111 replies to this topic

[Reitrix]

I'd like to get some discussion on these two issues. Lately I've been reading Sarna.net entries on all the 'Mechs to pass time while waiting for matches to start, and I've noticed some things that i find interesting.

I'll start with Range.
In MWO we have a very strange weapon range value. While the listed ranges of our weapons, such as the Medium laser and Gauss Rifle are canonically correct, their actual range is often double the listed range.
This link |> http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jinggau <| describes a 65 Ton Heavy 'Mech. It caught my attention specifically due to the mention of the Gauss Rifle.

Quote

The primary weapon on the Jinggau is a powerful Zhi-tong-yao Gauss Rifle that gives the 'Mech a maximum striking distance of up to six hundred and sixty meters

The listed in-game range is indeed 660 meters. Yet in actuality, you can strike a target for reasonable damage up to 1200 and beyond.
The Medium Laser does this also, with a listed range of 270 Meters, yet is capable of dealing damage out to 500 Meters.
Thats Large Laser territory, a weapon that weighs 4 tons more, takes up more crit slots, and generates more heat!
The ER PPC, Autocannons (2, 5) and ER Large Laser all have ranges that exceed that of the Long Range Missile system, a weapon that reaches 1000 meters and stops dead. SRMs also explode almost as soon as they reach their listed Ranges.

As an example, lets compare two 'Boat' 'Mechs. The Catapult A-1 "Splatcat" and the Hunchback with 9 Medium Lasers.

Both of these weapon systems have a range of 270 Meters. Yet the Splatcat cannot exceed 300 Meters or his weapons do nothing, but the Hunchback can strike targets out to 500 Meters. This is almost double the range of the SRMs, yet canonically have the same Range.

TL;DR for range.
Weapons should not be exceeding their Canon Ranges so much.

Secondly, Convergence.

Convergence is, in my honest opinion, wrong. It should not happen, except in specific circumstances.

Convergence lets all weapons on your 'Mech, regardless of location, strike a single point under the reticle.
Now, this is wrong for a few reasons. The first is Range. my Jaegermech with twin Gauss Rifles can strike the CT of a Spider at point blank range, and also at a distance twice its specified range.
This is because the game is converging both guns on a single point, always. That 'Mech doesn't have any lower arm actuators, it can only adjust its aim up and down, so how are those cannons being tweaked horizontally to achieve such perfect convergence?

The exact same thing happens in my Catapult K2. The problem here is that those ballistic slots are located in my Side Torso sections, how can they possible adjust themselves horizontally to achieve any kind of convergence beyond how they were set when they were installed?

In the Battlemaster, i have 3 Medium Lasers in my Left and RIght torso's respectively. Those hardpoints are built directly in the chassis, and should not be able to adjust where they converge at, but i can run into a Centurion, and point blank alpha all 6 of those Torso Mounted Lasers into the CT of that poor Centurion exactly where my Reticle happens to be.

In actuality, those lasers should converge at a point 270 Meters in front of the 'Mech, and not change, meaning that in that point black situation the Centurion would of suffered damage to the Left and Right torso's to the tune of 15 each. Instead, it took 30 to the chest.

Conclusion:
Ranges must be set to their canon ranges and only exceed that by perhaps 10%, Energy weapons especially. Ballistics should see massive bullet drop as soon as the projectile reaches its range (Example: A Gauss slug would hit on target at 660, but be hitting the deck at 750). PPCs should simply dissipate upon reaching 540/810.

Convergence must be set to the weapons listed max range so that beyond that range, multiples of that weapon would cross and throw off your accuracy significantly (Much like PPCs would in the K2 during Closed Beta when convergence wasn't instant).

The sole exception would be 'Mechs with lower arm actuators. With a target lock in close range, arm mounted weapons should able to converge inside a set distance from the target.

Mildly off-topic but i'd still like to see what people think about it, is the question of visual range. Currently i can see 'Mechs walking off the base, from the opposite side of the map, i feel visual range should be reduced significantly in order to encourage Lights to Scout the enemy. Perhaps also a reduction in Sensor ranges by default?

[Mcgral18]

Weapon ranges are clearly defined, missiles are hard capped at their optimal range, lasers are 2X their optimal (MGs should be considered lasers) and ballistics have a 3X range. Gauss can hit a little past 1900 for about 1 damage.

Convergeance is instantaneous, and that is not right. One thing though, torso mounted weapons should have slight convergeance since they are not hard bolted to the chest itself, it has some range of motion although nothing excessive.

Most ballistics do have bullet drop, aside from gauss and the AC2 is very minimal. Very distinctive on the AC20.

[OneEyed Jack]

*sigh*

Ranges are longer than canon because canon is not based on a real-time game with shooters and targets constantly moving. Using canon ranges would make the entire game into a brawl with no significant differences in ranges. In other words, long-range weapons would have no use.

Convergence can and should happen. It can because it's simply not that difficult to use hydraulic screws in the weapon mounts to be able to adjust the precise point of aim. It should because trying to guess where your shot is going to go in a futuristic war machine is absurd. Personally, I feel that convergence shouldn't be instant, but that's beside the point.

[Reitrix]

OneEyed Jack, on 08 December 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

*sigh*

Ranges are longer than canon because canon is not based on a real-time game with shooters and targets constantly moving. Using canon ranges would make the entire game into a brawl with no significant differences in ranges. In other words, long-range weapons would have no use.

Convergence can and should happen. It can because it's simply not that difficult to use hydraulic screws in the weapon mounts to be able to adjust the precise point of aim. It should because trying to guess where your shot is going to go in a futuristic war machine is absurd. Personally, I feel that convergence shouldn't be instant, but that's beside the point.

Precision aiming is what is killing many 'Mechs and leading many to become generally obsolete. Like the Awesome and Dragon.
It has also lead to the general meta of cramming in as many large weapons as possible and just enough Heat Sinks to switch the 'Mech on.

When we get ER Medium lasers, if the current Ranges are continued, the ER Medium laser will make the Large Laser totally obsolete, since if the Medium laser can strike a target almost twice its normal range, then the ER ML would outrange the standard LL while generating less heat at 4 tons lighter.
Do you not see a problem with that?

I agree that ranges should extend beyond the canon range, just not to the degree that they do. It's impossible for me to disengage a target with Medium Lasers as its primary weapon in my Commando because i need to get 500+ meters out in order to avoid damage from it. And it runs at 171 kmph!! I only need to be grazed by a pack of MLs to lose my legs.
By reducing the range the ML can deal damage to 270 - 300, i can effectively disengage and not then take 6 MLs in my back at 450 meters.

Currently the only disadvantage to torso/head mounted weapons is the lack of horizontal aiming. They should not change convergence to whats under the reticle since they are not mounted on turrets.
If convergence for all weapons was permanently set to the weapons max distance, we would see much more varied loadouts, since you would need a good weapon for the ranges you may be forced to fight in.
Meaning that Victor with 2x PPC +AC20 is going to have a hard time with a Centurion that gets close, since all he reliably has to aim with is the AC20 in that range.
Poptarts would be a joke due to wildly inaccurate shots with weapons firing from several angles. You could still poptart, but you wouldn't be very effective.

Quote

Using canon ranges would make the entire game into a brawl with no significant differences in ranges.

This is a very strange statement. In all my games so far, they happen in one of 2 ways. a 1500+ meter peekaboo/poptart standoff, or a 200 - 600 meter brawl with 'sniper' types hanging back and picking off weakened targets and Lighter 'Mechs running all over the place harassing and drawing fire.

Personally, i find games that feature super long range plinking with Ac2s and ER PPCs to be incredibly dull.

Some 'Mechs, such as the Hunchback, were designed to be urban brawlers. But the current state of MWO doesn't let the Hunchback do what its designed to do.
The same can be said of many 'Mechs. The Catapult is generally a fire support 'Mech, but if it comes out, it starts taking fire from well outside its LRM range. Hell, from outside Sensor range at that.

With range balanced loadouts, and locked (except for arm mounted weapons) convergence, we might start seeing some more interesting tactics come out, as opposed to what we have now, with both teams heading for their favorite piece of cover to plink away at the enemy from super extreme ranges.

[William Mountbank]

I should point out that there is damage drop off when shooting weapons over range. Hitting someone with MLs at 500m will not be doing any appreciable damage, but will still be generating the full heat from firing.

[Noesis]

And yet the ML now has 4 heat instead of 3 and also loses most of its pinpoint accuracy due to beam time. So the MWO version is not comparable with BT.

[Karl Streiger]

William Mountbank, on 09 December 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

I should point out that there is damage drop off when shooting weapons over range. Hitting someone with MLs at 500m will not be doing any appreciable damage, but will still be generating the full heat from firing.

Of course there is a damage drop of - the problem is - its the wrong damage drop off at the wrong range

If not for the heat i would be able to mount 5 MLAS instead of 1 Large Laser - even with Range Drop Of i would deal more damage as the large laser up to 450m.
So if you know that you don't want to fight beyond that range - never take the Large Laser.
Heat is a concern - (20 vs 7) but with on the other end there is the Ghost heat with its ugly face.

So the MLAS is always better as the LLAS (but that shouldn't be the case)
The only range where a MLAS deal more damage as a LLAS should be 90m and below.

We need much more damage drop off - that scales the damage accordingly to the average damage of TT

[Diego Angelus]

I always thought torso weapons should be set like in planes set converge at X distance and if you are not in ideal distance you can't get pinpoint accuracy. Arm with actuators should work like they work now.

[William Mountbank]

Karl Streiger, on 09 December 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Of course there is a damage drop of - the problem is - its the wrong damage drop off at the wrong range

If not for the heat i would be able to mount 5 MLAS instead of 1 Large Laser - even with Range Drop Of i would deal more damage as the large laser up to 450m.
So if you know that you don't want to fight beyond that range - never take the Large Laser.
Heat is a concern - (20 vs 7) but with on the other end there is the Ghost heat with its ugly face.

So the MLAS is always better as the LLAS (but that shouldn't be the case)
The only range where a MLAS deal more damage as a LLAS should be 90m and below.

We need much more damage drop off - that scales the damage accordingly to the average damage of TT

I'm not sure how removing over-range changes the situation in any way. In your system, or the current system, the advantages of having 5MLs over a LL are balanced by the same disadvantages, since the LLs have the same over range damage drop off. Even in TT range is important, and whether you have 1x range or 2x range, the LL will still give you the range advantage, and the MLs will give you greater damage at shorter range.
Currently anyone with a LL can chose to engage a ML mech from 560m with no return fire. I don't really see how removing 2x range does anything other than change this range to 290m and make the weapons somewhat less intuitive?

[ssm]

Diego Angelus, on 09 December 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

I always thought torso weapons should be set like in planes set converge at X distance and if you are not in ideal distance you can't get pinpoint accuracy. Arm with actuators should work like they work now.

Although fixing convergensce on torso mounted weapons is legit idea, as most of Perfect Balance Fixes on forums it has major flaw - doesn't take into account playerbase behavior, and would probably make most of the mechs relying on torso-mounted weapons obsolete.

Players will grab and hold onto every little edge they can get to win/destroy opponent, and Pinpoint Ac/laser beats non-pinpoint Ac/laser every time.

Edited by ssm, 09 December 2013 - 04:03 AM.

[aniviron]

Reitrix, on 09 December 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

Precision aiming is what is killing many 'Mechs and leading many to become generally obsolete. Like the Awesome and Dragon.

When we get ER Medium lasers, if the current Ranges are continued, the ER Medium laser will make the Large Laser totally obsolete, since if the Medium laser can strike a target almost twice its normal range, then the ER ML would outrange the standard LL while generating less heat at 4 tons lighter.
Do you not see a problem with that?

Currently the only disadvantage to torso/head mounted weapons is the lack of horizontal aiming. They should not change convergence to whats under the reticle since they are not mounted on turrets.
If convergence for all weapons was permanently set to the weapons max distance, we would see much more varied loadouts, since you would need a good weapon for the ranges you may be forced to fight in.
Meaning that Victor with 2x PPC +AC20 is going to have a hard time with a Centurion that gets close, since all he reliably has to aim with is the AC20 in that range.
Poptarts would be a joke due to wildly inaccurate shots with weapons firing from several angles. You could still poptart, but you wouldn't be very effective.


This is a very strange statement. In all my games so far, they happen in one of 2 ways. a 1500+ meter peekaboo/poptart standoff, or a 200 - 600 meter brawl with 'sniper' types hanging back and picking off weakened targets and Lighter 'Mechs running all over the place harassing and drawing fire.

Personally, i find games that feature super long range plinking with Ac2s and ER PPCs to be incredibly dull.

Some 'Mechs, such as the Hunchback, were designed to be urban brawlers. But the current state of MWO doesn't let the Hunchback do what its designed to do.
The same can be said of many 'Mechs. The Catapult is generally a fire support 'Mech, but if it comes out, it starts taking fire from well outside its LRM range. Hell, from outside Sensor range at that.

With range balanced loadouts, and locked (except for arm mounted weapons) convergence, we might start seeing some more interesting tactics come out, as opposed to what we have now, with both teams heading for their favorite piece of cover to plink away at the enemy from super extreme ranges.

Convergence isn't killing the Awesome and Dragon. Terrible models and hitboxes are killing the Awesome and Dragon. Even if you remove convergence, both of these mechs still have the largest CTs in the game, and thus, your shots are still more likely to land on the CT. Removing the ability of the player to aim is not going to magically fix this problem. You've also not throught through the fact that the Dragon and Awesome are bad because they are wide, and if you remove the ability of their weapons to converge, they will be additionally hampered by the fact that their weapons will be much harder to aim than those of a mech with compact hardpoints like the Stalker. Removing convergence isn't going to magically fix terrible mechs and hitboxes. Fixing bad mechs and hitboxes will.

The devs have already stated that clan tech is in for a serious rebalancing and will not be OP like it was in TT. Don't freak out about things that aren't in the game yet.

I agree that the current pinpoint long-range metagame is stale. The solution to this is not removing the ability of the player to aim, which is frustrating and arbitrary, and will just change the meta to favor mechs with a large number of arm mounted weapons (Hint: the Victor can still mount 2 AC5/2 + 2PPC, and all of them will be arm mounted, convergence doesn't fix this).

Instead the game's underlying issues need to be fixed. Mech scale, speed, and agility need to be adjusted. Underperforming close range weapons like the LB10 and SRMs need to be adjusted. If you want to fix the game, you need a better solution than "No convergence, no more problems!"

Removing convergence also isn't going to bring the Hunchback into its urban brawler role or the Catapult into an LRM role or the Awesome into its energy support role, either. Turns out that allowing anyone to mount any weapons they want anywhere means there are a large number of mechs that are just never going to be used. There is no longer a single reason to run any Hunchback when the Shadowhawk fills every role the HBK can, but with jumpjets and much better hitboxes. There is no reason to run a Catapult when there are a variety of other mechs that can do the same thing equally well, but have more flexibility in loadout, notably all the assaults with dynamic missile hardpoints. There is no reason to run the Awesomes when the Victors and Stalkers can run any loadout that the AWS can, but with better hitboxes and or jumpjets. Convergence does not address these underlying balance issues at all.

You're also mistaken if you think that reducing the ranges of the guns is going to stop players from using cover. I have some bad news: it turns out that not taking damage is a good strategy, and firing then moving back into cover quickly is an excellent and simple way to deal damage and take very little in return. Removing convergence and or reducing every weapon to brawling range won't change that.

Yes, something needs to be done. No, gutting the game's aiming system won't fix everything.


Oh, and I wish everyone would stop it with the lore arguments about torso mounted weapons being unable to aim. It's mentioned explicitly in the lore that these guns are mounted on gimbals that allow them to move and shoot at the pilot's target.

[Karl Streiger]

William Mountbank, on 09 December 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Even in TT range is important, and whether you have 1x range or 2x range, the LL will still give you the range advantage, and the MLs will give you greater damage at shorter range.

Right but in TT the difference as well as damage have a complete other value:
for example a MLAS deals 4.583 dmg until 90m; 3.61068 until 180m and 2.082 until 270m
same average damage values base on the probability of rooling 4s, 6s and 8s could be made for the Large Laser but at different ranges.... so basically - the range where the MLAS deals more damage must be reduced:

Here a polynomic graph with a smooth glide between the values.



However that did not solve the problem that 2 MLAS deal more damage below 200m because MLAS shots will hit the same spot.

[Blurry]

This is PGI.

Do I need to say anything else?

[OneEyed Jack]

Karl Streiger, on 09 December 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

Right but in TT the difference as well as damage have a complete other value:
for example a MLAS deals 4.583 dmg until 90m; 3.61068 until 180m and 2.082 until 270m
same average damage values base on the probability of rooling 4s, 6s and 8s could be made for the Large Laser but at different ranges.... so basically - the range where the MLAS deals more damage must be reduced:

Here a polynomic graph with a smooth glide between the values.



However that did not solve the problem that 2 MLAS deal more damage below 200m because MLAS shots will hit the same spot.

So... we should fix ranges by nerfing short-range weapons?

I'm not sure you even know what it is you're arguing for.

[Diego Angelus]

ssm, on 09 December 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

Although fixing convergensce on torso mounted weapons is legit idea, as most of Perfect Balance Fixes on forums it has major flaw - doesn't take into account playerbase behavior, and would probably make most of the mechs relying on torso-mounted weapons obsolete.

Players will grab and hold onto every littile edge they can get to win/destroy opponent, and Pinpoint Ac/laser beats non-pinpoint Ac/laser every time.

I understand that is the problem of game going live so early. But maybe we could see something help it in future like torso weapons converge slower and some mechs have quirk/skill that helps them do that faster. Never though about this topic a lot but its possible to work out idea that is good enough for everyone.

[stjobe]

Karl Streiger, on 09 December 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

However that did not solve the problem that 2 MLAS deal more damage below 200m because MLAS shots will hit the same spot.

That's arguably MWO's single biggest issue; that 2xML effectively is a single weapon. 4xML is 20 points of damage to a single spot, same as an AC/20 (disregarding beam time for the moment) but for just 4 tons.

They have to address this issue sooner rather than later.

[OneEyed Jack]

Diego Angelus, on 09 December 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

I understand that is the problem of game going live so early. But maybe we could see something help it in future like torso weapons converge slower and some mechs have quirk/skill that helps them do that faster. Never though about this topic a lot but its possible to work out idea that is good enough for everyone.

If they would just put convergence time back in at all, rather than the instant convergence we have now, they wouldn't need to have different convergence times. But they already stated that non-instant convergence isn't going to happen because it's too hard.

[ssm]

Blurry, on 09 December 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

This is PGI.

Do I need to say anything else?

Well, I'm starting to think that it's not actually PGI's fault, and that balancing multiplayer Mechwarrior game is just impossible because it's just too many variables involved.

(All of previous MW titles were even less balanced than MWO, with the exception of MW: LL, but they managed this only by outright eliminating mech customisation)

Edited by ssm, 09 December 2013 - 04:18 AM.

[Reitrix]

aniviron, on 09 December 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Convergence isn't killing the Awesome and Dragon. Terrible models and hitboxes are killing the Awesome and Dragon. Even if you remove convergence, both of these mechs still have the largest CTs in the game, and thus, your shots are still more likely to land on the CT. Removing the ability of the player to aim is not going to magically fix this problem. You've also not throught through the fact that the Dragon and Awesome are bad because they are wide, and if you remove the ability of their weapons to converge, they will be additionally hampered by the fact that their weapons will be much harder to aim than those of a mech with compact hardpoints like the Stalker. Removing convergence isn't going to magically fix terrible mechs and hitboxes. Fixing bad mechs and hitboxes will.

The devs have already stated that clan tech is in for a serious rebalancing and will not be OP like it was in TT. Don't freak out about things that aren't in the game yet.

I agree that the current pinpoint long-range metagame is stale. The solution to this is not removing the ability of the player to aim, which is frustrating and arbitrary, and will just change the meta to favor mechs with a large number of arm mounted weapons (Hint: the Victor can still mount 2 AC5/2 + 2PPC, and all of them will be arm mounted, convergence doesn't fix this).

Instead the game's underlying issues need to be fixed. Mech scale, speed, and agility need to be adjusted. Underperforming close range weapons like the LB10 and SRMs need to be adjusted. If you want to fix the game, you need a better solution than "No convergence, no more problems!"

Removing convergence also isn't going to bring the Hunchback into its urban brawler role or the Catapult into an LRM role or the Awesome into its energy support role, either. Turns out that allowing anyone to mount any weapons they want anywhere means there are a large number of mechs that are just never going to be used. There is no longer a single reason to run any Hunchback when the Shadowhawk fills every role the HBK can, but with jumpjets and much better hitboxes. There is no reason to run a Catapult when there are a variety of other mechs that can do the same thing equally well, but have more flexibility in loadout, notably all the assaults with dynamic missile hardpoints. There is no reason to run the Awesomes when the Victors and Stalkers can run any loadout that the AWS can, but with better hitboxes and or jumpjets. Convergence does not address these underlying balance issues at all.

You're also mistaken if you think that reducing the ranges of the guns is going to stop players from using cover. I have some bad news: it turns out that not taking damage is a good strategy, and firing then moving back into cover quickly is an excellent and simple way to deal damage and take very little in return. Removing convergence and or reducing every weapon to brawling range won't change that.

Yes, something needs to be done. No, gutting the game's aiming system won't fix everything.


Oh, and I wish everyone would stop it with the lore arguments about torso mounted weapons being unable to aim. It's mentioned explicitly in the lore that these guns are mounted on gimbals that allow them to move and shoot at the pilot's target.

I never said remove convergence. I said to cap it at the weapons max distance. Torsi mounted weaponry would still converge, albeit locked permanently to the weapons max range. The problem with the Awesome and Dragons hitboxes are somewhat resolved by the inability of every pilot and his puppy to place 6 different shots into that nose from any distance, and from any place in the firing 'Mech.

And no, the Meta wouldn't shift in such a way. Because 'Mechs with weapons solely in arms are easily disarmed and made useless. See the Splatcat, most Commando variants, Jenners, that Victor you decided to point out, hell even my Orions are significantly worse off without their arms, add in Cataphracts and Dragons, the list goes on.

Take two identical 'Mechs, with skilled pilots for each. have one Chain Fire, and the other Alpha everything, tell me which one wins.
The ability to dump 5+ shots into a single specific location in a single salvo is not something we should have. Carefully aiming each weapon system instead of {aim for center of mass and pull trigger} would slow down the death rate and enable us to return to proper armor values, as well as forcing us to create balanced loadouts to cater to a wider variety of ranges.

[MustrumRidcully]

Mcgral18, on 08 December 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Weapon ranges are clearly defined, missiles are hard capped at their optimal range, lasers are 2X their optimal (MGs should be considered lasers) and ballistics have a 3X range. Gauss can hit a little past 1900 for about 1 damage.

Actually, if you look closely at some weapons - well, the AC/5 - you'll notice that the clear defined formula isn't always followed. Why, I can't say. Maybe it's a mistype.

Quote

Convergeance is instantaneous, and that is not right. One thing though, torso mounted weapons should have slight convergeance since they are not hard bolted to the chest itself, it has some range of motion although nothing excessive.

Convergence is unlikely to become non-instantenous, as the developers explained themselves (someone else dig up the post). The problem is the interaction with HSR - suddenly, the convergence point would also have to be rewound, which wojuld make the process more difficult and behavior potentially even less predictable for players.

I don't have any hope that we'll see convergence tweaks at some point. The issues of convergence have been largely (not completely, but largely) mitiigated for lasers, missiles, lBX and MGs. Lasers produce a damge-over-time effect that leads to spreading, missiles and LBX projectiles fly in larger, spread out groups, while MGs are damage over time and has an additional cone of fire effect. Only Auto-Cannons, Gauss and PPCs remain as problematic, and that could be fixed by turning them into burst fire weapons. Heck, you might be able to keep Gauss and PPC as single shot weapons, as long as you institute a global cooldown for them, disallowing firing them together. (Lore based reasoning: High energy drain makes it impossible to fuel more than one of them at a time. This is even used in a table top novel.)

I think that is a tiny bit more likely to happen then convergence tweaks.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 December 2013 - 04:36 AM.