408 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Zyllos, on 12 November 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Ammo based weaponry should be high DPS and low heat for the weight.

Energy should be low DPS and high heat for the weight.

But all weapons should be spreading their damage.

This. Including PPCs!!!

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 12 November 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

This. Including PPCs!!!

except I don't wanna see everything conform to DpS. I love the up front damage of our ACs.

[oldradagast]

I can't believe people are saying that the game is fine - or mechs even have too much armor - based on what's in tabletop. In tabletop Battletech, your hit locations are random. In MWO, you aim and usually put all the damage in one small area. That is a huge difference and explains why even with double armor, mechs can die fast. Imagine playing tabletop with the ability to basically pick a valid hit location - everything would die absurdly fast. Or, try to imagine playing MWO so badly that your damage is always spread all over the enemy mech even if you're simply facing them...

[Joseph Mallan]

oldradagast, on 12 November 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I can't believe people are saying that the game is fine - or mechs even have too much armor - based on what's in tabletop. In tabletop Battletech, your hit locations are random. In MWO, you aim and usually put all the damage in one small area. That is a huge difference and explains why even with double armor, mechs can die fast. Imagine playing tabletop with the ability to basically pick a valid hit location - everything would die absurdly fast. Or, try to imagine playing MWO so badly that your damage is always spread all over the enemy mech even if you're simply facing them...

So you never played TT against players with Warhawks that have 4 LPL and a targeting computer an a 1-2 Gunner? 40 damage pin point on TT was really a heavy hit, and since doubles worked as intended, you could be facing that 40 every shot. So do you understand why I am not afraid of facing a 40 point alpha Mech here?

[Voivode]

If this game has proven anything it's that actually aiming completely derails the BT universe.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

oldradagast, on 12 November 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I can't believe people are saying that the game is fine - or mechs even have too much armor - based on what's in tabletop. In tabletop Battletech, your hit locations are random. In MWO, you aim and usually put all the damage in one small area. That is a huge difference and explains why even with double armor, mechs can die fast. Imagine playing tabletop with the ability to basically pick a valid hit location - everything would die absurdly fast. Or, try to imagine playing MWO so badly that your damage is always spread all over the enemy mech even if you're simply facing them...

Except that:

a: You could do this with a targeting computer (Clans had them first, but IS got them later).

b: Pinpoint alphas aren't as much of an issue if actually generating that much heat is a serious drawback (see: any number of heatscale/heat-sinking threads that mention the lack of a heat level penalty for anything under 100% heat) which is what you have in tabletop.

c: Despite many assertions to the contrary, it is -not- assumed in tabletop that all weapons fired in a round are fired simultaneously. A situation (vis-a-vis point b ) in which firing weapons simultaneously is not desirable due to other factors will reduce the amount of simultaneous fire, and any moving target is one you're going to have little to no guarantee of hitting your specified point on with all your weapons.

d: In tabletop, your hit locations aren't random, they're weighted towards the center of the 'mech.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 12 November 2013 - 09:26 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Voivode, on 12 November 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

If this game has proven anything it's that actually aiming completely derails the BT universe.

I don't think so, cause actually hitting what you are aiming at while moving is Not as easy as MW:O paints it. And putting 4-6 guns on the dime sized target does not happen as often as our HiSkillz players assume.

[Mister Blastman]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

except I don't wanna see everything conform to DpS. I love the up front damage of our ACs.

Then double the time for direct fire weapons to recycle. They can do massive, front-loaded damage to individual sections... buuuut... They have loooooong reload times or re-charge times.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 12 November 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 12 November 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Then double the time for direct fire weapons to recycle. They can do massive, front-loaded damage to individual sections... buuuut... They have loooooong reload times or re-charge times.

Reload times are are pretty well on track, an Abrams can fire its main gun 10-12 times a minute or 5-6 Seconds, fast forward 1,000+ years and shaving 1-3 seconds off is reasonable.

[Mister Blastman]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Reload times are are pretty well on track, an Abrams can fire its main gun 10-12 times a minute or 5-6 Seconds, fast forward 1,000+ years and shaving 1-3 seconds off is reasonable.

On track or not, direct, front-loaded convergent damage is stagnating the game.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 12 November 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

On track or not, direct, front-loaded convergent damage is stagnating the game.

Then fix the problem not the weapon! Front loaded damage is a thing needed in a shooter that involve walking tanks! Just as DpS is also needed.

[Almond Brown]

Training Instructor, on 10 November 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

stuff

I play mechs with legs loaded with ammo. I almost always die to the second leg being blown off, not from ammo explosions in one of the legs brimming with ammo.

And here is a chance to apply the "ammo adjacency rule" to MWO. No ammo is allowed to be farther away from it weapons than 1 full section. With no weapons in the legs, no ammo should be allowed to be stored there as well.

OR

Any section that is loaded/carrying 2 tons of ammo, must make use of C.A.S.E. for fear to total destruction upon a ammo crit explosion. That way the Legs carry only 1 and case or none.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 12 November 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

And here is a chance to apply the "ammo adjacency rule" to MWO. No ammo is allowed to be farther away from it weapons than 1 full section. With no weapons in the legs, no ammo should be allowed to be stored there as well.

OR

Any section that is loaded/carrying 2 tons of ammo, must make use of C.A.S.E. for fear to total destruction upon a ammo crit explosion. That way the Legs carry only 1 and case or none.

Nope. But I would apply a chance for jamming if the ammo feed is further than an Adjacent location.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 November 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Then fix the problem not the weapon! Front loaded damage is a thing needed in a shooter that involve walking tanks! Just as DpS is also needed.

Front loaded damage puts lasers at a extreme disadvantage. Lasers who are staple weapons of the Battletech universe.

When playing in top ELO brackets, we know how to expose ourselves momentarily, fire then recede. Lasers would force us to stay exposed much longer putting us at extreme risk to being cored out in two seconds due to all the direct fire we would be receiving.

So you have to address direct-fire weapons somehow to balance the game. Game. That's what we are playing here. Something that is supposed to be fun, not work.

If it is supposed to be a SIMULATOR--which it obviously isn't, then we need far more detailed modeling of all the Mech systems. I fly a lot of flight simulators like Falcon 4.0 BMS and the DCS series--I love them... but I realize this isn't even close. Until this happens. it must be treated as more of a game.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 12 November 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Front loaded damage puts lasers at a extreme disadvantage. Lasers who are staple weapons of the Battletech universe.

When playing in top ELO brackets, we know how to expose ourselves momentarily, fire then recede. Lasers would force us to stay exposed much longer putting us at extreme risk to being cored out in two seconds due to all the direct fire we would be receiving.

So you have to address direct-fire weapons somehow to balance the game. Game. That's what we are playing here. Something that is supposed to be fun, not work.

If it is supposed to be a SIMULATOR--which it obviously isn't, then we need far more detailed modeling of all the Mech systems. I fly a lot of flight simulators like Falcon 4.0 BMS and the DCS series--I love them... but I realize this isn't even close. Until this happens. it must be treated as more of a game.

I on't have a problem with laser being front loaded either, but I can accept they work fine as DpS My main build now uses 2 AC5 one Large, 2 medium an some SRMs.

[Almond Brown]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 November 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

DPS is pretty much an imaginary number that has not much relevance for practical gameplay.

It might be more useful to talk about DPS over 5 seconds or DPS over 10 seconds, or DPS after 15 seconds. After 5-15 seconds, your or the target might have long gotten back to cover, or are dead.

Without saying this would make things perfect...

I would probably lower the AC/2 rate of fire to 1 shot every 0.75 seconds, and also lower its heat per shot to 0.75 per shot. Maybe even 1 shot every second and 0.5 heat per shot.

Though if we weren't so married to those damage per shot values (rename the stupid weapons! Khobai is right!), we could tweak these weapons probably a lot better. For all I care, AC/2 and AC/5 could deal the same damage per shot but the AC/5 might have a 25 % higher rate of fire or something like that.

And that is the jist of the problem as it is now. Yes, call the weapons whatever and we can tweak them better. Likely, and when you're finally satisfied, do the rest of the players fall in line if they still do not like the setup?

No matter the name, the RoF, the Heat, the damage, no everyone will be happy. So in the end there is no 'perfect" solution. The sooner everyone tries to come to some form of agreement, with some give and take fro both sides, then these discussions will never end and the supposed "lack of Balance" will go in in the minds eye of many the players.

As for those "elegant" and otherwise "grand" fixes for everythng, please send CODE!

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Nope. But I would apply a chance for jamming if the ammo feed is further than an Adjacent location.

Sounds like that would be harder to get past the "Peanut Gallery" than an "adjacency" rule. LOL

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Then fix the problem not the weapon! Front loaded damage is a thing needed in a shooter that involve walking tanks! Just as DpS is also needed.

Personally, this is part of why I'm a proponent of introducing a "gun harmonization" (which some have taken to calling "fixed convergence") mechanic - with that, the ability to deliver "pinpoint" damage from multiple weapons (including, most notably, clusters of weapons mounted together within the same location) is narrowed to a more-limited band of ranges.

Quote

Rather than have multiple crosshairs, all torso weapons could/would be locked in place (both horizontally and vertically) relative to the torso so that they converge on the reticle's center point at their max. effective/optimal range and dicerge when .

This is essentially how the wing-mounted guns on WWII military aircraft were set, in a process called "harmonization".

(In this example, the red lines show what would happen if the aircraft's guns are harmonized to a distance of ~200 meters, the green lines show what would happen if the aircraft's guns are harmonized to a distance of ~800 meters, and the blue lines show that unharmonized guns fire straight ahead in parallel paths and do not converge at all.)

For example, twin torso-mounted PPCs (as found on the stock AWS-8Q, for instance) would converge to a single point at 540 meters, with the impact points diverging as one moves away from that point (either toward or away from the firing unit).

Likewise, twin torso-mounted Medium Lasers (such as seen on the stock AS7-D, CPLT-C1, CN9-A, and CTF-3D) would converge to a single point at 270 meters, with the impact points diverging as one moves away from that point (either toward or away from the firing unit).

In the case of non-twinned weapons (a Large Laser in one side-torso and an ER Large Laser in the other side-torso), each weapon would be set to converge at its respective effective/optimal range (540 meters for the LL and 675 meters for the ERLL).

By contrast, arm-mounted weapons would still be able to (non-instantaneously) adjust themselves vertically (assuming an undamaged Upper Arm Actuator is present in the arm(s) in question) and horizontally (assuming an undamaged Lower Arm Actuator is present in the arm(s) in question).

Quote

For it to have any real meaning, it would have to be something that is set in the 'Mech Lab or something that is pre-set & immutable - it should not be able to be changed at all during a match.

IMO, it would also use the max. effective range as an upper bound, and any weapons that have minimum ranges would use that as a lower bound (and any that don't have one set to some reasonable(?) non-zero distance - say, 20 meters (just over the upper bound of MWO 'Mech height) as an example) - that is:

• a torso-mounted set Medium Lasers (a common feature on several 'Mechs) could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 270 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of (non-ER) PPCs (e.g. AWS-8Q) could have their harmonization point set to between 90 and 540 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of ER-PPCs (e.g. AWS-9M) could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 810 meters
  
• a single torso-mounted AC/20 (e.g. AS7-D, HBK-4G) could have its "harmonization" point (not that one can really "harmonize" a single weapon, but the same alignment/sighting process could be applied) set to between 20 and 270 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of Gauss Rifles (e.g. "Gaussapult") could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 660 meters (or, if one wanted to implement the minimum range from TT, between 60 and 660 meters)

and so on and so forth.

The inclusion of limits has the advantages to gameplay of requiring mixed-arms high-alpha builds (such as the "3 PPC + 1 Gauss" setup) to choose the lowest range of the weapons in the set as their focal point (with the ability to put all of the damage in one place in one salvo necessarily decreasing as the target either closes or backs away) while also generally discouraging literal "face-hugging" (as the weapons will not all aim at the same single point at 0 meters).

For an example of what this would look like, here are a couple of harmonization-centric tutorial for War Thunder:



Thoughts?

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 12 November 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Sounds like that would be harder to get past the "Peanut Gallery" than an "adjacency" rule. LOL

Have you read My posts? Do I sound like I listen to the Peanut gallery?

@Thoughts...
That is an interesting idea and I'd love to try very hard to break it on the test servers!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 November 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

So you never played TT against players with Warhawks that have 4 LPL and a targeting computer an a 1-2 Gunner? 40 damage pin point on TT was really a heavy hit, and since doubles worked as intended, you could be facing that 40 every shot. So do you understand why I am not afraid of facing a 40 point alpha Mech here?

Oh i did... first i though - ******** - after that guy has decimated my team nearly allone. (tonnage limits...i hade 1 lance he had two of those War Hawks)

The second battle i forced him to except extreme range rules and BattleValue -and used an Exterminator with Stealth and C3i...jumped close to him but without LOS - and disabled Stealth - allowing perfect shots for my other units (TAG-from range of 18) -> TAG + Onboard LRM carriers and Onboard Arrow Carriers....plus decent light gauss slugs and ER-PPC beams. The Mech simple vanished (ok that was enough fire power to rip a warship appart)

Lucky they have taken rid of this abusive rule - and pulse laser are not allowed to use the targeting computer for aimed shots -> funny thing is -> its also an horrend system - like MWOs ghost heat to bandaid mistakes that were made before.

I really want to have those War Thunder mechanics.