172 replies to this topic

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

weekend warrior game programers telling real game programers how to do their jobs is unbalanced!

[Karl Streiger]

Tombstoner, on 20 August 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

The correct way to balance the interactions between size, speed and armor protection is to build a gunnery range.
yes a gunnery range.

Well now with testing ground we have a gunnery range - while targets are not moving - there is still an equation - between TT and MWO

An not moving (imobile) target in TT got a modifer of -4 - you can make aimed shot vs the head with a +3 instead - or other aimed shots with ~50% chance to hit the targeted area.

So you can create a model or formula - that gives you necessary data - considering that you are standing still - walking, runing or jumping.

Well i will place it and show you the results


Have some - but I'm not so sure about.
When transfering the PPC from MWO to TT - i have to remove range brackets, and the ability of a targeting computer and increase the damage up to 25 damage on shot.

With doubled armor values and all combinations of gunnery, self movement and target movement it takes
17 to 23 shot to kill a Atlas (not hits)
It takes 8 to 80 shots to kill a Jenner

Just to keep the values of TT in mind (without targeting computer - and a equal given number of shots at any range - 500 at short, 300 at medium and 200 at long)
it takes 60 shots to kill an Atlas and 180 to kill a Jenner

Same TT values with including of a targeting computer it could help under optimal circumstances but on the average the number of shots is doubled

Edited by Karl Streiger, 21 August 2013 - 02:50 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 20 August 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

weekend warrior game programers telling real game programers how to do their jobs is unbalanced!

Unbalanced in what way?

[Elyam]

Natanael Cormac, on 13 August 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

The original intention of doubling armor values was very simple, and very direct:

Account for the translation to Real Time vs Turn Based.

Op, that statement is only slightly accurate. The most significant underlying cause of the decision to increase armor was the decision to remove the diminished technology layer from Battletech - which in particular takes effect in MWO as 100% reliability of reticle targeting. BT was balanced for the reality that weapons can't be relied upon to hit where the gunner aims due to this universe's inherent diminished technology base. Not so in MWO, where any direct-fire weapon hits precisely where the reticle is placed, and thus multiple weapons can drill into a pinpoint instantly, vastly decreasing survivability per point of armor. The ability to shoot more often in MWO is minor compared to the ability to reliably deliver damage many multiples of times stronger than what takes place in the TT game into a single point on a mech in MWO.

There is no more critical decision underlying MWO - whether for good or for ill in differing people's opinions (I say for grave ill) - than the one to cast off BT's diminished tech layer. Return it, and the need for double armor goes away. The fact of increased fire rates in MWO might still justify a 10 or 15% armor increase. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

That said, I don't think present MWO is running poorly when it comes to fire vs defense. It isn't reflecting BT the way it really should, and the loss of the layer described above is quite noticeable to anyone who has been dedicated to the original game for decades. But overall play still feels close enough. It's still closer to BT than any prior or competitive iteration. And it gets around the complaints of some FPS fans who are loudly and rabidly against any mention of the 'R' word (despite its proper place both in RL and especially in BT). So, of all the things I want to argue about these days in MWO, this is fading fast as one of them. The big meta is far more important. PGI's ability to give us a great merc and house mission, objective, and reward system that well reflects the experience of being a mechwarrior in the Inner Sphere is so much more prominent of a concern.

Edited by Elyam, 21 August 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Elyam, on 21 August 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

The big meta is far more important. PGI's ability to give us a great merc and house mission, objective, and reward system that well reflects the experience of being a mechwarrior in the Inner Sphere is so much more prominent of a concern.

I tip my hat sir. I loose sight of that fact. We are well passed the point of no return for discussing basic game mechanics. unfortunately we have almost nothing to discuss regarding the rest and launch is 4 weeks out. i dont think we are going to get more then a week of beta testing. like that matters..... you will like what we give you.....

[Pht]

Natanael Cormac, on 13 August 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

The original intention of doubling armor values was very simple, and very direct:

Account for the translation to Real Time vs Turn Based.

In the Real Time game online, you can fire faster than in the abstracted Turn Based game, not to mention the goal of longer battles than in tabletop (20 entire turns in a TT game would translate into about 3 minutes worth of MWO time... but the game is set for up to 5 times that long).

This view may be common - but it's actually not right.

It's not the conversion that caused this problem. It's the lack of conversion that did.

Initially they used the armor and weapons values from the TT. They did NOT use the two combat mechanics that those numbers were designed for - they instead used the FPS/Shooter combat mechanic.

This lead to the direct result of FAR more damage hitting any single armor panel than said armor values were ever designed for, so everyone was dying FAST. The devs saw this, and decided to double the armor and internal structure numbers.

Quote

The problem with this is the unbalancing of mechs by weight. The lighter your mech is... the less armor it has. This makes sense and is in line with TT. The problem is... by simply doubling the armor values you EXACERBATE the balance of health points.

It doesn't just mess with the light mechs, it messes with them all... it's just more obvious with the light mechs. It also messed up the weapons balance, especially the lower-damaging weapons. There was a rate of fire tweak after the double armor tweak, and there have been tweaks ever since, giving rise to the "flavor of the patch" builds.

The devs, have, in fact, admitted that they're tweaking these values, every patch, instead of following a concrete and systematic standard:

Bryan Ekman said:

stjobe: Every ballistic weapon has had about a 50% increase in damage per ton of ammo, except for the MG, which got an 80% decrease in damage per ton of ammo. What was the reasoning behind treating the Machine Gun differently from all other weapons in the conversion from BattleTech to MWO?

A: We don’t have a standard conversion rule of thumb. We ***** each weapon, how it’s being used, what the desired role we want for MWO, and tune it accordingly. With each new `Mech we add, or new feature, we have to reevaluate the performance of every weapon.

http://mwomercs.com/...evs-34-answers/

Quote

One possible solution would be to use the Atlas as a model and apply a straightforward bump to all armor values based on the atlas. So the Atlas would keep it's armor value at around 614, while the Commando would get bumped up to about 368.

Most of the "fixes" have been fixes for the symptoms caused by not converting the combat mechanics over that the initial a/d values were made for. There should really be a fix for the cause.

The devs seem to have thought that the combat mechanics from the TT represented "randomness" (murphy's law factors) and human/pilot skill only - for whatever reason they didn't believe that those mechanics could have simulated the battlemech's part in the overall aiming equation. We have since directly learned from the IP holders and authors of the BT lore that these combat mechanics are not simply representative of randomness and pilot skill - almost all, if not the overwhelming majority of what the mechanics represent, describe the battlemech's part in the aiming.

Specifically on the topic of the basic cause of these symptoms: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

[Elyam]

Pht, on 21 August 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

...almost all, if not the overwhelming majority of what the mechanics represent, describe the battlemech's part in the aiming.

Indeed. And as I alluded above, the mech systems' limited capabilities due largely to the diminished tech of the age. BT reality. Gets into the craw of some players who demand absolute purity of direct-fire aiming result (reference Pht's linked post and the clear opinions of some participants), but it's an indelible component of the universe, and a good one.

Edited by Elyam, 21 August 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[Saint Rigid]

I can agree that the difference in targeting has caused some balance issues.

But, that having been said, I'm not sure that I am comfortable with the direction that ultimately leads to... I feel that expressed to it's fullest the idea breeds a version of MWO completely devoid of aiming. It would be a series of lock ons and random limb targeting (sidenote: I think CoF is an inferior technique to attempt to accomplish this). Now, to be entirely honest... it might not be that bad. I would be wiling to give it a shot, though I worry the Forums would literally catch fire lol

The problem being, this is a RADICAL change. Radical changes are not always bad, and can sometimes be a saving grace. But until some feedback from devs has been given, or hints get dropped, I would rather attempt to work "within the system" as much as possible.

We shall see, noble mechwarrios... we... shall... see.

-Cormac

[Suberoa Zinnerman]

The random hit locations in tabletop Battletech are pretty clearly game mechanics and ones that are poorly supported by anything approaching logic or reality
You can have situations where you're firing lasers at a slow-moving mech five hundred meters away and spray damage all over their body - and then fire the same lasers at the same target fifty meters away and spray damage all over their body too. Your weapons have one-tenth the precision when you're firing at the up-close target. For no plausible reason.
To put it a different way, a weapon array that's going to spray its shots all over a 15 meter Atlas at 500 meters should all hit within a 1.5 meter zone against the same (or any other!) mech at 50 meters. BTech tabletop weapons have the inexplicable ability of getting more precise the greater the range. Furthermore, a pilot's ability to aim has no actual effect on this scattering. The weapon hits, then it scatters around.
It works as a rules abstraction for tabletop, but in terms of a first person game where you're actually aiming the guns by hand (as opposed to relying on dice and a hit table) it would feel entirely arbitrary and nonsensical.

Personally my opinions are that mech/armor design should move a little bit further away from tabletop to better represent the 'feel' of battlemech combat in a game where target size matters (in tabletop, a Commando moving at 50 km/h was exactly as easy to hit at 500 meters as an Atlas going 50 km/h - needless to say this isn't how it works in MWO) and weapons don't spray all over the target inexplicably and arbitrarily.

[Tesunie]

I don't think we need to have "target a mech, shoot, have damage spread like everything is an SSRM" kind of set up. What I think could work while working within the system that is currently here is to just slow down convergence a bit. Do gradual changes making it slower (spreads damage slightly) until it hits a desirable "damage spread/Skill" into the game.

Instead of just line up a shot and pull the trigger, you would have to line up the shot, hold for a moment, and then pull the trigger to get most effect. Snap shots would result in unpredictable weapon alignment, meaning some weapons will hit, others might not. This would make lights hardest to hit, but lights would also have the hardest time hitting in return. Slower mechs would have an easier time aiming and holding till proper convergence, but would also be able to have weapons converge easier onto them. I feel this would bring things to the Light > Assault > Heavy > Medium > Light as assaults would have a hard time taking on fast mechs (they move so fast) and mediums could hunt them down easier (they can keep up and have more armor/weapons than a light). Especially with the new increases to their twist and arm movement speeds.

Of course, even as I bring this possible suggestion to thought, I realize a lot of people would post angry on the forums about such a change, as they "aren't hitting what they are aiming at". Instead of even giving it a try, a lot of people would threaten to sue, demand changes, and demand all money they spent on the game back... oh. Wait. We already have that going on, don't we? (With 3PV, which can help an individual player, but hurt team play overall.)

Any suggestion we bring up would honestly be met with hostility and forum rage if it was ever implemented into the game, weather it was good for the game or not.

[Pht]

Elyam, on 21 August 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Indeed. And as I alluded above, the mech systems' limited capabilities due largely to the diminished tech of the age.

This has been the commonly quoted justification, but it's actually not correct.

Even with the most advanced tech in the BTU; and there's more advanced stuff now than there ever was, mechs in the lore are STILL not capable of repeatedly and easily getting perfect convergence for multiple weapons - in fact, perfect convergence for mechs in the BT setting is extremely rare. This is just the way it is in the setting - and this isn't bad, because this factor allows the armor values to be relatively "low" compared to concentrated fire combat mechanics. You get just as much damage output as the focused fire games, but without slaving your game to mouse controlling skills and lead calculation skills.

I believe people think this way because they first, make the mistake of thinking that BT is meant to be "our future" fictional reality - it isn't.

Second because they don't realize the extreme problems that arise for our real-life weapons systems (not even to mention the added complexity of them in armored combat unit) in trying to get multiples of them to hit the exact same spot (or even a relatively small spot) - even on a stationary target with the weapons hard-mounted to a stable bench. This is obscenely hard with a singular weapon - darn near impossible with multiples.

Quote

... it's an indelible component of the universe, and a good one.

It's THE factor that allows for something besides insta-death "giant head" style gameplay.

[Pht]

Suberoa Zinnerman, on 24 August 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

The random hit locations in tabletop Battletech are pretty clearly game mechanics and ones that are poorly supported by anything approaching logic or reality

----

You can have situations where you're firing lasers at a slow-moving mech five hundred meters away and spray damage all over their body -

----

and then fire the same lasers at the same target fifty meters away and spray damage all over their body too.

----


Your weapons have one-tenth the precision when you're firing at the up-close target. For no plausible reason.

At least you've bothered to give some things as examples. In my experience, most people don't.

----

Let's try and actually use the combat mechanics and their associated rules here...

"slow moving" is a bit ambiguous, as a "slow" walk for a jenner is different than a "slow" walk for an annihilator.

Lets use... 5mp (54 KPH/33.5 MPH) - most assaults can do 5, in a pinch; they're generally thought of as "slow" in the setting (characters in the novels refer to assaults as being "slow").

This adds two (2) to the total number you have to roll equal to or higher than on two D6

+2 so far...

500 meters - that's roughly 17 hexes (30meters per hex).

I'll pick an IS er large laser; it's battlefied rated LONG range is 19 hexes. That adds four (4) to the total number you have to roll equal to or higher than on 2D6. Yes, I'm biasing against myself a bit here - "long" range is not the ideal for any weapon. It just means the weapon can work at that range. "medium" is usually optimal.

+6 total, for a 72.22% hit rate, or 13 of 18 shots hit; this is because you're operating at long range for the weapon.

If you went for medium range, you'd have a total of +4, or 91.67% / 11 of 12 hitting.


"spray damage all over"

No, it doesn't "spray all over" - if you aim for center of mass, it bell curves heavily to the center of mass. If you aim for, say, his knees or feet, you actually CAN'T hit his cockpit or upper body parts.

So much for that example (unless you want to more closely specify your factors, than I'll happily work them out).

----

For fifty meters away - Let's say two hex for this, that's 60 meters.

+2 for target movement;

let's instead, bias against myself again, and use a lowly IS small laser, Medium range is 2 hexes (almost NO lasers have a smaller rated range envelope) - that's +2

Total of +4 - over a 90% hit rate. If I had used the IS er large laser again, it would instead be +2 total, or 100% hit rate.

Again, it doesn't spread all over. It bell curves under the reticule; in relation to the conditions of the shot. There is nothing "nonsensical" about it.

Quote

To put it a different way, a weapon array that's going to spray its shots all over a 15 meter Atlas at 500 meters should all hit within a 1.5 meter zone against the same (or any other!) mech at 50 meters. BTech tabletop weapons have the inexplicable ability of getting more precise the greater the range.

Proven false by the above examples. The only weapons that lose accuracy at short range are those with minimum ranges, like vanilla PPCs which are unfocused at under 3 hexes, and a select few other weapons; all of which operate very WELL at long range.

Quote

Furthermore, a pilot's ability to aim has no actual effect on this scattering. The weapon hits, then it scatters around.

Not true.

Reference the called-shot hit tables, which represent a mix of pilot gunnery skill and 'mech aiming capability; and the RPG (a time of war) gunnery skills.

Also reference the FACT that human(pilot) skill and choices determine which hit-location table is used - you can significantly narrow your field of fire.

Quote

It works as a rules abstraction for tabletop, but in terms of a first person game where you're actually aiming the guns by hand (as opposed to relying on dice and a hit table) it would feel entirely arbitrary and nonsensical.

What's demonstrably pure nonsense and arbitrary is the current aiming setup.

Think about what you've just posted - "you're actually aiming the guns by hand" - you're not actually physically aiming (aligning) the weapons.

THE MECH IS.

Edited by Pht, 25 August 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Pht I am afraid your wasting your time. People insist that if they can put a mouse cursor over a point that is where there shot(s\) should hit due to their "skill". Personally I'll believe it when someone posts a video of them firing 4 rilfes simultaneously at a moving target at 500m, as everyone is so interested in RL comparisons.

[Pht]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 25 August 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Pht I am afraid your wasting your time.

I don't think it's possible to make someone else believe something - I do think that it's impossible for someone to believe in a concept they've never heard of.

There's actually been some progress - people used to be so rude and childish on this topic that they would get almost any thread on the topic instantly closed.

People are at least willing now to post their positions; and there's been some genuine progress on this front - people who otherwise hate the idea of using the TT combat mechanic at least realize that there's something wrong with having perfect/instant convergence for all direct-fire weapons of like velocity fired at the same time.

This was not so a little while back.

Quote

People insist that if they can put a mouse cursor over a point that is where there shot(s\) should hit due to their "skill".

I believe this is so because we've had 24 years worth of (so called) mechwarrior gaming in which the battlemech's part of the aiming equation has been utterly left out.

[Pinselborste]

Problem is that PGI wants to use TT stats in a game that works totally different.

convergence worked fine in MWLL, but that was cause they didnt use TT stats and also had armor Distribution changed depending on how big a Location was, rear Torso was also only one Location and things like the launchers on the madcat where seperate hitboxes.

TT stats where made to work with dice rolls and turn based combat, not with People aiming themselves in a realtime game.But since PGI cant accept that we will just get more stuff like the boating Penalty and soon weapon Charge up, while the way to solve it would be to rebalance all the armor, the way heat works and weapons based on the mechanics of mwo.

[Pht]

Pinselborste, on 25 August 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Problem is that PGI wants to use TT stats in a game that works totally different.

Yep.

Quote

convergence worked fine in MWLL, but that was cause they didnt use TT stats and also had armor Distribution changed depending on how big a Location was, rear Torso was also only one Location and things like the launchers on the madcat where seperate hitboxes.

Never got to play MWLL...

Quote

TT stats where made to work with dice rolls and turn based combat, not with People aiming themselves in a realtime game.

What I suspect you don't realize is that most if not virtually all with a few exceptions of the TT combat mechanics/rules represent the battlemech's part of the aiming chores; because they represent these things, they should have been ported over in some way or another; all the while leaving out those things that actually DO represent the fictional mechwarrior's gunnery skill (namely, the gunnery skill roll).

Quote

But since PGI cant accept that we will just get more stuff like the boating Penalty and soon weapon Charge up, while the way to solve it would be to rebalance all the armor, the way heat works and weapons based on the mechanics of mwo.

PGI specifically have stated that the TT combat mechanics have no place in an MW video game, because they (wrongly) think those mechanics represent "randomness" (murphy's law in action) and "player skill."

They've used the TT armor and weapons equipment numbers. Not the combat mechanics those numbers work in.

[Pinselborste]

since TT game mechanics dont have a place in a real time game, how it Comes they think that TT stats can be used with something that has different mechanics.

to me it seems like they just tried lazymode and now dont want to admit that it was a bad idea.

[Coolant]

lights don't take damage...they have the equivalent of 10x the armor of an atlas

[Thomas Dziegielewski]

Feels like internal HP should be doubled instead. Then more gameplay would emerge from having modules disabled/destroyed when internals are crit.

[Goose]

What is the crit mechanic in here, anyways? It's not TT, that's for shure …