74 replies to this topic

[aniviron]

General Taskeen, on 12 September 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

I would like to add to this as well. An IS XL engine is meant to be major risk, unlike Clan XL or IS LFE. Of course, PGI could have simply programmed an XL "crit hit" in torso to lock the torso in place or slow the mech by 50% or whatever for real-time purposes, but they chose the "death" programming.

It is definitely obvious which Mechs are more at risk of XL and which are not. Jenners, for instance, are only power houses due to the incredibly huge XL's they fit and the tiny as heck Side Torso's. Using a smaller standard engine is guaranteed suicide, not because of the slow speed, but because of that easy to hit CT, even when twisting. Going fast and equipping an XL is the only way to mitigate that. I think that's pretty silly from a hitbox balancing perspective. Conversely, a Commando is actually very decent with a standard engine (going slow 97.2) and when I play it, it can easily end up a little walking zombie with damage spread everywhere, where as XL is actually a risk on a Commando.

Its understandable that some Mechs are going to have weirder hitboxes due to their odd-shapes, but those types of Mechs can also be carefully crafted regarding the hitboxes.

They did say they would look at some hitboxes, but I really think from now on more care needs to be taken when designing the CT area of any Mech introduced. That's all that we ask. Its just more work later anyways - the most recent example, the Kintaro, which took a month before fixed.

I actually think the Jenner would be even better with slightly larger side torsi, contrary to what you say. On the Raven, for example, you can stuff in an equally large XL engine, and the fact that the side torsi are vulnerable (but not too vulnerable) makes the mech significantly better, disregarding the Raven's stupid leg hitboxes. It means instead of 100% of the damage going to the CT, it gets spread at about 25-50-25 for left center right, which in turn means that while you can die to a blown out side torso, it's rare, and it also takes much longer to actually destroy the center because of the damage spread.

Think about if every mech had Centurion-style hitboxes. Seems broken at first blush, but it's only a disproportionate advantage when just one mech has it. While the Cent's CT is small, it's not so small that good pilots can't still core it. But it is for sure small enough that just splashing damage across the chest won't guarantee that most of the damage hits where you need it, in the center. If everything were laid out the same way as the cent, that would solve all the complaints about convergence and the speed at which engagements end simultaneously; convergence is only a problem because right now it's so easy to land all your damage on an important area like the CT so easily.

One of the main complaints I hear underpinning the whole game right now is that it just doesn't feel like Battletech or the older mechwarrior games where arms fall off, side torsi get blown out, critical hits take place and every mech takes a massive beating before finally going down. You know what would solve that problem without requiring that the weapons be turned into nerf guns and super soakers? Centurion hitboxes for all mechs. Your AC20 still hits just as hard, PPCs are still devastating, but instead of instantly coring and killing mechs, you're more likely to take off parts first. Hitboxes are so so so so so important- the Awesome and Stalker are only five tons apart and both carry nothing but missiles and energy, but the Stalker has arguably the best hitboxes in the game, and the Awesome has arguably the worst. And you know what? Even though the mechs are almost the same when you exclude hitboxes, the Stalker is considered to be one of the best mechs in the game, and the Awesome the worst.


tl;dr Refactoring all the hitboxes to make shoulders count as the arm, making the side torsi a little broader and the ct a little narrower as well as returning the pelvis to count as the legs would probably fix most of what ails this game.

[Tombstoner]

Zyllos, on 12 September 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

I don't think it matters how you modify the hitboxes/damage/ect.

The culprit is that we are using an armor system that was built around the idea that weapon damage is applied randomly in a game where weapon damage is applied where the player wants it.

Basically, if you modified Classic Battletech to allow players to choose where weapons fire would go, most would either choose the CT or L/R Torso and just ignore the Arms/Legs most of the time.

This is what I hope PGI will see that this game will absolutely need a definitive fix for the pin point accuracy.

PGI did absolutely nothing to correct for random hit locations in porting to skill based targeting. clear proof in my mind that they dont have a clue what they are doing at the design level. a simple fix is converting the hit probability into an armor cofactor. that way the ct is buffed, then the torsos, then legs and arms. all based on TT hit location probabilities... it so simple.

What we got was 2x armor. This doesn't even take into account the interaction effects art has on mech size and speed on protection.

Cut and paste game development and wack a mole game balance in 3PV.

I have a great deal of respect for the people at PGI.... everyone except the design team.

[kombatunit]

I'm not sure what changed very recently but I'm getting CT shot out in literally seconds now. My jenner is going 130 kph, 99% dmg all CT.

Then you have tools like: http://mwo-builds.ne...cro-guide/1065/ so players can circumvent game mechanics.

[Zyllos]

Tombstoner, on 13 September 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

PGI did absolutely nothing to correct for random hit locations in porting to skill based targeting. clear proof in my mind that they dont have a clue what they are doing at the design level. a simple fix is converting the hit probability into an armor cofactor. that way the ct is buffed, then the torsos, then legs and arms. all based on TT hit location probabilities... it so simple.

What we got was 2x armor. This doesn't even take into account the interaction effects art has on mech size and speed on protection.

Cut and paste game development and wack a mole game balance in 3PV.

I have a great deal of respect for the people at PGI.... everyone except the design team.

That is a perfectly valid observation.

Like you said, you would expect the Hunchback to actually have more Right Torso internal structure than the Center Torso due to just physical size.

But, the main thing I was getting at is that if you balanced the TT armor system around the fact that players can aim, you are still left with the problem that some builds will still be able to place 20 or 30 points of damage into a single hit.

If PGI ever produces the Annihilator in the future, there is a chance of applying 60 points of damage onto a single location when fired. That is the problem we are facing right now. It's better to equip many weapons that have the same firing properties so that when fired together, they all hit the same location. If your not hitting that spot that has been opened, most dangerous, or vulnerable, then your not technically doing anything to take out your target.

Honestly, I think having a system that moves away from the ridged set points for each location and move into a logical armor system based on physical properties would be good step in the right direction for balancing this game.

Edited by Zyllos, 13 September 2013 - 07:06 PM.

[TB Freelancer]

PEEFsmash, on 12 September 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

But right now the better player can win EVERY time. Why would we want bad players to randomly win on occasion when we can have skill determine the outcome at a higher rate without CoF?

Well....because most of the guys pushing for these hair brained schemes are forumwarriors who need a little random to help them on the servers. There's a difference between talking the talk here in the forums and walking the walk on the servers....

[Brilig]

While COF is not my first choice, I'm having trouble understanding how people think its implementation would completely Nerf skill. Every other FPS I play has a COF, and or a recoil mechanic. In all of them skilled players still dominate new, or low skill players. If a COF mechanic will help erase the high damage alpha issues we have why are some people so against it?

[Carrioncrows]

I've always said it, but the Center Torso should be Equal or Smaller than the side torso's or else it's just a bad design.

[YueFei]

PEEFsmash, on 12 September 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

If you want dicerolls go to Vegas. Bad players should not stand a chance against players who are better than them. They should stand a chance against players of their own skill level. A perfect game would have the more skilled player winning 100% of the time. That isn't always possible due to incomplete information, and randomness of scouting direction, etc. However, in full-information games, any randomness should be eliminated from gameplay mechanics so that skill will triumph in as many cases as possible, and nothing to lower the frequency of those cases should be tolerated.

Dumbing down the game and making bads sometimes win important fights due to diceroll mechanics is what you want?! Really?

I've experienced dice rolls screwing me over in other games before. So I firmly believe in having players be in control of their mechs and in control of their shots. I also don't want any COF.

That said, I would like to see TTK increased. That will only widen the skill gap, since a more skilled player can more consistently land his shots with higher percentage of accuracy. When only 2 or 3 shots can potentially kill someone, it makes luck a bigger factor. Increase the number of salvos needed to kill a mech and it becomes impossible for someone to just get lucky with a couple shots and punch someone out.

Personally I like Koniving's suggestion to lower the heat cap, and raise the dissipation rate (DHS become true doubles). The rate of fire would actually increase, but the burst damage potential would go way down. So if you just sat still like a moron you'd die even faster than you do now, but if you're on the move and/or only exposed for brief windows of time, you take less damage. Light mechs wouldn't get gibbed by a crack shot.

[Khobai]

Quote

But right now the better player can win EVERY time. Why would we want bad players to randomly win on occasion when we can have skill determine the outcome at a higher rate without CoF?

This game was never meant to be competitive. Its a casual game and always has been. As such, it needs to incorporate mechanics that allow inexperienced players to kill experienced players, rather than being brutalized by them game after game. Catering to your elitest attitude is not the direction to go with this game to achieve maximum success.

One of the major reasons MWLL never caught on was because of team stacking. Veteran players would all stack on one team just because they liked to win constantly. All that accomplished was to ensure that inexperienced players quit the game and the game population diminished as a result. Inexperienced players had absolutely no chance against experienced players because there were no game mechanics in place that allowed inexperienced players to "sometimes win".

To avoid the pitfalls of MWLL, its mandatory to include some mechanics that allow inexperienced players to "get lucky" and kill experienced players at least some of the time. Otherwise inexperienced players will just feel like they cant do anything, which will only result in them quitting. All those MOBA games have this concept down masterfully with easy-to-use starter heros that are very powerful even in the hands of an inexperienced player.

Also im not sure why youre so against randomness. Just because a game has random elements doesnt mean it doesnt require skill. For example, Poker is a game thats extremely random but requires a tremendous amount of skill to be good at. In fact you could argue that the randomness in poker is what facilitates it having a high skill cap. Im not advocating adding randomness to the game, just pointing out that it can be done in a way that doesnt diminish the skill required.

Edited by Khobai, 14 September 2013 - 03:59 AM.

[HRR Insanity]

Zyllos, on 13 September 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

That is a perfectly valid observation.

Like you said, you would expect the Hunchback to actually have more Right Torso internal structure than the Center Torso due to just physical size.

But, the main thing I was getting at is that if you balanced the TT armor system around the fact that players can aim, you are still left with the problem that some builds will still be able to place 20 or 30 points of damage into a single hit.

If PGI ever produces the Annihilator in the future, there is a chance of applying 60 points of damage onto a single location when fired. That is the problem we are facing right now. It's better to equip many weapons that have the same firing properties so that when fired together, they all hit the same location. If your not hitting that spot that has been opened, most dangerous, or vulnerable, then your not technically doing anything to take out your target.

Honestly, I think having a system that moves away from the ridged set points for each location and move into a logical armor system based on physical properties would be good step in the right direction for balancing this game.

Just add a fix to avoid pinpoint convergence. Then the armor model works fine and you can balance weapons individually.

PGI has been avoiding this issue for 2 years.

PS: I think people should be able to shoot/aim single weapons (see above link for explanation) and hit what they're aiming at... like a non-microscopic center torso.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 14 September 2013 - 06:18 AM.

[Kattspya]

HammerSwarm, on 13 September 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Critical hits are the imperfect implementation of a system that is too technologically advanced for video games. If you use your imagination to pretend that this 10+ meter behemoth is standing there, with this giant engine, and guns, and heat sinks, electronics, and ammunition all configured inside of it. Now imagine how much more code/computing power it would take to render those parts and calculate what impact my A/C round has on it.

The short hand for that is in fact a RNG, but that is not the ideal system. We do have the technology to make a computer game with aiming capabilities and to have arms legs, heads, and torsos all rendered out and to calculate what my A/c round will do there.

Perhaps in the future we'll be able to eliminate the RNG generator on critical hits and perfectly model a mech and it's systems for 100% simulation, but we're not there yet. We should be moving forwards to better aiming and more simulation not backwards to the ease of dice rolls because the concept of aiming is too difficult and arbitrary for a board game.

Run a simplified model and make tables from it. RNG is primitive.

But I would only want such a system in a hypothetical hardcore mode. Do what warthunder does with recards to arcade and hardcore. They do not only have have to steal from world of tanks.

[Tombstoner]

HRR Insanity, on 14 September 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

Just add a fix to avoid pinpoint convergence. Then the armor model works fine and you can balance weapons individually.

PGI has been avoiding this issue for 2 years.

PS: I think people should be able to shoot/aim single weapons (see above link for explanation) and hit what they're aiming at... like a non-microscopic center torso.

I think its a more serous situation then simply avoiding it for 2 years. i think they conceptually view this game as a modified rag doll FPS and every thing is working correctly/ well, hence armor is given a 1-1 value for all sizes when they clearly function differently, fundamentally altering the way the game plays out. Not taking into account size and speed interaction is a short cut
from laziness or worse overlooked.

Gauss, 3 weeks before launch is turned into a "sniper weapon" by trying to emulate a FPS mechanic that understands accuracy( COF) wobbles for long range shooting and the breath mechanic models real life for improved accuracy.
Why not the PPC? that is a weapon that came with a minimum range. clearly not a brawler weapons to begin with. This is something that should have been in the PRS. It got changed cause of pin point group fire and no other reason.

The Gauss delivers 15 points of damage, this clearly fits it between the ac-10 and ac-20 both are brawler weapons but not the gauss. The dev team clearly to me now has a very different vision for this game. one i am happy to say i am no longer paying for. yea in not being nice to PGI dev team anymore.

They have proved to me they dont know what they are doing. Gauss was the last straw and i dont use gauss..... Pulling mechanics out of a hat as the game develops. ghost heat.... face palm.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Khobai, on 12 September 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

PGI should increase center and side torso internal structure by 50% or so. Because torso sections definitely get destroyed too quickly on mechs. Critical hits dont even matter because the whole side torso gets blown out before weapons get critted. Its silly.

That would be far, far easier than resizing all the hitboxes on most mechs which would take months to do...

Why internal structure and not armor? At that point armor might as well not exist.

Edit: I didn't notice the second and third page before I posted this, but the point still stands. If you're talking about increasing internal structure of any part by a double digit amount while leaving armor alone, I've gotta ask why.

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 16 September 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 12 September 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

the decision to use XL shouldnt be based on the size and shape of your hitboxes though. Thats entirely arbitrary and ridiculous. You should be able to use an XL engine with any mech and not have to worry about significantly decreasing your survivability.

Sorry? If you increase the number of instant death areas, legs notwithstanding, from 1 (CT) to 3 (XL), then your survivability is directly impacted and well deserved, given the benefit an XL provides. You save 50% on Engine weight (huge) for a mere 3 x 3 slot increase per side.

XL do directly decrease your survivability but that is the drawback.

[Almond Brown]

The 12 v 12 games seem to last about 6-8 minutes on average. Some are longer obviously but if the Dev truly wanted Matches to not last longer than 15 minutes, then perhaps an additional 25% increase to IS of the Mechs would extend the Matches to a 10-12 minute average. with the really well fought ones coming down to the wire/clock so to speak.

I realize many "playa's" would complain that this would impact their almighty "C-Bills per minute" gather rates but the idea is really more geared for those Gamers, who actually play Games as Games (for the FUN factor) and not as some BS form of extra curricular work.

Yeehaaa! Launch tomorrow.

Edited by Almond Brown, 16 September 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[HammerSwarm]

Almond Brown, on 16 September 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

I realize many "playa's" would complain that this would impact their almighty "C-Bills per minute" gather rates but the idea is really more geared for those Gamers, who actually play Games as Games (for the FUN factor) and not as some BS form of extra curricular work.

Why do you have to put people down to make your point? Lots of people who enjoy the game including myself expect to earn a certain number of cbills per hour, not because we're farming or grinding but because it allows for us to unlock new mechs, new engines, and amass a stable of weapons.

If I fall off the million per hour pace I'm not winning enough.

[HammerSwarm]

Kattspya, on 16 September 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Run a simplified model and make tables from it. RNG is primitive.

But I would only want such a system in a hypothetical hardcore mode. Do what warthunder does with recards to arcade and hardcore. They do not only have have to steal from world of tanks.

RNG is primative; but this thread is about changing the width of the center torso hit box to adjust for the XL engine creep and the resulting over powered load outs. When every mech can use an XL then what is the point of a standard engine? Fix side torsos, fix MWO.

[Black Templar]

i am opting for a general pass on armor and internals. it maybe induced by the current UAC/5 meta, but even my atlas feels like paper. mechs simply die too fast once the major engagements break out. PGI should at least test a 100% increase in ammo/t and armor and a 50% increase for internal structure hp. it is easy to implement and could be tested within a two week period on the PBE. mech combat just feels awfully off right now.

[Orkhepaj]

dunno if ct is oversized or not but it clearly should have much more armor/hp
it is the most important part of the mech it should have the best defense by far

[Orkhepaj]

Khobai, on 16 September 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

I understand the drawback. You entirely missed my point. My point was that its MORE of a drawback for some mechs than others. And that should not be the case. Every mech should be able to benefit equally from XL.

my victor nearly never gets dmged other than ct ... :I