114 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

Actually, PGI is already doing the pinpoint fix I described (though not perfectly identically to every detail). For the past 4 months it's been repeatedly said in obscure places and obvious ones (ATDs for example, NGNG podcasts) that we will be getting weapon variants, multi-shot ACs, etc. NGNG Podcast 79 specifically says PPCs are very likely being fixed by the splash damage mechanic I described, but that requires fixing the original splash damage mechanic first.

So that half is already being done, that work is already on the table and coming after UI 2.0, after the actual Training Grounds, around Community Warfare, but supposedly on or before launch.

It's whether or not the heat threshold part comes into play. There's absolutely no word on that, and so far it seems the answer to the threshold fix is no.

Yes, this means they'll do the pinpoint fix which has taken them 4 months thus far from when they said it and will continue to take them more months which may or may not make it to launch. But the 20 to 60 second fix to threshold alpha strike abuse seems to be "no."

Which pinpoint fix was that? I don't recall it.

[Koniving]

Unbound Inferno, on 05 July 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

Which pinpoint fix was that? I don't recall it.

Jump back up to the bullet points with the picture. That pinpoint fix. Multi-shot ACs, splash-spread-damage PPCs, gauss rifles that spread 15 damage in more than one slug at a time, and so on.

• <--these things
  
• For example the AC/20 variant called the Super Crusher Heavy AutoCannon, which according to that picture would deliver 10 cassettes (bullets) in a burst 3.5 seconds long (I'd prefer 1 to 2 seconds myself), dealing 2 damage per bullet, until it reaches 20 damage.
  
• While that sounds like an AC/2, to deal the same damage in the same time frame you'd have to have 6 AC/2s, that's 36 tons to do the same job the SCHAC AC/20 would do with 14 tons, for less heat and decreased range.

To try this out, peek at these macros I built to "sample" this experience. Remember this is a sample, you'd have throw in recoil to keep your range reduced. It is of the SCHAC AC/20, requires a Jagermech JM6-DD to test, and remember all 10 shots would be coming from the same barrel with the SCHAC AC/20. I haven't built macros to demonstrate how the other AC/20 types would work yet.

Koniving, on 04 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

With these weapon variants, however, we really wouldn't need a cone of fire. The only real variable to throw in would be recoil.

I calculated a macro for a JM6-DD with 6 AC/2s to estimate how a Super Crusher Heavy AutoCannon AC/20 would work in MWO with 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 second burst durations for 10 "2 damage" shots. To do it for the 1.0 burst duration turn the sleep to "100" for each line. These macros are for AutoHotkey and contain the AC/20's 4 second cooldown, too. Try it.

2.0 delay per my original "high point" of how this might work. Set 6 AC/2s for one cannon per weapon group, filling out 1 through 6.

Spoiler

#SingleInstance Force
#InstallMouseHook
#InstallKeyBDHook

#IfWinActive ahk_class CryENGINE
Q::
while GetKeyState("Q","P")

{
send {1 down}
sleep 200
send {1 up}
send {2 down}
sleep 200
send {2 up}
send {3 down}
sleep 200
send {3 up}
send {4 down}
sleep 200
send {4 up}
send {5 down}
sleep 200
send {5 up}
send {6 down}
sleep 200
send {6 up}
send {1 down}
sleep 200
send {1 up}
send {2 down}
sleep 200
send {2 up}
send {3 down}
sleep 200
send {3 up}
send {4 down}
sleep 200
send {4 up}
sleep 4000
}

3.0 delay. Set 6 AC/2s for one cannon per weapon group, filling out 1 through 6.

Spoiler

#SingleInstance Force
#InstallMouseHook
#InstallKeyBDHook

#IfWinActive ahk_class CryENGINE
Q::
while GetKeyState("Q","P")

{
send {1 down}
sleep 300
send {1 up}
send {2 down}
sleep 300
send {2 up}
send {3 down}
sleep 300
send {3 up}
send {4 down}
sleep 300
send {4 up}
send {5 down}
sleep 300
send {5 up}
send {6 down}
sleep 300
send {6 up}
send {1 down}
sleep 300
send {1 up}
send {2 down}
sleep 300
send {2 up}
send {3 down}
sleep 300
send {3 up}
send {4 down}
sleep 300
send {4 up}
sleep 4000
}

3.5 delay proposed by Scrot in the screenshot found here. Set 6 AC/2s for one cannon per weapon group, filling out 1 through 6.

Spoiler

#SingleInstance Force
#InstallMouseHook
#InstallKeyBDHook

#IfWinActive ahk_class CryENGINE
Q::
while GetKeyState("Q","P")

{
send {1 down}
sleep 350
send {1 up}
send {2 down}
sleep 350
send {2 up}
send {3 down}
sleep 350
send {3 up}
send {4 down}
sleep 350
send {4 up}
send {5 down}
sleep 350
send {5 up}
send {6 down}
sleep 350
send {6 up}
send {1 down}
sleep 350
send {1 up}
send {2 down}
sleep 350
send {2 up}
send {3 down}
sleep 350
send {3 up}
send {4 down}
sleep 350
send {4 up}
sleep 4000
}

These macros are triggered when you press Q.
What do you think?

Other AC/20s would work differently. The biggest with the fewest shots would be the AC/20 Chemjet Gun, which fires 3 shots over 3 seconds according to that picture, totalling 20 damage.

Edited by Koniving, 05 July 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Jump back up to the bullet points with the picture. That pinpoint fix. Multi-shot ACs, splash-spread-damage PPCs, gauss rifles that spread 15 damage in more than one slug at a time, and so on.

• <--these things

Oh, that bursting stuff.

I got so used to reading pinpoint as where all the shots land it didn't register.

That's fine, and how it should be anyway. I never understood why the AC line was rifles when its a repeater cannon.

[Koniving]

I gave macros to "test" the dakka fun out of the Super Crusher Heavy Autocannon AC/20 variant back in that post. Check it out.

[Mackman]

I would be down for something like this. However, this would render some weapons (like the AC 5) pretty much obsolete.

If I can't fire my two AC-5's at the same time, then there's really no point in me taking them at all. I'll just take an AC/10 instead, and take the slightly reduced range in exchange for some nice free tonnage.

Basically, it has to be progressive: X sl's fired, >X ml's fired, >>X AC5's fired... then we can do the large, one-at-a-time weapons. Otherwise, as soon as you hit the one-at-a-time threshold, the weapons at the bottom cease to be viable (this is the problem with the all-encompasing global cd ideas that get tossed around all the time here).

[Stat1cVoiD]

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

Yes, this is a cadency fix, and yes this entire thread is about exactly that. No, it doesn't fix burst damage, however in my previous post I said PGI has that one in the bag with the upcoming weapon variants but that will take time. I'll address it again further down.

So while true, you seem to be mistaking what I was going for. I was venturing for removing the un-lore-friendly rising threshold, which puts a huge gap between your typical standard heatsink mech and your 18 to 22 DHS mech, which not only cools faster but allows a higher maximum heat, thus creating the alpha strike abuse which has resulted in what we have.

There isn't a problem with two weapons. It's a problem with 4 or more weapons boated together with pinpoint damage. This GCD concept, however, has very little difference from Paul's original idea it just has a different name and a different delivery that essentially removes the concept of custom weapon grouping, which thusly will never find itself implemented as it requires rebuilding the system from the ground up, and re-engineering it per mech.

How is the GCD-system a rebuild "from the ground up"? It is an addition to the current system and doesn't need any existing weapon stats to be altered.
Custom weapon grouping is not removed, it is ENCOURAGED, because you now have to fire your weapons more intelligent than before.
And to say that 2 weapons are not a problem, means that you have obviously never seen a 2xAC/20 JM6.
And why would it require a re-engineering per Mech? Its called "global" for a reason...

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

Essentially this GCD concept is "throw the game out, start from scratch." That is the only way it will ever get implemented. Literally you'd have to re-engineer the entire system based around this principle. I kid you not, PGI have to shut down the game, reprogram it from the middle-ground up, and then allow us back in around 6 months later. To create further patches for the current game if they were to apply this mechanic would be absolutely pointless until they did so.

Why? Exisiting code doesn't have to be altered. There are just a few lines of code to add, which triggers a CD on weapons if one of their type is fired. How is that "throw the game out, start from scratch" by any means?
And how would this system need 6 months (!?) to be implemented? You can do that within less than one hour...

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

Raising heat penalties helps with cadency, but like this GCD concept and its attempt at reducing cadency, that's just a bandaid. Except GCD is a full limb replacement attached by said bandaid.

GCD is not about reducing cadency. After one fire-cycle the weapon's CDs have adjusted to the GCDs and they fire directly if off CD. It is a BURST DAMAGE reduce. Cadency is about DPS.

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

But if we go with what I was advocating and remove the rising threshold,

(to clarify, in MWO's current implementation: for every heatsink you add you increase the maximum heat you can take as well as how fast you cool. 22 Standard heatsinks brings you to 66 threshold. 22 DHS brings you to 110.4 + faster cooling. How is that fair?

Not only that but you add in the basic efficiency that gives you 7.5% more cooling, and then the other basic efficiency that gives you 10% more threshold, and then double them with the elite! 22 SHS you go directly to 100% with 6 ER PPCs. With 22 DHS you reach a little more than halfway, + 15% faster cooling on top of that and 20% additional threshold and you've got 132.48 maximum threshold. Is it any wonder why we have alpha strike abuse?

It should be either 30, or 60, or whatever we decide the maximum threshold is either way and then you cool faster with DHS. As it is now those "1.4" heatsinks are a decimal number short of 3 times superior to single heatsinks because of that rising threshold. Throw in the elite level efficiencies and it gets near 3.5 times superior. If DHS were 2.0 heatsinks, MWO's current implementation would have them 4 times superior without any pilot skill upgrades.)

So as I was saying if we remove the rising threshold, slip a predefined heat threshold for all mechs, we can then easily set up our little charts to say "If you alpha this many medium lasers together you'll shut down." "You boat up to this many PPCs, and shut down." It'll be very clear. No more guessing games with charts that don't make sense. Our double heatsinks can also say and be 2 times cooling, with the same alpha strike limits as single heatsinks without reinventing the wheel.

This accomplishes the goal of GCD and would only require 20 seconds to a minute to do instead of 6 months. We simply tick a value in SHS and DHS to 0 when it comes to threshold multipliers, begin testing, and churn it out next patch.

So yes, my idea reduces the frequency of alpha firing. That's exactly what this GCD thing is also vouching for, except we do not have to add in 6 months development time with another 6 months or so dedicated to testing and balancing that mechanic thusly reinventing the wheel in order to do it.

I agree with you as far as SHSs and DHSs are in need fore a little bit more balancing and tweaking... A flat cap however would remove a lot of customization options. I've seen another thread in the past which would make SHSs raise the cap higher and DHSs speed the cooling up. That would be a good solution to me, because it would make SHSs viable and deliver additional options, with drawbacks and advantages.
GCDs and Heat work hand in hand and they adress DIFFERENT problems. THERE IS NO RIVALRY!

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

But on the other topic fixing burst damage, we don't need to do anything. That's right. To fix "burst damage," I already said PGI's got that covered and told everyone where to find it in my previous post.

So if we combine my cadency fix involving standardizing the heat threshold with PGI's upcoming weapon variants which will likely be removing single shot AC/20s and (possibly removing the single shot) Gauss Rifle in favor of multi-shot ACs and another way to redux the Gauss Rifles, as well as upcoming damage spread from PPCs, and it then becomes a much wider field of weaponry. Also, your pinpoint burst damage issue is thusly, gone.

There won't be an instant pinpoint weapon anymore, except perhaps the AC/2 or AC/5 depending on how they handle that (but not the UAC/5).

I've never heard of something like those variants... Link please.

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

Sure, there will still be the occasional boat, but the survivors will be those that have a weapon for every situation.

• ACs will still be favored for low heat, rapid damage output and range, but reigned in with recoil and multi-shots to deal the total promised damage, allowing the enemy to twist and spread damage. Example below. Cassette would be how many rounds you'd put down range to total 20 damage, the duration is how long it'd take to fire all of said rounds. Personally I'd want them to fire their burst faster.

[/size]

• Gauss rifles will be favored for high damage output even if it won't be as precise -- but not for a lack of skill or a skill breaking mechanic like cone of fire as the Gauss Rifle is recoilless and uses magnets as a propellant. It'll be because the rifle would require more than one direct hit from a single trigger pull to get that high damage.
  
• The lasers, especially the small, small pulse, medium pulse, and large pulse will be favored for how rapidly they put damage into a specific area as well as their fast recycle rate, but reigned in by the heat they generate which prevent them being fired in high concentrations.
  
• Medium lasers and large lasers will be favored for the same reasons they always have. That being range and high damage with low weight compared to most weapons. Controlled by the same means as above.
  
• PPCs will still be favored as they will remain single shot weapons, but due to the damage spread they won't be as overpowered, and because of the threshold you can only safely put 2 to 3 rapidly down range before you have to worry about heat... and if you tried to fire them back to back you'd explode.
  
• At close range standard PPCs should have TT's capacitors that you could turn off to do any damage below 90 meters at incredibly high risk to yourself, as well as more heat than the more advanced ER PPCs.
  
• ER PPCs would be far significantly hotter than standard PPCs, instead of slightly hotter to compensate, but not as hot as standard PPCs with the capacitors (safeties) turned off.
  
• Missiles have never been precision weapons, and thusly with their flight patterns fixed (not paths, patterns; they used to fly like rabid piranhas), missiles will be a fairly legitimate weapon.
  
• SRM 6s, when boated in an A1 and fired 6 at a time, is a dangerously high risk of shutdown with 30 threshold. This means they will either chainfire those to keep their heat down or resort to hit and run tactics since they wouldn't be able to alpha strike twice in a row and thusly couldn't brawl.
  
• This means SRM-4s, and SRM-2s may become valuable alternatives as they produce lower heat and lower spread.
  
• Streaks, while generally low on heat, are balanced by many means. If the streak guidance were akin to closed beta, people would simply laugh at them and they would fly much more realistically. Oh sure they are guided, but you'd have to stay 150 meters away from your enemy if you wanted to actually have a chance to hit it. Dog fights would be much more interesting, and a lot more fair for mechs like the Death's Knell and the Spiders. PGI would likely tweak them to something in between now and early closed beta's realistic turning version as a compromise.
  
• LRMs as you well know must be paced, 2 LRM-20s on the trial C4 are a perfect example of what limits the heat threshold would place upon alpha strikes using missiles. Try it the trial C4, seriously. Go on, do it. When you come back answer me this: Do you think you could get away with boating 4 LRM-15 racks and alpha striking even once with that heat threshold? You'd have to chainfire them and pace them out!
  
• The rule of brawling is pace yourself for endurance or fire all at once, shut down and die.
  
• Overall the game would be far more tactically based, rather than the Hawken style it has been becoming as of late.

We just reigned in all the weapon systems with a combination of my idea to reduce the cadency (frequency) of alpha strikes and what PGI is already planning in terms of removing pinpoint damage through weapon variants without reinventing the wheel, without some artificial global cooldown timer, and without any other random mechanic that could be abused.


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

THIS is a "throw the game out, start from scratch."-Idea. Altough I think that some ideas in there could be viable, it will really require a WHOLE LOT of work to implement, test and tweak and a lot of existing code has to be changed.
How can you accuse my System of being too complicated to implement and then come up with THIS!?

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

Meanwhile, may I remind someone of something.

The reason PPCs became a problem was we originally had to generate over 200% heat to be remotely in danger of damage, well beyond 300% heat to kill ourselves. A global cooldown won't stop that. We can still pump PPCs quite fast. Behold the almighty 30 Particle Projection MACHINE GUN CANNON! Compared to it, a global cooldown means absolutely nothing. Who needs an alpha strike when you have this little gem? A hunchback that can pump out 30 PPCs in 17 seconds before it reaches the 300% threshold. This thing has 15 DHS; that's a lower threshold (specifically that's only a threshold of 81) than your average assault mech is carrying. With slower PPCs, these guys do not need to stop shooting ever, which means if you throw in a global cooldown they will fire like machine guns! This will allow them to fire longer, better, faster, stronger. Oh sure you won't die instantly but who cares! Do you think the average PPC user will ever reach 100% heat if they start chain firing their PPCs with the current system? We've just created World of Warcraft.

"1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6." Wait 2 seconds. "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6." Wait 2 seconds. "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6." GCD fixed nothing.

A bandaid, is a bandaid, is a bandaid.

AGAIN: GCDs purpose is NOT to decrease the overall DPS or to touch the cadency of the weapons. Its sole purpose is to stop high-damage-oneshot-volleys. IF you can manage to guide all 30 PPCs into one single component over 17 seconds you are a good shot and deserve the resulting kill.

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

With the removal of rising thresholds in favor of a standardized one, oh sure that Stalker can go "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6." Shut down for 2 to 4 seconds at the 60 point threshold and still be at over 75%, so that Stalker would have to wait and cool off. If we go with the 30 point heat threshold, it'd shut down at 3 for 1 to 2 seconds, wait a few, and go up to 3 again. Or if that Stalker fired really really slow, say "1........2..............3...........4.....gettin' too hot........5..." he just might get 6 out before shutting down.

That's what we need. That's the aim of this global cooldown concept, but the threshold fix actually achieves it in a way that does not require us to reinvent the wheel. It just fixes a mistake made by people that automatically assumed that heat sunk instantaneously in tabletop and tried to translate that into real time, when in reality the weapons were fired one or more at a time over 10 seconds, and heat sunk over that same 10 seconds in tabletop. The devs just weren't speaking the same language when trying to translate it, thusly coming up with their own system that invites abuse.

PGI has finally started to fix the heat mechanic. It's a step in the right direction.

We now receive considerable damage at 120%, serious at 150%, and somewhere after that we die instantly. It's a start, but do I approve?

Let's ask just what does the current fix mean?

120% threshold of 22 DHS is 132.48 heat over 110.4 threshold without basic efficiencies. Meanwhile, 22 standard heatsinks at 66 threshold, can only safely reach 79.2 heat. The average stock mech has 10 heatsinks, for 30 threshold, and will hurt itself at 36 heat, killing itself at only 45 heat generated. Hardly seems fair. In fact we just nerfed stock mechs and standard heatsinks into the ground.

Do you honestly think the bandaid of a Global Cooldown will help when faced with that? Like past solutions, this one ignores the principle underlying reason behind why we can alpha so much in the first place; why we can shoot so much with so little heat even on maps that are more than 140 degrees hotter than the average mechwarrior maps of past games?

Having them throw the game out to put this GCD in won't get us a balanced game anytime soon. If anything this GCD will add at least another 6 months to development time just to put it in. Within days of being able to play again, we can circumvent it by rapidly firing our groups and chainfire without ever overheating because our thresholds allow it and using chainfire now allows us to cool even faster since we're not generating heat anywhere near as fast, thus fixing little to nothing. As a fact that is wasted time that some of us do not have.

Summary:

One of your post's main point is to keep on your assumption that the GCD system would be too complicated to implement and would require "6 months" to go live.
That is just more than wrong.
I kept this System very simple to ensure that exisiting code doesn't have to be altered and only very few new lines have to be added. It can be implemented by a single person in less than one hour.
There is no logical reason to believe otherwise.

YOUR additonal system however, besides the Heat-hardcap, requires indeed a rework of many existing game mechanics, stats and code.

I agree with you that Heatsinks have to be tweaked in any way, but not like this because it takes versatility and customization options away and it requires the re-engineering per Mech which you ascribed to my GCD-System:
A Jenner f.e. couldn't have the same Heat-Cap like a STK. That wouldn't make any sense and would break more than it would fix...

The GCD-System is about fixing ONE-SHOT-VOLLEYS and to raise the skill-requirement for pinpoin-accuracy weapons. It is not about making pinpoint-weapons inviable.
The DPS of those weapons is not being touched, it is about making it harder for a player to guide ALL damage into ONE SINGLE component.
If you want to play a 6 PPC Stalker, go ahead, but YOU NEED TO AIM IT MORE CAREFULLY.
Heat ensures that he will shut down eventually.

And to your assumption that my GCD-System would make hot builds cooler, because they cannot be fired at once again and therefore breaking the balance even more:
WRONG!
If you fire 2x4 PPCs, it makes absolutely no difference (Heat-wise) if you fire them two times over an interval of 2 seconds or in one single blast.
They will be all be fired two times over a 8 second timeframe and generate and dissipate the exact same amount of Heat.

It seems to me that you really want to propagate your idea and therefore bashing my GCD-System with obviously false accusations,... I mean some of your criticism is so unsubstained, that I have to ask if you have even read my post?

Edited by Stat1cVoiD, 06 July 2013 - 12:06 AM.

[Stat1cVoiD]

Mackman, on 05 July 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

I would be down for something like this. However, this would render some weapons (like the AC 5) pretty much obsolete.

If I can't fire my two AC-5's at the same time, then there's really no point in me taking them at all. I'll just take an AC/10 instead, and take the slightly reduced range in exchange for some nice free tonnage.

Basically, it has to be progressive: X sl's fired, >X ml's fired, >>X AC5's fired... then we can do the large, one-at-a-time weapons. Otherwise, as soon as you hit the one-at-a-time threshold, the weapons at the bottom cease to be viable (this is the problem with the all-encompasing global cd ideas that get tossed around all the time here).

What are you reffering to here?
It surely can't be my GCD-System, because all your points of critcism are not even applying to my sollution:

- You can fire as many AC/5 as you like at once.
- MLs and SLs are not even being affected, so they cannot "cease to be viable"

Have you even read my post or are you just criticizing YOUR generic interpretation of a badly done GCD-system?

[MustrumRidcully]

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Ye7
Essentially this GCD concept is "throw the game out, start from scratch." That is the only way it will ever get implemented. Literally you'd have to re-engineer the entire system based around this principle. I kid you not, PGI have to shut down the game, reprogram it from the middle-ground up, and then allow us back in around 6 months later. To create further patches for the current game if they were to apply this mechanic would be absolutely pointless until they did so.
4

Neither you nor I have any idea how hard such a change would be, but I like to point out:
1) Weapons already have cooldowns.
2) We already have global cooldowns with the air strike and artillery strike consumables.

For that reason I personally don't believe it's all that hard.

Maybe doubling dissipation and halving heat capacity would be even easier, but that doesn't solve Gauss Rifles. IT solves, however, stock mechs being useless, which is why I want to see it happen, too.

[Beavertron]

I don't post much, but I thought I should to support this idea. Best idea I've seen on here by a long shot!

[Stat1cVoiD]

-push-

[MustrumRidcully]

The fun thing is in the end, most of the changes people suggest to fix alpha boating revolve around the same thing.

You want to stop people from shooting all their guns in one go.
You want people to chain-fire more.

This is the most direct way to achieve this, without any loopholes because a weapon is low heat, because a mech from lore is a boat, and it doesn't seem to require many and complex additional subsystems, nor sacrifice the whole reticule and convergence system.

Of course, maybe in the end people realize that chain-firing is actually harder then group-firing, and they don't like it.
Well, then we lost the fight against alpha boats, because all the solutions to the problem revolve around the same end result - getting more people to chain-fire.

I guess the only alternative is to have a smarter convergence, that also calculates your lead, so you can fire 2 SRM6s, an AC/5 and a PPC together without separating the shots.
Heck, it might need to be even aggressive, and lock your arms and torso when you fire a laser so you don't spread your damage.

[Warge]

I'll duplicate my post here:

I think removing torso's weapon convergance - is the way to solve the problem. Also removing horizontal convergance from "arms" in mechs that have no real arms: Stalker, Catapult, Jagermech, Cicada, Jenner, Raven...

Edited by Warge, 07 July 2013 - 04:12 AM.

[Stat1cVoiD]

Warge, on 07 July 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

I'll duplicate my post here:

I think removing torso's weapon convergance - is the way to solve the problem. Also removing horizontal convergance from "arms" in mechs that have no real arms: Stalker, Catapult, Jagermech, Cicada, Jenner, Raven...

I don't think that this will fix anything, it will just make the combat much more clunky... :/

[EchoMike]

El Bandito, on 04 July 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

I'm ok with removing Alpha strike all together.

I don't think IMO that the Alpha needs to be removed all together, however, there should be harsh penalties for using the Alpha-strike such as inaccuracy, and damage taken due to high heat etc.

[Warge]

Stat1cVoiD, on 07 July 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

I don't think that this will fix anything, it will just make the combat much more clunky... :/

At least it'll make alpha-strike builds less usefull.
Maybe remove convergance for torso weapons only and see how it'll work/don't work?

[Kmieciu]

E

Koniving, on 05 July 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Jump back up to the bullet points with the picture. That pinpoint fix. Multi-shot ACs, splash-spread-damage PPCs, gauss rifles that spread 15 damage in more than one slug at a time, and so on.

• <--these things
  
• For example the AC/20 variant called the Super Crusher Heavy AutoCannon, which according to that picture would deliver 10 cassettes (bullets) in a burst 3.5 seconds long (I'd prefer 1 to 2 seconds myself), dealing 2 damage per bullet, until it reaches 20 damage.
  
• While that sounds like an AC/2, to deal the same damage in the same time frame you'd have to have 6 AC/2s, that's 36 tons to do the same job the SCHAC AC/20 would do with 14 tons, for less heat and decreased range.

To try this out, peek at these macros I built to "sample" this experience. Remember this is a sample, you'd have throw in recoil to keep your range reduced. It is of the SCHAC AC/20, requires a Jagermech JM6-DD to test, and remember all 10 shots would be coming from the same barrel with the SCHAC AC/20. I haven't built macros to demonstrate how the other AC/20 types would work yet.


[size=4]

Other AC/20s would work differently. The biggest with the fewest shots would be the AC/20 Chemjet Gun, which fires 3 shots over 3 seconds according to that picture, totalling 20 damage.

The Devs also wrote on the forums that they envisioned the ACs to be the opposite of lasers: instant damage instead of damage over time. An AC that spreads the damage is simply not worth the weight. Compare the decent AC10 to the underpowered LB-10X.

[Warge]

Kmieciu, on 08 July 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

An AC that spreads the damage is simply not worth the weight.

It's depends on the time of burst. And lasers... they don't do instantaneous damage in MWO, PPCs do.
Freedom to the AC bursts!

[Koniving]

Kmieciu, on 08 July 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

E
The Devs also wrote on the forums that they envisioned the ACs to be the opposite of lasers: instant damage instead of damage over time. An AC that spreads the damage is simply not worth the weight. Compare the decent AC10 to the underpowered LB-10X.

They are instant damage. Each bullet would deliver instant damage. But now it's a skill based mechanic. Rather than "zomg I'm in call of duty point and click you're dead," you now would have to fight some recoil and keep your weapon on target. My preference is that these cannons would complete their bursts in 0.5 to 2 seconds tops, with the cooldown beginning the instant you start firing.

In some it'd take more bullets than others to deliver the promised total damage, not to mention every AC has triple their ideal range where any energy weapon only goes double. Then you factor in the minimal heat. Want to deal damage faster? Use the Chemjet Gun AC/20 for its 3 round burst to total 20 damage. Want more dakka, less lead time necessary, and less recoil per shot in the burst? Use the Super Crusher Heavy Autocannon AC/20. Want something in between? There's at least 9 variants. And PGI started making these back in December. They're not going to stop, and it is coming even if it has taken a back-burner.

Besides, with knockdowns comes the ability to knock enemies over. According to lore the only single shot AC/20 is a 203mm round that is not mounted on battlemechs because a single shot 203mm AC/20 round fired by an Atlas is supposed knock said firing Atlas down if it is not braced and standing perfectly stationary. What's it gonna do when it HITS YOU?

Knock you down. What are they going to do when two hit you? Knock you down and send your Atlas flying 30 meters or more! What if every time you fired that AC/20 your Jagermech went flying through the air, and the enemy went flying through the air? We'd have RagdollWarrior Online! Especially since you're supposed to take heavy damage every time you fall over, with the damage being heavier for every ton you weigh. A Raven 4x could use said AC/20 to rocket jump!




There's a reason for this, too. That's no pea-shooter, and it's too big to mount on the battlemechs we have. It belongs on a battleship.

Don't worry I don't imagine the AC/2 would get more than one additional variant and that'd be like firing an AC/1 every 0.25 seconds, virtually removing the 'cooldown' time and turning into the "machine gun" everyone wants. Other than the AC/20 I imagine most of the single shot ACs would still exist, with alternative variants made available. AC/2, AC/5, AC/10 would all still have their single shot versions. I picture the AC/20 Jagers would just convert to AC/10 Jagers if they really don't like the new AC/20s. Just keep in mind while a Chemjet gun is limited to 270 meters partly by the size of its shells, the Super Crusher Heavy Autocannon 20 would be able to pump part of its shots at the full range of an AC/2, with only the recoil preventing it from concentrating the damage at that range.

You know the shake factor that comes with being hit by 4 to 6 AC/2s in a macro? Picture that from the Super Crusher Heavy Autocannon 20. That's the reason why some people will choose it over say the Chemjet Gun.

Eventually though, ACs will be given the power to overwhelm your gyro and knock you down. The single shot variants as well as the Chemjet Gun 3-round burst AC/20 will be the best ones to do that with. Though supposedly you could do that with the Gauss Rifles too.

PPCs are said according to NGNG 79 to be receiving spread damage anyway, so it won't affect much. It won't make everyone run to PPCs because they'll have essentially the same issue in another form.

All around I believe it'll create a longer lasting experience that allows MWO to live up to its advertised name: "The Thinking Person's Shooter." After all, according to the CEO people are doing too much concentrated damage and mechs are dying too fast even in groups. Games are ending too fast. They actually considered doubling the internal structure to compensate, but they realized they did that accidentally at the same time. Then someone suggested they double the doubled armor to compensate, however that only says there's underlying problems with the way the weapons are handled.

The very fact that we're in a thread about global cooldowns says an awful lot. One of the underlying issues is the threshold that allows us to abuse the alpha strike system without repercussion. GCD or simply removing the unrealistic rising threshold that allows us to abuse it would solve that issue. Another underlying issue is that only one type of weapon system deals damage over time, while all the rest deliver instant concentrated damage in spite of the lore. The irony? In MW2, lasers dealt instant damage, and ballistics did multi-shot. 2 for AC/2, 5 for AC/5, 10 for AC/20, 20 for AC/20. It was a bit closer to lore, too, though lasers firing like bullets was actually a game design limitation of the time. Still people preferred the MG over all other weapons. Scary isn't it?

Either way, the autocannon, laser, missile, and even PPC variants were stated to be coming, and they've been working on and off with them since December. Just like third person it doesn't matter if you or I like it or not. The good thing is I don't care either way about third person, and I'm in favor of the variants so I'm a happy camper. Battles are much more fun when they last.

[MustrumRidcully]

I am not sure I trust that PGI's balance team has already learned that alpha damage matters a lot.

4 DPS with a 2 point alpha damage is not worth as much as 4 DPS with 5 alpha damage is not as much worth as a 4DPS with 10 alpha damage is not worth as much as 4 DPS with 20 alpha damage.
Heck; I'd argue that 3 DPS with 15 alpha damage is worth more than 4 DPS with 2 alpha damage.

But what I can't tell yo uexactly is how much more worth that alpha damage is.
Maybe use "DPS10". How much damage can you maximally deal within 10 seconds, and use t hat to base your DPS value.

So an AC/20 can be fired 3 times in 10 seconds, so it's a 6 DPS10 weapon. (Conventional DPS: 5)
An AC/2 can be fired 21 times in 10 seconds, so it's a 4.2 DPS10 weapon. (Conventional DPS: 4.2)
A PPC can be fired 3 times in 10 seconds, so it's a 3 DPS10 weapon. (Conventional DPS: 2)


I use 10 seconds because it's a neat, "round" number, resembles a table top turn length, and it's also a good time to use because within 10 seconds, our current "alpha boats" could manage to kill a typical heavy or medium mech and cripple an Assault (3 Quad PPC salvos are 120 damage), and you often don't need to deal much more damage than that.

[Inkarnus]

@OP
its a good idea since its that what they wantet to create with the new heatsystem
to force ppl to give more damage over time instead always alpha alpha alpha.

Very good post i like

you should read this too
http://www.qqmercs.com/?p=2780

Edited by Inkarnus, 09 July 2013 - 01:17 AM.