195 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 14 August 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

Pretty sure they mentioned somewhere they were toying with the idea of slowing gauss rifles down but increasing the damage. So I would guess thats what desyncing means... probably like 5.0 cooldown and 18.75 damage or something like that.

I have to shout "cite". If that's really the direction they are going... Oh dear. Than they still haven't understood the reason snipers and alpha strike builds are so popular. The problem might actually get worse with this solution.

I mean, it should be a hint that changing the PPC rate of fire from 3 to 4 without any compensation didn't alter the PPC meta at all.

[FatBabyThompkins]

Dimento Graven, on 13 August 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

I don't think you accounted for potential CRIT rolls in your calcs, where anyone of those shots could result in a 2 or 12 location roll, resulting in a potential crit hit, or definite head shot... It's actually MORE DIFFICULT in MWO to get a headshot than in TT, and for good reason, but I think you see my point...

You're right, I didn't. The point I was trying to relay was the general case. An AC/20 with crit (a 1/36 chance mind) could wreck anyone's day. I was talking about general damage distribution. The CT has the highest chance to get hit (6/36 + 1/36 for crit roll as well), but even those conditions, the chance of you hitting it twice in the same round (with three weapons firing) is fairly low. To hit the head, with 1 of 3 shots has a 7.88% chance. The head of most mechs could probably take a PPC, maybe a Gauss, but not likely. An AC/20, not so much (which, if fired alone has a 2.8% chance to hit the head). That is one of the reasons the AC/20 is so feared as it could, with a lucky shot, one-shot you. But it was that: luck.

In MWO, if you could line it up properly, could very well hit 2 PPC/Gauss in the head. In TT, that has a 0.0021% chance of happening. Of course, not saying that it happens a lot in MWO...

[FatBabyThompkins]

3rdworld, on 13 August 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

The AC/20 also had a 2.78% chance to insta kill any and every mech.

If your are going to use TT, increase the AC/20 to 40 damage. Then we can talk about the OPness or not of the 2PPC Gauss.

And what bearing do hit tables have? This is an FPS. Hit % are determined by the players ability to make the shot.

Hit% yes, hit location no. Hit location was not brought over into MWO. Hit location was a major balancing mechanic of TT. It made taking those large damage weapons with high tonnage balanced in that you could only fire a couple in one round (you just couldn't take any more). They, usually, would not do damage to the same location, thus prolonging the life of the mech under fire. Next round when you fired again, the odds of hitting that same location again were small. It gives mechs with many weapon a chance as they could mass firepower an enemy and do damage all over with a bias towards CT. 73% of the time, those 6 ML were putting some damage into the CT. You also had a 14.5% chance of hitting the head at least once with 6 ML.

As to why the TT numbers have a bearing in this discussion? That's where they originate from with the hit location being one of the most important balancing mechanics for their design. When combined with tonnage, crit space, ammo, range, and heat, it made a careful balancing act where your large weapons had disadvantages in some areas to gain advantages in others. To gain that guaranteed large damage in one location, the AC/20, you had to accept heavy tonnage, crit space, low range, low ammo and accept that you were unlikely to hit the same location twice. To deal decent damage at range (Gauss), you had to accept heavy tonnage, crit space, low ammo, lower damage, minimum range, weapon crits as ammo explosions (offset with ammo not exploding), and accept you were unlikely to hit the same location twice. PPC are half as much damage, high heat, no ammo (but you could look to heat sinks as your ammo), long range, minimum range, low tonnage, and accept that you were unlikely to hit the same location twice, but as you're firing more, you were more likely than the AC/20 and Gauss. Sure you could bring two PPC, and fire them, heat permitting, but you were almost assured you were not going to put the 20 damage in the same component.

The reason armor was doubled was because mechs were dying too fast. Why? Because a skilled player could dump all of his weapons into one location repeatedly, which completely breaks any of the balancing that existed from TT (not saying TT was perfect, but there were trade offs for design). Doubling of armor still had little effect. We're talking about putting almost twice the amount of damage into one location (3x more when considering 6xPPC Stalkers) than the original concept was designed around and more than twice as fast (4 second recycle, allowing two shots in 8 seconds, or 5 shots in 20 seconds, for a total increase of 5/2 over TT 10 second turns). In this light, the AC/20, with MWO's capacity to put shots where ever you want, would still be the king if you couldn't ensure 2xPPC/Gauss would hit the same location, but the AC/20 would be balanced in that you were very limited in range.

I will call this out. Wanting 2xPPC/Gauss to continue to hit the same location is a power game. It was never intended to hit the same location with the damage and range it has. It becomes entirely too powerful when they can be stacked and aimed at the exact location you want to hit with little drawback. Now combine with missile spread and laser hitscan (which I believe were good ideas, but made those direct fire weapons even more powerful), you have a perfect storm of imbalance towards those powerful builds.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

The reason armor was doubled was because mechs were dying too fast. Why? Because a skilled player could dump all of his weapons into one location repeatedly, which completely breaks any of the balancing that existed from TT (not saying TT was perfect, but there were trade offs for design). Doubling of armor still had little effect. We're talking about putting almost twice the amount of damage into one location (3x more when considering 6xPPC Stalkers) than the original concept was designed around and more than twice as fast (4 second recycle, allowing two shots in 8 seconds, or 5 shots in 20 seconds, for a total increase of 5/2 over TT 10 second turns). In this light, the AC/20, with MWO's capacity to put shots where ever you want, would still be the king if you couldn't ensure 2xPPC/Gauss would hit the same location, but the AC/20 would be balanced in that you were very limited in range.

Though it doesn't really matter if mechs can die faster in the table top - that it might take x turns to kill a mech in TT on average doesn't mean that time would feel "right" in a real time game.

What matters is how this changes the overall dynamic of how damage is accumulated and spread out over a target. This changes a lot of stuff that is implicitely part of the weapon balance in the original game and where all the stats we kept using come from.

For example - if the original system assumes 50 % of your hits also hit the Center Torso, but your new system changes this value to 80 %, then it becomes much more important to fully armor your CT and less important to armor your legs or arms.

This is bascially what happens when you give players mouse aim.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 August 2013 - 05:35 AM.

[East Indy]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 August 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

If it's that, it might only be a nerf to brawlers, however, since a true alpha-sniper boat tends to spend time in cover between shots, and extending the time in cover by a second (if at all, because you don't necessarily wait only the time needed for a weapon to recycle in cover) will not be such a large impact.

Is there an echo in here? Yes, it would make sense that PGI would first try something that only slightly impacts sniping but greatly raises the skill floor for using PPC/Gauss as one-size-fits-all at any range. As noted above, that doesn't justify 9 pages of frothing-angry players insulting the developers.

[FatBabyThompkins]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 August 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

Though it doesn't really matter if mechs can die faster in the table top - that it might take x turns to kill a mech in TT on average doesn't mean that time would feel "right" in a real time game.

What matters is how this changes the overall dynamic of how damage is accumulated and spread out over a target. This changes a lot of stuff that is implicitely part of the weapon balance in the original game and where all the stats we kept using come from.

For example - if the original system assumes 50 % of your hits also hit the Center Torso, but your new system changes this value to 80 %, then it becomes much more important to fully armor your CT and less important to armor your legs or arms.

This is bascially what happens when you give players mouse aim.

I've made that point before, but didn't include it in that already lengthy response (I have a tendency for verbose arguments).

I say die faster because they were on the fun scale, not because of some "Mechs should live 30 seconds against an Atlas". Damage stayed the same, fire rates were more than doubled, and fire concentration combined for mechs living in a handful of seconds. When you have an expectation (look at the pitch video) and TT expectations of "life", and now you're being decimated in the master of mechs in mere seconds, you've got fun problems. Doubling armor values helped survive those large blasts, but made smaller weapons less effective, especially when most of those smaller weapons are scattering across the mech (hit scan lasers, missiles, and low damage/high ROF ballistics). It made mechs last longer against those high concentration hits, but also pushed those high concentration hitting weapons as more important to rapidly kill mechs. Theoretically, you'll last twice as long against those high concentration weapon blasts, but more than twice as long against the spread weapons (the longer an engagement occurs, the more variable the outcome, i.e. more maneuvering, more damage spread, more chance of cover and retreat, heat factors).

[Colby Boucher]

You know it's entirely possible that they just worded things strangely (has happened before, remember consumables) and they are just planning to slow PPCs down again or something... also, unless you want this to become turn based, it will never be tabletop. stop thinking that making this tabletop will fix things - faster deaths are inevitable unless you want to go back to pure TT values (including what would feel like horrendously slow recharge times for a real-time game).

Edited by Colby Boucher, 14 August 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[3rdworld]

FatBabyThompkins, on 14 August 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I've made that point before, but didn't include it in that already lengthy response (I have a tendency for verbose arguments).

I say die faster because they were on the fun scale, not because of some "Mechs should live 30 seconds against an Atlas". Damage stayed the same, fire rates were more than doubled, and fire concentration combined for mechs living in a handful of seconds. When you have an expectation (look at the pitch video) and TT expectations of "life", and now you're being decimated in the master of mechs in mere seconds, you've got fun problems. Doubling armor values helped survive those large blasts, but made smaller weapons less effective, especially when most of those smaller weapons are scattering across the mech (hit scan lasers, missiles, and low damage/high ROF ballistics). It made mechs last longer against those high concentration hits, but also pushed those high concentration hitting weapons as more important to rapidly kill mechs. Theoretically, you'll last twice as long against those high concentration weapon blasts, but more than twice as long against the spread weapons (the longer an engagement occurs, the more variable the outcome, i.e. more maneuvering, more damage spread, more chance of cover and retreat, heat factors).

If you are dying in an atlas in mere seconds, you have skill problems. Not game mechanic problems.

[FatBabyThompkins]

3rdworld, on 14 August 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

If you are dying in an atlas in mere seconds, you have skill problems. Not game mechanic problems.

Before the armor doubling...

Edit: Let's take your 35 pin-point alpha against TT Atlas.

Atlas has 31 internal structure, 47 front armor, 14 rear armor.

0s - 35 points, front armor at 25.5%.
4s - 35 points, front armor gone, internal at 25.8%
8s - dead

That is one mech with PPC/Gauss against a stock Atlas with TT armor. Two people firing would kill that Atlas in 4s.

Another example, 6ML Jenner.

0s - 30 points, rear armor gone, CT internal at 51.6%.
5s - 30 points, dead.

Edited by FatBabyThompkins, 14 August 2013 - 07:07 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

3rdworld, on 14 August 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

If you are dying in an atlas in mere seconds, you have skill problems. Not game mechanic problems.

Agreed, at this point in the game I really don't see anyone die in mere seconds who isn't doing something EXTREMELY stupid, or is EXTREMELY lucky (usually as a results of making a poor decision a little earlier).

Seriously, not even lights or mediums die in seconds unless they've made a stupid mistake.

Even, I, make those stupid mistakes with lapses in situational awareness, or when I'm pugging and decide it's time for me to go all 'Rambozo' on what 'appears' to be a solo target, pulling me away from the battle line, cover of buildings, and the easy assistance of drop mates.

Usually when someone 'dies in seconds', and it happens semi often, there's someone who just runs right from their spawn point DIRECTLY INTO the almost the entire opposing force and dies.

We call those 'sacrificial pugs.'

Since an Atlas (going from the most common example in this thread) can survive MULTIPLE 35+ point alphas from an enemy he's facing (unless head shot), the only way to "die in seconds" from one is if you've walked into the fire of 3 or more enemies. If enemies are coordinating fire well, good luck.

Yeah, you could nerf the game down to 20 point alphas, and still idiots who walk out into the open and stand there are going to die from coordinated fire.

However, if you're complaining that eventually after the 7th, 8th or 9th 35 point alpha you die, and you're counting that as 'dying in seconds'... Well, time for you to step back, take a sip of ****, and think about what you're complaining about.

The only 'mechs that have a REAL worry of 'dying in seconds' to ONE 'mech firing 35 point alphas are the slower, weaker medium builds (Centurian and Hunchies not dying, btw saw a Centurian up and functional and firing at 12% health yesterday), heavies and assaults have the armor to survive a few and lights have their size and speed to make them extremely difficult targets.

So really, only mediums have to worry about dying to a single opponent lobbing 35+ point alphas at them and dying in 'seconds'.

Most other 'mechs you're either walking into MULTIPLE opponents firing those at you, in which case sorry, you're not meant to survive that, OR, you're STUPIDLY standing out, NOT MOVING TO COVER, while a single opponent fires at you 4 or 5 or 6 times to get through your Atlas's side torso and take out your XL engine.

Which brings up another point, MAYBE you're in one of those 'mechs KNOWN to have a side torso issues, Jagermech and Cataphract, and you're still driving around with an XL, with a 'mech KNOWN to have weak side torsos well, you're asking for trouble. I've pulled the XL's from my Jagers just so I can survive a side torso coring, it's stupid NOT to.

(Edit: Thanks to 3rdworld for letting me know PPC's and gauss do not have splash damage, let's dispense with THAT idea...)... With the f'd up splash damage mechanic, it's absolutely stupid to put XL's in those, as it's not just 35+ points, it's 35+ points, PLUS, splash damage too...

Hey, actually, maybe THAT is what PGI should do... ELIMINATE SPLASH damage. There was none of this splash damage ********* mechanic in TT, why the F do we have it in MWO? I'm being serious here guys. Think about it, PGI has instituted splash damage for a lot of weapons, if it's active for gauss and PPC's, you might be taking extra damage.

Do gauss and PPC weapons have splash damage affects, I seem to recall they do, but I might be wrong on this...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 August 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[3rdworld]

Dimento Graven, on 14 August 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Do gauss and PPC weapons have splash damage affects, I seem to recall they do, but I might be wrong on this...

They do not.

[Dimento Graven]

3rdworld, on 14 August 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

They do not.

Ok bummer, just missiles then, thanks for the clarification. I'll go up and edit that post...

[3rdworld]

Dimento Graven, on 14 August 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Ok bummer, just missiles then, thanks for the clarification. I'll go up and edit that post...

From my understanding the ultimate goal for PGI is to implement PPC splash, but currently that is not technically possible in a way that doesn't just give PPCs bonus damage.

Edited by 3rdworld, 14 August 2013 - 07:25 AM.

[BlackWidow]

Mystere, on 13 August 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Can someone point a link to where PGI talked about this? Or is the OP talking about the heat scale?

They didn't. It's simply my suggestion. But many wonderful people here have posted that PGI has talked about weapon convergence issue in the past and it it something that simply cannot be addressed until Hitbox/HSR issue is resolved. So, apparently they originally intended to do this, but it's really problematic due to speed of mechs, multiple hit locations and specifically having it work while retaining server-side-only hit resolution.

As I have said before, I'm not a game programmer. So, with a naive eye, I look at Battlefield series and say....if they can do it..why not us?

Well, I have done some reading on HSR, hitboxes etc. There are some really great articles out there on the subject if you care to delve into game development.

The cursory conclusion I have come to is that MWO is really a completely different beast than both typical FPS as well as previous Mechwarrior titles.

Previous Mechwarrior titles were designed as single player games that "allowed" for multi-player. This means hit detection was done and shared client to client. This allows for hacks. MWO, being designed from the ground up as a persistent online PVP game cannot allow for that. It's not just like jumping in to a match with your friends. People we go to extreme lengths to get the upper hand if there are tangible rewards for winning such as gaining rank, money, planets and resources.

With respect to other FPS games there are many differences. Mechs, Weapons, hit boxes, armor and respawning.

Mechs - There are SO many chassis and variants to choose from. Each with different size, shape, hitboxes, speed and hardpoints. Thre are so many permutations that a 12 man team can field as to be mind boggling. With a Battlefield(BF) type games you have what? Maybe three or four types? Scout, Soldier, Heavy, Medic, Sniper? If that?

Weapons - One of the things about MWO is that you have MULTIPLE weapons; not selection, but equipped. In BF you can choose from a variety of weapons. Some vastly more advantageous than others. But, you can really only equip/fire one at a time. This is much easier to balance for than having upwards of what? 10+ weapons slots? And with the number of different weapons (and ranges!) you can mix and match with, the number of possible combinations is exponentially large. This is VERY difficult to balance.

Hitboxes - Until recently, FPS combat was simple. You shoot someone, they die. One shot, one kill. Didn't matter where you shot them. Head, arm, body. Granted, games are smarter. Lighter weapons may take two or three shots to take someone down. As well, a headshot is leathal, but arms, legs body may take a couple of shots depending on body armor or player type (heavy, scout, etc) But with mechwarrior, Mechs are moving much faster than humans are. It may seem like some of the FPS are faster, but that is due the the close quarter nature of those games. And it takes multiple shots to even penetrate a body section. Which brings us to ...

Armor - Yes BF players have body armor or various values. But, still, you are talking about the difference between 1 to 2 shots and 3 to 4 shots to take someone down. With a Mech, you have to beat on it...repeatedly....to breach armor and take out a critical system or take off both legs. And again, going back to the mech differences, you have to strike the right balance since not only are there extreme differences in chassis tonnage, but players can adjust the armor any where from ZERO to MAX. Again, the possible configurations are exponentially large. More difficult to balance as opposed to BF where (allowing for class selection) everyone is the SAME. You don't customize your human.

And lastly...
Respawning - Most FPS games allow for respawn as death is not the deciding factor but how many points / objectives you can acquire before the end of the round. This. Is. Huge.
Not only does respawn capability completely negate the effect of an ALPHA STRIKE (since your instant death is only temporary) but changes the way players behave. If Battlefield was one-death-and-done...people would play much more cautiously, would raise a stink about certain weapon and complain about impossible objectives. The only way around that would be to ...increase the number of hits it takes to kill a target. Which is what takes place in Mechwarrior.

So, again...this thread has been very thought provoking and I thank you all for that. This...all of this...would be a moot point if we didn't have to worry about hackable clients. I'm not up on the latest PUNKBUSTER type solutions, but one wonders if there might not be some compromises PGI could make towards this end and allow a bit more flexibility in the game code.

Anyhow.

Peace out.

[Dimento Graven]

3rdworld, on 14 August 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

From my understanding the ultimate goal for PGI is to implement PPC splash, but currently that is not technically possible in a way that doesn't just give PPCs bonus damage.

Not to side track the thread, but splash is a stupid idea. Missiles already, effectively, splash themselves by not being 'pin point' weapons, and pin-point weapons, ANYTHING NOT MISSLES (or MG's and flamers), actually IS a 'pin point' weapon, and therefore having splash is stupid.

There's a whole other 9 page thread we could have just on splash alone...

[BlackWidow]

MadcatX, on 13 August 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

An Urbanmech and an Atlas hiding behind cover:

Urbanmech: So why you behind this rock? Usually this is my hiding place until you're done

Atlas: I can't peak out.... they'll see me...

Urbanmech: But your the Atlas, king of the battlefield! Seriously, you have a skull in your head, a skull!

Atlas: That's all in the past my classy friend. Those were better times, where I could walk across a battlefield and the enemy would hit me various locations. But the enemy, they got smart. All long-range weapons now bud, and the ability to hit me square in the middle with every shot.

Urbanmech: Sorry to hear, bro. So if you're not walking out there doing your thing, who took your place?

Atlas: No one but the stupid walk out in battlefields now. We must all hide like you. Well... ok.. there's an exception....

** spider runs back behind cover **

Spider: just finished running around the battlefield a few times hit a couple of them with machine guns a few of the big ones chased me around thinking they could catch me but the fools couldn't even hit me because i'm so awesome but anyways gotta go annoy them some more i'll see you around bye!!!1!

Urbanmech Wait, he can run around all he wants in the open and.. but... what?

Atlas: I don't want to talk about it

Urbanmech: Take it from me, if you can't be a super, at least keep it classy. Here, wear one of these top hats, it'll make you feel better.


Obvious dramatization, but does portray how our own views of mechs in the BT universe need to change based on MW:o gameplay. Although Atlas's do have the nickname "king of the battlefield" and as much as the term "Atlas using cover" seems counter-intuitive, that's the way this game is played.

Tears....to the eyes.....so funny. Well, played.

[BlackWidow]

Shakespeare, on 13 August 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

This is the worst overreaction I've yet seen in the forums. He used ONE WORD to describe a theoretical fix, and the loudest among us have immediately constructed detailed theories about how awful it's going to be.

"desyncing" could mean anything. The most reasonable assumption is that they'd like to adjust projectile speed or recycle rate such that you can't just group the two weapon systems together and expect them to hit the same spot.

But no, instead we get wild shrieking about how incompetent they are. Why would a dev EVER read the forums with this drivel.

Well, someone needs to because obviously you can't read. I don't know what de-syncing will entail. No one does yet. And I don't care. My point was, no matter what it is, this is just another bandaid to cover up severely broken underlying issues. And I never said, claim, think they are incompetent so do not put words in my mouth.

I was simply frustrated at my lack of understanding why they keep heading in one direction and not the other. Again, read my past posts and you will see I have been one of the most staunch defenders of PGI, this game and their vision.

But, unlike your worthless input, many many great posters have pointed out my blind spot. PGI *is* aware of the convergence issue, have addressed it (albeit briefly and long ago) and have simply said they cannot tackle that pig at this point in the game and as a result, these crazy fixes are in place to help provide balance in the meantime.

I have been enlightened and understand now. I could just retract my statements and delete my posts, but there is a lot of good discussion going on right now. So, try to add to that or troll another thread please.

[Dimento Graven]

BlackWidow, on 14 August 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

...I never said, claim, think they are incompetent...

Yeah, that was probably me, lots of what I have said could be easily interpreted as, at the very least, implying it.

But of course I've been here since closed beta and have seen A LOT of stupid ****, so y'know...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 August 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[BlackWidow]

Shakespeare, on 13 August 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

He offered no theories, all he did was use a word that is being completely twisted to mean an entire new subsystem is in the works just to screw with PPC/Gauss snipers. .

Again, no. I don't even care about de-syncing or not. It doesn't matter what it is....it's a bandaid for the symptoms and not a cure for the problem. Stop raging over my perceived rage.

it's another topic altogether, but I don't even have a problem with PPC snipers. Well, not personally. My tactics are not subject to their cheese. I simply hated what they did to game play by changing it from Mechwarrior to WussyWarrior where all everyone did was hide. Booooooring.

Peace out.

Khobai, on 13 August 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

The hit tables have bearing because were using armor values from TT. Those values are based on certain locations only getting hit a certain % of the time. They were never meant to handle precise aiming or convergence. And even doubling those values has proven ineffectual.

Thank you for crystallizing my thoughts simply and eloquently. Someone I fail to do often.

Technoviking, on 13 August 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Mechwarrior 4 end game was PPC and Gauss. 2 shot kills were very possible. Highlanders and Daishis could own swaths of enemies. Strong players could make things happen with LBX-10s and 20s. But most other weapons were for fun, and boating was the name of the game. 7 cERLarge Nova Cat. This is why many league games were with respawn, so that long term tactics could get played out even with dozens of kills and deaths.

Mechwarrior 2 was LRMs.

Long range is king in this game.

I loved Mechwarrior 4. This game is better than it.

Great post!

[3rdworld]

Dimento Graven, on 14 August 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Not to side track the thread, but splash is a stupid idea. Missiles already, effectively, splash themselves by not being 'pin point' weapons, and pin-point weapons, ANYTHING NOT MISSLES (or MG's and flamers), actually IS a 'pin point' weapon, and therefore having splash is stupid.

There's a whole other 9 page thread we could have just on splash alone...

Missile splash isn't the same as what they are planning for PPCs. right now the a SRM does 2 damage to the location it hit, and up to .4 damage to adjacent locations based on proximity. The splash is a bonus to the regular damage.

With PPCs, they are wanting to do something like 7/3. Where 7 damage would hit pinpoint, and 3 would be spread over a area, (which some of which would still be to the same location).

I don't know that it is the worst idea I have ever heard. I would probably support it more than any form of artificial "missing" added into the game. Hit registration is frustrating enough for me thank you.