. It's also realistic, avoids problems with ALL high alpha, high precision builds (barring future introduction of mechs with fully actuated arms that carry tons of hardpoints and critical slots) and remains relatively faithful to at least the outcome of tabletop battles where the damage is always spread randomly (from the information I have at least).

[MustrumRidcully]

You missed this option:

"Remove Group Fire".
Alpha strike boating is the best thing to do when you have group fire and convergence. Limit one of the two, you make it more attractive to mix weapons, but even people that don't mix have to aim each shot seperately. Convergence is the common suggestion, but group fire might actually be a lot easier in terms of programming and UI.

[mike29tw]

MustrumRidcully, on 03 July 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

You missed this option:

"Remove Group Fire".
Alpha strike boating is the best thing to do when you have group fire and convergence. Limit one of the two, you make it more attractive to mix weapons, but even people that don't mix have to aim each shot seperately. Convergence is the common suggestion, but group fire might actually be a lot easier in terms of programming and UI.

Remove group fire makes no sense. I have 4 M.lasers in my second group, I have the heat capacity to fire them all, why shouldn't I be able to fire all of them at the same time? Removing group fire is as silly as removing alpha strike.


*Edit - Regarding OP's suggestion, you get points for being creative, but that's about it. Also, do I still do less damage if I chain fire them? It's very arbitrary when someone fire 4 PPC in sequence, and all of them deal different amount of damage.

Edited by mike29tw, 04 July 2013 - 02:18 AM.

[Carrioncrows]

The solution is very easy -

1. You shut yourself down from overheating what begins to happen is you take damage to your heat sinks and start popping heat sinks which means you will be less effective at dissipating heat.

They can still have the massive overheat penalties where your ct starts to take damage but simply shutting yourself down starts to inflict component damage to your heat sinks.

2. Weapon Boom - (Think Call of Duty where there is a difference between hip firing an stopping and letting the cursor settle for more accurate shots

To a less extend this is based on movement, Faster you go the bigger the bloom. But the major extent is the higher your heat the more bloom and less convergence you have.

Problem solved.

[Talrich]

Thanks for the reasonable supportive, dissenting, and clarifying responses.

Apologies to Homeless Bill to the degree that I misrepresented his proposal, though I hope the direct link to his proposal and his prompt clarification mitigated any confusion. I do support HB's option, I just don't think that approach can or will be implemented by September.

BlackDrakon, I share your interest in the SRM fix, but with a limited number of patches and testing iterations before launch, I think we need to be working on multiple things at once, and even with brawling improved, the massive ranged alpha strikes would be a problem.

Both Homeless Bill and Mike29tw mentioned that the timeframe for the penalty is key, or it will penalize chain fire and/or macros will proliferate. My suggestion would be that the penalty would decrease evenly over time to zero at 0.5 seconds to prevent abuse, but this would require fine tuning through play testing.

As for Option #6: removing group fire, I'm sorry it wasn't listed as I did intend to fairly represent all of the options, though perhaps because I haven't seen as many solid advocates for the position. I think removing integrated group fire would simply lead to button mashing and group-fire macros. It

As a final comment, Homeless Bill also suggested damage diminishing returns fixes "fewer of the root causes". Do that point, I differ. 4x PPCs are a problem due to their inherent synergy. This is a direct dis-synergy, and therefore I take that to be directly addressing the cause, and not the symptoms.

Thanks,

P.S. - apologies to all scientists for the misuse of the term "synergy", as technically that indicates a greater than additive effect, where two or more PPCs is strictly additive, but last I checked the MWO forums aren't peer reviewed prior to publication, so slang rules.

[MaddMaxx]

mike29tw, on 04 July 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

Remove group fire makes no sense. I have 4 M.lasers in my second group, I have the heat capacity to fire them all, why shouldn't I be able to fire all of them at the same time? Removing group fire is as silly as removing alpha strike.

If I have 4 PPC's and the Heat capacity to fire them, why shouldn't I be able to? Your argument is not very convincing, or do you just not like the 10 point based weapon clusters versus that 5 point based weapon clusters?Or do we translate that to mean that you do not mind the current 4-5 PPC Alphas ifd the player can accomadate their heat then?

I to think the OP has a new thought but it lacks that "why is that happening exactly factor". If I add more engine, do I gain back that lost damage? etc etc.

I still like 2 options. Either get rid of Group fire all together. It is the real cause, not a 10 point weapon that can be stacked.

OR

Implement the "Targeting Computer" into the Group fire mechanic such that forces the automatic added weight of the TC for every weapon in a Group over 2. The rules are explicit and the weight gain can be substantial if one want to add 4 or 5 weapons (not even all the same) to a Stack. It could work just like the current Artemis system, you add, the system auto increase the used Crit space and tonnage.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 04 July 2013 - 07:27 AM.