124 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

Assume group fire could be "hard removed" - no macros or whatever could cheat your way around it, such as the ones that allow rapid fire AC's, I'm starting to be in favor of this idea.

Just got out of a match that really demonstrated the current meta problems. Everybody and his brother was carrying as many PPC's as possible and sniping with them... except the AC40 Jagers. Thank heavens for variety.

The only problems, assume that the removal is absolute, would be how to handle SRM's - they are worthless if not fired all at once - and maybe lasers, since they sweep the target.

[Hotthedd]

oldradagast, on 14 July 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Assume group fire could be "hard removed" - no macros or whatever could cheat your way around it, such as the ones that allow rapid fire AC's, I'm starting to be in favor of this idea.

Just got out of a match that really demonstrated the current meta problems. Everybody and his brother was carrying as many PPC's as possible and sniping with them... except the AC40 Jagers. Thank heavens for variety.

The only problems, assume that the removal is absolute, would be how to handle SRM's - they are worthless if not fired all at once - and maybe lasers, since they sweep the target.

Well that would be exactly where weapon balancing comes into play. Individual weapons would now be able to be tweaked without the "unseen?" implications of boating. Right now, weapon balancing does not work very well because it is done on a per weapon basis, even though nobody fires just one weapon.

[MustrumRidcully]

Hotthedd, on 14 July 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Well that would be exactly where weapon balancing comes into play. Individual weapons would now be able to be tweaked without the "unseen?" implications of boating. Right now, weapon balancing does not work very well because it is done on a per weapon basis, even though nobody fires just one weapon.

Yes, this is extremely important ,in fact, due to the way heat capacity works. And, ultimately, also how armour works, and how this interacts.

If you just equip a single PPC, you can go fine with just the engine heat sinks. That means the effective weight of sustaining a single PPC is 7 tons.
But if you equip 2 PPCs, you suddenly generate a lot of heat. (About 2 per second). THat would mean after 25 seconds, you'd overheat. That's still good, you'll probably never have to fire for that long. So the weight to run 2 PPCs is 14, twice a smuch as 1 PPC.
But now you equip 3 PPCs. Suddenly you could only last for 16 seconds. Still sounds akay, 16 seconds is a good time. So the weight to run 3 PPCs is 21, three times as much as 1 PPC.
But now 4 PPCs. Suddenly you last 8 seconds! Maybe now it's time to get some DHS. If you want to get back to 16 seconds, you actually need 14 out-of-engine DHS! So 4 PPCs don't need the expected 28 tons, but 42 tons to be run! That's 6 times as much as a single PPC.

Now the math gets kinda complicated! How do you balance this?
And this was just "boating math". What if you add Large Lasers instead of PPCs, for example.


Of course, you can say - but firing for an infinite time is much longer than firing for 25 seconds, and firing for 25 seconds is much better than firing for 12 seconds...

But then there is this:

With 20 DHS, you can fire 4 PPCs 3 to 4 salvos before you overheat, so about 8 to 12 seconds. In that time, you also deal 120 to 160 damage. Which, compared to the armor on the CT of Heavy Mech, is pretty much core-worthy, and for any mech pretty cripple-worthy - if it can be applied well.
So 12-16 seconds might be more than enough time, and essentiallyy, just because a build lasts twice as long, doesn't mean it's twice as good.

And, a propos of applied well - Shooting 4 attacks and hitting all the same spot is not trival, but you've got 4 seconds time to aim or torso twist or move into and out of cover between each shot. Trying to fire 16 shots and hitting all the same spot with only 1 second to aim, torso twist or move into and out of cover between each shot is... challenging.

---

Personally, I find this non-linear aspects of the cost of heat extremely hard to balance. If it can be balanced at all. So I'd try to move towards a system where you overheat more quickly but dissipate faster, so that this magic point of where you really need to add the sinks to compensate your heat gain starts much earlier. That is essentially what the table top mechanics did, by having heat penalties starting at a heat level 5.

The whole issue of "precisely applied damage" is also hard to balance if it becomes a factor for groups of weapons. Balancing a single weapon around the advantage of how much damage it deals per shot is compared to others seems easier. (And was also done that way in the table top - every attack required its own to-hit and hit location roll.)
Maybe there are smart people that can figure these out. But I fear they have yet to arrive on the forums and armchair design the problem away, or be hired by PGI.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 July 2013 - 11:02 AM.

[King Arthur IV]

didnt read wallz of txt and i couldnt find spark notes version too.

anyway.
cant i just press 6 buttons at the same time to achieve group fire then? or use a marco or program to put 2 different groups into one button? if i wanted to fire 2 lasers at the same time i would only need to have one in LMB and second in RMB.

[WildeKarde]

I think hardware macros would still be used to fire multiple weapons even if the game removed a group option, even pushing two mouse buttons together does it. MWO would need to actually register only one weapon can be fired at any one time and a second one would have a delay built in.

Can't see that being anything developers would spend time writing into a patch.

[AndyHill]

No you can't and no they wouldn't. Firing any two weapons less than x seconds apart would be prevented by a global cooldown, no amount of macroing would help. Groups would only be used to choose which gun gets to go next.

[sokitumi]

jakucha, on 12 July 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

...
PGI pitched the game in a much more sim-like fashion to various publishers, but no one bought it. ....

That video and initial 2009 pitch was from a different company completely - Smith and Tinker. And then there was the whole Hamony Gold possible lawsuits over the unseen mechs, which is denied to be true but... yeah... that was a true scare for investors. And then team-bass-pro-shops stepped up bought the rights with dreams of making MW a F2P cash cow, while Smith and Tinker went on to make mobile games instead.

As to the OP... BT is not MW, the two have always been nigh impossible to reconcile. Why do we have such a problem with this? MW's always been about aiming and positioning not dice rolling. If you want a game with an even smaller player base, implement some borked aiming system where shots don't go where you put them. Sure PPC's are imba, but the solution isn't removing all twitch from a shooting game.

[AndyHill]

My suggestion didn't contain any elements of randomness in aiming or anywhere else for that matter. I can't say if cone of fire would have to be used in some form at some point, but for purely personal reasons I'd like to avoid it. The discussion of reconciling the tabletop game and simulator is interesting, but perhaps this thread is not the place for it.

[Corvus Antaka]

General Taskeen, on 12 July 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Everyone remembers the original concept videos right?



In the original concept it seems the targeting computer was envisioned to be very complex and simulation-like, where it took a little time for it to acquire a perfect hit on the location you wanted it to hit. For instance, the pilot is aiming at the cockpit of the Atlas at one point, but the PPC goes a little wide as it did not lock properly and hit the shoulder of the Atlas. The Atlas is also shooting that rapid AC/20 with shells all over the Warhammer. That's what 'simulation' Mech Warrior looks like. So we can either have something like that or straight FPS.

I imagine if I was playing something like that in MWO it would still be pretty fun. And imagine the fun PGI could have by making something like C3 equipment then helping the targeting computer acquire solutions better, or pilot upgrade skill trees, etc.

Honestly I think this would be terrible for gameplay. Forces pilots to expose themselves for longer, takes away pilot skill from aiming, and slows the game down even more.

[jakucha]

sokitumi, on 14 July 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

That video and initial 2009 pitch was from a different company completely - Smith and Tinker. And then there was the whole Hamony Gold possible lawsuits over the unseen mechs, which is denied to be true but... yeah... that was a true scare for investors. And then team-bass-pro-shops stepped up bought the rights with dreams of making MW a F2P cash cow, while Smith and Tinker went on to make mobile games instead.

As to the OP... BT is not MW, the two have always been nigh impossible to reconcile. Why do we have such a problem with this? MW's always been about aiming and positioning not dice rolling. If you want a game with an even smaller player base, implement some borked aiming system where shots don't go where you put them. Sure PPC's are imba, but the solution isn't removing all twitch from a shooting game.

http://en.wikipedia....ine#Development

The Mechwarrior IP was idle until it was bought from Microsoft, and Russ contacted Weisman and they developed that prototype together. Which no one wanted to fund.

Edited by jakucha, 14 July 2013 - 03:50 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

King Arthur IV, on 14 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

didnt read wallz of txt and i couldnt find spark notes version too.

anyway.
cant i just press 6 buttons at the same time to achieve group fire then? or use a marco or program to put 2 different groups into one button? if i wanted to fire 2 lasers at the same time i would only need to have one in LMB and second in RMB.

Here's your cliff note / TL;DR:
SEVER ENFORCED GLOBAL COOLDOWNs

The same type of stuff basically that stops you from firing a PPC before its recharged. It is not rocket science, it's pretty much an MMO standard.

[lordsegan]

This is a smart OP.

This is a smart OP.

This is a smart OP.

[Unbound Inferno]

oldradagast, on 14 July 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Assume group fire could be "hard removed" - no macros or whatever could cheat your way around it, such as the ones that allow rapid fire AC's, I'm starting to be in favor of this idea.

Just got out of a match that really demonstrated the current meta problems. Everybody and his brother was carrying as many PPC's as possible and sniping with them... except the AC40 Jagers. Thank heavens for variety.

The only problems, assume that the removal is absolute, would be how to handle SRM's - they are worthless if not fired all at once - and maybe lasers, since they sweep the target.

If the game mechanics have a hard-set cooldown required before the next weapon is fired - no "macro" can get around that.

But as of now, the only set cooldown limit is on the individual weapon.

The chain fire effect is a choice toggle, and if off they can fire in sequence faster.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 15 July 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Mystere]

AndyHill, on 14 July 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

No you can't and no they wouldn't. Firing any two weapons less than x seconds apart would be prevented by a global cooldown, no amount of macroing would help. Groups would only be used to choose which gun gets to go next.

No to global cooldowns. This is not an MMO like Rift.

[MustrumRidcully]

Mystere, on 15 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

No to global cooldowns. This is not an MMO like Rift.

No to buying gear for money. This is not an MMO like Rift.

Yes to global cooldowns. In the Battletech table top game, no pilot can fire his weapons all at once, you always have to to try to hit and determine hit location individually for each weapon, even if you boated them.

[Mystere]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

No to buying gear for money. This is not an MMO like Rift.

Yes to global cooldowns. In the Battletech table top game, no pilot can fire his weapons all at once, you always have to to try to hit and determine hit location individually for each weapon, even if you boated them.

Fortunately, MWO is not TT, and neither were it's Mechwarrior predecessors.

Slow down the rate of convergence. Heck, represent each weapon with it's own reticule during the convergence process or create a new reticule system. I'd rather have an annoying visual display than global cooldowns.

Implementing global CDs moves MWO further away from being a "simulator" and closer to being Rift with Mechs.

[AndyHill]

Hm and there I was thinking that I actually knew something about simulators, but I had no idea shooting all weapons at once was a requirement to qualify as one.

[riverslq]

Tank Boy Ken, on 12 July 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

There was a time in closed beta when Mechs were dying too fast. The Armor levels were still at TT levels during that time. The "fix" was doubling hitpoints, internal and armor. HSR increased the lethality again, so why not increase hitpoints again?. It would be the same solution and would require more firing of weapons.

Removing group fire can be circumvented by using normal mouse software. So it's only punishing lesser equipped players (cheap mice don't have those functions).

And heat is the reason Alpha boating is only "the best" for a time. Since at some point more heat efficient weapons will be better. Like Gauss, AC/5 and AC/10.

doubling armor yet again won't fix the problem.
boating will still be the best way to penetrate it.
this is going to take more than numbers (arbitrary at best) to fix.

[MustrumRidcully]

There is, at least IMO, one alternative option to all the fuss about group fire and convergence.

Have the game calculate lead times and automatically lead weapons for you.

Then you don't have to try to figure a way to balance the precision advantages granted by boating, only the inherent precision advantage of a weapons, like cluster-based weapons (missles and LBX) vs beam weapons vs projectile weapons.

But of course, no one dares to want that, despite convergence de facto being screwed up for ballistic weapons since the convergence point is always based on what your mouse is aiming at - if you need to lead, that might be an obstacle far behind (and sometimes even before) the target mech.

It still has other issues (armour ratios being off for a game with player aimed hit locations rather than dice roll hit locations.) But you at least don't have to deal with the boating imbalance. People would be able to alpha even mixed weapon loadouts.

[AndyHill]

Automatically calculating lead can be problematic when you need to track two-dimensional movement, let alone three. You can fool the automated system by not running in straight lines - which you can of course do to a human as well, but a human won't miss systematically like a computer in such situations. Also, lasers would be pretty pinpoint accurate all the time. More importantly for me, it does nothing to the BANG-hide -style of alpha heavy gameplay, which I personally would like to see turned into more of DPS-style maneuvering matches.

Of course, the idea does have its merits. When making a translation of weapon balance from tabletop to real-time simulation one of the major differences in BTech and MWO is that in BTech the delivery of all weapon types is similar whereas in MWO different types of weapons are very different. In fact, when discussing the dreaded BTech weapon numbers, this is the only major reason why they don't work as such in a simulator. Luckily that can be accounted for partly by game design and partly by controlled chenges to the weapon (groups') numbers. Most importantly not, for example, by arbitrarily mucking about with firing rates, heat generation etc.