39 replies to this topic

[DarkJaguar]

Davers, on 13 July 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

All the problems in game (from PPC boating to 6 SRM6s all hitting the same section to the devastating LRM flight paths) all demonstrate the same point- high weapon accuracy does not fit well with mechs designed for random damage distribution.

Heck, you don't even need the word "Random" in there, though a slight CoF (seriously, less than a half a degree would make any weapon fired beyond 540m have a 50% chance of hitting the L/R torso instead of center is fired dead on). A hit is a hit, I don't understand why the sniper-wannabes that can only draw upon their digital-warfare experience are so hung up on being able to choose one pixel and put as many weapons as they carry into it.

[Lootee]

Davers, on 13 July 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

All the problems in game (from PPC boating to 6 SRM6s all hitting the same section to the devastating LRM flight paths) all demonstrate the same point- high weapon accuracy does not fit well with mechs designed for random damage distribution.

What he said ^^.

The armor, internal structure, and hit location system is based on random probabilities in the TT game.

On a 2d6, if you roll a 2 or 7 you hit the enemy's torso on the side that is facing you. There's only one way to roll a 2 and six different ways to roll a 7. So the probability of hitting a mech's CT when facing head on is 7:36 or about 20%.

It's easier to hit a CT in MWO, depending on how good you are at putting a circle over the center of a mech and mashing a mouse button your chances of hitting the CT are around 1:4 to 1:2, for some people will be damn close to 100%.

But that isn't the broken part. The broken part is when you start stacking 3, 4, 5, 6 or more weapons into 1 fire group and then you mash the mouse button 1 time and all of that weaponry combines to form the Death Star's super laser to obliterate whatever body part it hits.

Check the math:

In the TT system you have a 7/36 x 7/36 chance of hitting the CT with 2 weapons in a row. Roughly 1:26.
To hit the CT with 3 weapons in a row is 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 = ~1:136
Hit the CT 4 times in a row 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 = ~1:700
5 CT hits in a row 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 = ~1:3600

Because in MWO all your weapons turn into the super laser and hit in 1 place your chances of hitting the CT multiple times is still the same as hitting it the first time: 1:4 or better.

The more weapons you combine into the Death Star laser, the more mathematically broken it becomes. THAT is why you see all this boating. People are gaming the system, to turn something that should only happen 1 in 700 times into something that happens 1 out of 4 times. (and even if you blow the CT shot, the super laser will still hit the enemy mech somewhere else, most likely instantly destroying that body part instead)

Either convergence needs to go away, or group fire needs to go away, or the TT based armor values and hit locations need to be abandoned and something else put in its place.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 13 July 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[DarkJaguar]

PanchoTortilla, on 13 July 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

What he said ^^.

The armor, internal structure, and hit location system is based on random probabilities in the TT game.

On a 2d6, if you roll a 2 or 7 you hit the enemy's torso on the side that is facing you. There's only one way to roll a 2 and six different ways to roll a 7. So the probability of hitting a mech's CT when facing head on is 7:36 or about 20%.

It's easier to hit a CT in MWO, depending on how good you are at putting a circle over the center of a mech and mashing a mouse button your chances of hitting the CT are around 1:4 to 1:2, for some people will be damn close to 100%.

But that isn't the broken part. The broken part is when you start stacking 3, 4, 5, 6 or more weapons into 1 fire group and then you mash the mouse button 1 time and all of that weaponry combines to form the Death Star's super laser to obliterate whatever body part it hits.

Check the math:

In the TT system you have a 7/36 x 7/36 chance of hitting the CT with 2 weapons in a row. Roughly 1:26.
To hit the CT with 3 weapons in a row is 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 = ~1:136
Hit the CT 4 times in a row 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 = ~1:700
5 CT hits in a row 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 x 7/36 = ~1:3600

Because in MWO all your weapons turn into the super laser and hit in 1 place your chances of hitting the CT multiple times is still the same as hitting it the first time: 1:4 or better.

The more weapons you combine into the Death Star laser, the more mathematically broken it becomes. THAT is why you see all this boating. People are gaming the system, to turn something that should only happen 1 in 700 times into something that happens 1 out of 4 times. (and even if you blow the CT shot, the super laser will still hit the enemy mech somewhere else, most likely instantly destroying that body part instead)

Either convergence needs to go away, or group fire needs to go away, or the TT based armor values and hit locations need to be abandoned and something else put in its place.

Well said! I need you in my thread now.

[Trauglodyte]

Bloody Moon, on 13 July 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Exactly, the problems are there, they are only more visible when there are more than one on a Mech.

Which effectively begs the question: Why not simply put a limit on the number of heavy weapons a mech can carry and then add a quirk to the mechs that are supposed to carry multiple heavy weapons (Awesome, Warhawk, et)? Boating isn't a problem unless the weapon being boated is too damaging and too efficient in how it causes damage. The AC40 Jager isn't really that much of an issue if you have smart players preventing them from pulling sneak attacks (which is hard on the smaller maps but that isn't the topic here). But the 4+ PPC and the 2-3 PPC plus Gauss builds are making it especially hard to play the game when every time they pull the trigger half of your armor disappears.

[Kunae]

Trauglodyte, on 13 July 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Which effectively begs the question: Why not simply put a limit on the number of heavy weapons a mech can carry and then add a quirk to the mechs that are supposed to carry multiple heavy weapons (Awesome, Warhawk, et)? Boating isn't a problem unless the weapon being boated is too damaging and too efficient in how it causes damage. The AC40 Jager isn't really that much of an issue if you have smart players preventing them from pulling sneak attacks (which is hard on the smaller maps but that isn't the topic here). But the 4+ PPC and the 2-3 PPC plus Gauss builds are making it especially hard to play the game when every time they pull the trigger half of your armor disappears.

And you can easily fix that, without putting artificial constraints, by raising PPC heat to canon levels. Problem solved.

This also has the virtue of preventing future chassis from doing the same thing, without creating complicated and punitive rules which have no basis in reality.

[Zyllos]

Kunae, on 13 July 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

The problem with that, is that unless you correct and tighten the spread, SRMs are still mostly worthless. At a minimum, SRMs should always be twice the strength of LRMs. So, with the current configuration, they should be at least 2.2, and I don't think 2.5 is out of line.

This is where that line of thinking is incorrect.

SRMs are suppose to spread out their damage. It's just other weapons don't so it makes SRMs look bad. This is 100% a perception that since other weapons are able to be pin point accurate, SRMs also need to be pin point accurate or do so much damage that they don't need to be pin point accurate.

[Team Leader]

I think this would be a good place to shamelessly plug the link in my sig. Please read, it addresses all the concerns. Put it in your sig too until the devs comment on it! HomelessBill really thought of everything. Convergence and instant alphas really are the problem. Not any particular weapon. This applies to everything.

[One Medic Army]

Hypothetical:
If the most powerful weapon is an accurate projectile type with instantaneous hit registration and no ammo requirements (combining highly concentrated damage and hitscan) then weapons should be buffed or nerfed based on how far they are from the ideal.

PPCs are pretty close to all of the above, the projectile speed is the fastest in the game, no ammo, same heat efficiency as a medium laser, instantaneous damage, accurate.

Lasers are hitscan and accurate, but they aren't instantaneous.
Large ballistics are accurate and instantaneous damage, but aren't hitscan and require ammo.
Small ballistics are accurate and approach hitscan due to increased projectile speed, but aren't instantaneous due to re-fire rate

Missiles are instantaneous, but aren't accurate (excepting guided which currently seek CT) and aren't hitscan (though guided missiles do not miss unless cover or range is involved). Additionally they require ammo and have a hardcap on range.

A dumbfire missile launcher of equivalent weight to a ballistic/laser weapon should have much higher damage and/or DPS potential to offset it's downsides.
A small ballistic of equivalent weight to a PPC should outperform it if aimed properly and if the target remains in the open.
A large ballistic of equivalent weight to a PPC should outperform it if the target is close enough that projectile velocity isn't a factor.
A laser of equivalent weight to a PPC should outperform it if the target can be hit for the full duration of the beam in the same location.

[Kunae]

Zyllos, on 13 July 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

This is where that line of thinking is incorrect.

SRMs are suppose to spread out their damage. It's just other weapons don't so it makes SRMs look bad. This is 100% a perception that since other weapons are able to be pin point accurate, SRMs also need to be pin point accurate or do so much damage that they don't need to be pin point accurate.

Canon:

LRMs: 1.0
SRMs: 2.0

This isn't a perception issue, this is a damage issue. The spread is too wide and too constant, on SRMs. To be a useful weapon their damage needs to be in-line with that.

[Victor Morson]

It's obvious they simply don't care that they've angered the entire player base. You guys just aren't seeing the genius!

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 July 2013 - 12:58 PM.

[xRaeder]

Mister Blastman, on 13 July 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

This. You see, we might mostly have problems with PPCs right now, but when Clan mechs come and the Clan Dual UAC 20 mechs come around... all sorts of pain is going to be felt because of how easy the game is due to near-instant pin-point convergence.

This is why we need a ranging mechanic where players have to manually cycle the range for all weapons not in fully articulated arms.

[Zyllos]

Kunae, on 13 July 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Canon:

LRMs: 1.0
SRMs: 2.0

This isn't a perception issue, this is a damage issue. The spread is too wide and too constant, on SRMs. To be a useful weapon their damage needs to be in-line with that.

Then why do you advocate for higher damage than 2.0 then?

[keith]

now u see if paul was smart, there would be a dynamic curve to ppc heat. ppc would get a + heat to simulate cannon values. having 3 would give u a bit extra, have 4 or more would be cannon values. do the same thing with er ppc. leave the lasers alone because they have enough down sides. thats if they want to go the herp a derp heat system. but ya know i don't think paul that smart so we got this dumb system, that kinda dumb so meh

[Corvus Antaka]

As PGI stated, and is obvious to many of us, the issue currently is there is very little risk compared tot he heavy reward for pinpointing a huge amount of damage to one location on a mech. This is the point of the boating penalties, to create risk/reward balance and encourage more diverse mech loadouts and gameplay.

[Orzorn]

I can easily point out two facts that show how deviation can cause issues:
In the TT, heat sinks did not give extra heat cap values. 30 was the heat cap (although I believe some supplements allowed 60 as the cap), no matter how many heat sinks you had. That means all mechs were equal in heat cap, just not in dissipation.

ERPPCs and PPCs had 15 and 10 heat, respectively. That means 2 ERPPCs would generate the heat cap, 3 PPCs would do the same. That's a FAR cry from the 6 PPC behemoths we currently have.

Boating is an issue in MWO because stacking heat sinks allows for both higher heat cap AND greater dissipation. You would be forced to chain fire much of the time if the heat cap was a fixed point.

[Khobai]

Every overpowered weapon in the last year proves that the problem is convergence. First it was lasers all hitting the same spot. Then it was streaks all hitting center torso. Then it was lrms all hitting center torso. Then it was AC/20s and PPCs all hitting the same spot.

[xCico]

Orzorn, on 13 July 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

ERPPCs and PPCs had 15 and 10 heat, respectively. That means 2 ERPPCs would generate the heat cap, 3 PPCs would do the same. That's a FAR cry from the 6 PPC behemoths we currently have.

I think this part would solve our problem for PPCs, with this and heat penalty we would be like,,Fire now those ppcs bitc*"

[Warge]

Jaguar Prime, on 13 July 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

I honestly like convergence the way it is. I'm also 99% sure it isn't going to change. If it was, it would have been done by now.

I am in awe of your faith in the developers.
But imagine other situation: devs know about problem but don't now how to solve it cause they don't have ideas and stubborn to accept outside (gamers) help. How about that?

[Jaguar Prime]

Warge, on 13 July 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I am in awe of your faith in the developers.
But imagine other situation: devs know about problem but don't now how to solve it cause they don't have ideas and stubborn to accept outside (gamers) help. How about that?

Huh????

[LockeJaw]

A real Heat cap coupled with real hardpoint limitations would go a long way to alleviate the "PPC" problem. And limit the cheese that comes in w/ the Clans.