1080 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

What do you mean by halve the damage? So an AC20 would do 10 damage? AC10 would do 5?

Yes, and shoot twice as fast so they keep the same DPS potential, just less optimal for popsniping.

It also makes torso twisting nearly impossible....We need more ideas.

[Cimarb]

Wow this thread has been flying lately... 4-5 pages while I recooperated from yesterday's posting...

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

CoD and BF4 also have respawns. Get shot in the head, wait your time and get back in there.

MWO is not that game. Once your dead your dead, back to your 2 minute search / load screens for a new match.

atm, this issue of pin point alpha one shotting mechs is meaning many players spend more time watching the load screen and walking to the skirmish line than fighting.

I don't care what IP you use, old or young gamers want more than load screens and pressing "w".

This is one of the issues I have with front loaded damage. I know hitting is skill based, but there is a large amount of luck involved as well, with your skill/luck as an anonymous person directly relating to my skill/luck avoiding that hit. Basically, a lucky stray bullet can take me out as soon as I enter combat, irregardless of my own actual skill, as I have no possible way to spread damage if it connects.

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

I jsut don't agree here and again I think it's somewhat subjective. I don't think burst fire or convergence (except what I mentioned earlier) will fix what you're talking about though

I read so much since I clicked "multiquote" I can't actually remember what you were talking about... Sure wish it quoted the whole post, not just your part of it...

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

I still feel the solution would be moderating jump jets, prevent the damage alot of teams take coming in without reprisal and you change the dynamic of brawling extensively. This would make groups feel alot more effective overall in different roles.

That said and reinforcing another point... we need the ability to test ideas on the test servers more often....

Jump jets have nothing to do with front-loaded damage, other than making good use of it. Removing/changing jump jets will not affect front-loaded damage.

I definitely agree with you about testing, though. Maybe if we say it enough PGI will get the point.... Lol, who am I kidding?...

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

Yea but it's also like saying i did 600 damage! I did great!
Uhm it was spread out over 12 mechs though.....

as opposed to

I only did 350 damage
It was all to one mech though

Which one was actually more effective?

This is exactly the reason front-loaded damage is immensely more powerful than duration/spread systems: all damage to one location is dramatically better than some damage spread to several locations.

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Im not sure how to feel about the fact that you actually wanted to go count them? What would concern me more is ive seen very few of these names in game.... and I play ALOT in multiple elos since I run with alot of groups of newer players to help teach them.

I would hope to see at least a few of the names posting here in game but I see very very few... wich leads me to believe alot of these posts are being made by players that dont actually play alot...

I play every single night, with few exceptions (tornado, ISP outage, etc), for at least a couple hours. Well more than my wife prefers, apparently...but she's a good sport about it, lol. I have never once saw your name, but I have to admit I don't particularly pay attention to who is playing most times. As you have said you often play 12-man or in a group helping new people, I would be willing to bet that is why. I only drop solo, and while I am not a high ELO player, I'm also not quite a noob anymore - I would say I am safely in the middle somewhere.

I am at just around 2,500 matches, having been playing since May 12 of last year, which is 240 days. That means I am averaging about 10.5 matches per day.

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

So are you playing less simply for your lack of joy regarding the game and your want for chanage and is that why your here? Why do you post and what motivates you?

I suppose thats what im getting at. Alot of people seem to post here for changes that would make them play more and while that is a good thing they should also understand that the game needs to move in a direction that will get the MOST to play, even if that majority seeks a play style that might not appeal to some people that is the direction all companies need to move in to make profit. Its simply a fact. Personally I want that. I want to see the most players possible playing a game I enjoy even if some of those changes are things I dont want personally.

I agree completely. We just happen to think different things will be better to make that happen. 3PV was implemented to make the game more appealing to "mainstream" fans, so I don't always think that is a good thing, but once the fires died down, 3PV didn't make the game worse like everyone screamed, and I think your "side" is doing the same screaming about burst-fire ballistics. My goodness... Did I just compare burst to 3PV??? Ugh, I need to go wash my hands now...

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Ok just a question.idea:

If convergence and burst fire mechanics were completely 100% off the table. Moses himself posted on the forums saying it will not happen.

What would you guys do to help balance the weapon classes?

I ask it this way because honestly that's really the huge sticking points between the two "sides" that I see. It's not even that I am saying they couldnt' use a little love or tweaking, I just do not like the idea of burst fire or losing convergence. So, if those were simply not optional, what other ideas do you have?

I'm just asking to maybe get someone to come up with some different ideas that maybe more can agree upon. The more that agree upon the idea, the more likely it is you can get PGI to say "Hey, these guys have a good idea with a lot of support, we should take a look at this and dedicate some of our limited resources to it"


I would agree with you to an extent Joe but there are a few discrepancies in weapon classes right now that could be balanced out a bit better. There is definitely the "easy button" crowd wanting everything dumbed down though but I don't see that in the last several pages on this thread. most of those lost interest when we started having a serious discussion and stopped feeding the trolls for the most part

That's a good question, but hard for me to answer. Burst is the exact thing I would like implemented, as I think it will address the issues without causing any extraneous damage. Of all the other suggestions, some of them have been a good start - such as fixing the range modifier discrepancy and a global cooldown - but neither address the front-loaded issue itself. I would have to say those are my votes if we had to take burst off the table, though.

Having answered yours, though, say they DO implement burst fire ballistics: How would YOU like to see it implemented? How would you make it palatable if you were given the order to make burst fire happen?

[Cimarb]

Mcgral18, on 07 January 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Well, one option without changing the mechanics could be to halve the damage, and halve the cooldown. You get the same net damage, but less pinpoint. But this does come with issues, the ultra would need a jam reduction, the AC5 would then have a cooldown of .75, not much longer than the AC2 (I think keeping it at .52 would be fine) but still have 2.5 damage. The only real difference would be range and travel speed between those two cannons. On top of the fact: Why does my AC20 only do 10 damage? That might be difficult to explain.

It has issues, but it would be simple to implement. Just change the XML.

Of course, this could just lead to the boating of PPCs and LLs for long range damage. But the ACs would still up close.

That would work ok, and it is still lore-based because the weapons are still doing the same amount of damage in the same time period - just in a different way. Technically, I covered this option in my list of burst-fire examples, but your description removes the dreaded "b-word" and instead just says a reduction in the cooldown, lol.

Noesis, on 07 January 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

I wouldn't therefore consider myself to be a fervent supporter of burst fire, but if it is for the greater good of MWO I would be happy for it to be considered as solution to the problems presented. I'm not sure if this makes me pro or con burst fire, but I don't think I live in any little box you have created to make things more organised for yourself to understand. It might help you personally but it may not be the way others see it.

What I will say is it is for PGI to prioritise or decide on using any suggestions as needed. So we don't need a chair person or secretary telling us how we should discuss these things thank you very much. This forum is available for use as players see fit and even if motivations are to make life easier for yourself, no-one has given authority for you to decide how we discuss things so please refrain from doing so.

I have said the same thing to Varent on occasion, so I am on Sandpits side on this. Trying to keep the discussion civil is more important than any individual's feelings, as I would rather get this thread looked at for ideas rather than a lock.

I answered his question as well as asked a counter-question, so I am all fine with his "organization" of it, as long as it helps the conversation progress and avoids this logic loop we have been in for 30 or so pages...

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Ok just a question.idea:

If convergence and burst fire mechanics were completely 100% off the table. Moses himself posted on the forums saying it will not happen.

What would you guys do to help balance the weapon classes?

I ask it this way because honestly that's really the huge sticking points between the two "sides" that I see. It's not even that I am saying they couldnt' use a little love or tweaking, I just do not like the idea of burst fire or losing convergence. So, if those were simply not optional, what other ideas do you have?

I'm just asking to maybe get someone to come up with some different ideas that maybe more can agree upon. The more that agree upon the idea, the more likely it is you can get PGI to say "Hey, these guys have a good idea with a lot of support, we should take a look at this and dedicate some of our limited resources to it"


I would agree with you to an extent Joe but there are a few discrepancies in weapon classes right now that could be balanced out a bit better. There is definitely the "easy button" crowd wanting everything dumbed down though but I don't see that in the last several pages on this thread. most of those lost interest when we started having a serious discussion and stopped feeding the trolls for the most part

Unfortunately Art work has an effect on weapon effectiveness. We are all waiting to find out about the timber wolfs LRM pods. cause those things are a deadly liability if they are considered a torso section containing an xl engine. Such an iconic mech gimped by art/ visual effect is very bad for the game. Art also influences height placement of hard points and hit locations and viability of torso twisting. a comprehensive solution not a series of tweeks needs to be added under the games hood.

To start balancing out weapons independent of everything, 12 vs.12 mechs of the same type need to fight. other wise your seeing interactions that just muddy up the data leading to false conclusions.

Part of the IP's strength is the distinctive art work of the mechs. Art had no bearing at all in TT. oncet the game was converted it becomes an issue personified by the awesome and dragon. Art has a significant effect on mech survivability and clan mechs are going to have this as a significant disadvantage.

[Khobai]

Quote

MWO is not that game. Once your dead your dead, back to your 2 minute search / load screens for a new match.

Respawns are hardly evil like people seem to think. MWO would be a much better game with a respawn gamemode. It would be friendlier for new players, you could allow players to join and reconnect to live games, thered be less downtime where you cant play the game, mechs like the locust become way more viable with respawns, gamemodes would be more strategic and focused on completing objectives rather than mindless deathballing. Plus having a respawn gamemode doesnt mean you have to get rid of the current gamemodes.

[Joseph Mallan]

Quote

[color=#959595]This is exactly the reason front-loaded damage is immensely more powerful than duration/spread systems: all damage to one location is dramatically better than some damage spread to several locations.[/color]

I have been playing games this way for 35(ish) years. I could care less how much damage my weapons "could" do every second, just so long as when I hit you they hurt like hel and make you wanna think twice about staying in front of my weapons!

There are three ways to hurt an enemy in this game... or should be.
RNG=for Missiles just like they are on TT. IS there a chance for an LRM 20 to get all 20 missiles hitting ever?
DpS= For energy weapons, damage depending on how long the beam is on target
FLD= Ballistics (Font Loaded Damage) Boom baby.


That is how our weapons should be working. This whole make the game more touchy feelly is just making me want to grow my hair back just so I can pull it out!!!

[Cimarb]

Khobai, on 07 January 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Respawns are hardly evil like people seem to think. MWO would be a much better game with a respawn gamemode. It would be friendlier for new players, you could allow players to join and reconnect to live games, thered be less downtime where you cant play the game, mechs like the locust become way more viable with respawns, gamemodes would be more strategic and focused on completing objectives rather than mindless deathballing. Plus having a respawn gamemode doesnt mean you have to get rid of the current gamemodes.

I actually disgree. While I think certain gamemodes will be good with respawns, I don't think respawns in general are a good thing. They have to be limited, still feel like a penalty, and reward you for not using them.

For instance, if there are unlimited respawns on a global counter, like most shooter and pvp games, why play strategically at all? Just kamikaze in, do as much damage as possible, and respawn. If you instead have to wait 30-45 seconds before your next drop is possible, then be placed at a random drop point (not one of your choosing), and only have your four mechs to respawn with (total, no reuse), then that would be a good system. I hope that is what they are planning, but I always worry with PGI, lol.

Oh, and burst fire ballistics with manufacturer quirks is where it's at! (Just to stay on topic)

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

Having answered yours, though, say they DO implement burst fire ballistics: How would YOU like to see it implemented? How would you make it palatable if you were given the order to make burst fire happen?

Fair enough

IF that was the only option and PGI announced they were going to implement it tomorrow and asked me for input on HOW to implement it.........

well hmmmmm.............

I guess I would say 2 slugs fired nearly simultaneously. Maybe .1 seconds apart?

[Khobai]

Quote

actually disgree. While I think certain gamemodes will be good with respawns, I don't think respawns in general are a good thing. They have to be limited, still feel like a penalty, and reward you for not using them.

There is a penalty for respawns in most games. Thats a given. Either it causes your team to lose reinforcements or it gives the enemy team more points towards winning.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 07 January 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Respawns are hardly evil like people seem to think. MWO would be a much better game with a respawn gamemode. It would be friendlier for new players, you could allow players to join and reconnect to live games, thered be less downtime where you cant play the game, mechs like the locust become way more viable with respawns, gamemodes would be more strategic and focused on completing objectives rather than mindless deathballing. Plus having a respawn gamemode doesnt mean you have to get rid of the current gamemodes.

No respawn. Dropship mode where you load up 4 mechs and switch out after one gets destroyed would be a much better idea to me. This isn't your typical shooter, thankfully, and as such the whole respawn aspect just goes completely against the grain for many of us who are here for the Btech IP

[Khobai]

Quote

Dropship mode where you load up 4 mechs and switch out after one gets destroyed would be a much better idea to me.

Thats still respawn. Whether you have infinite respawns or youre limited to 4 respawns is really inconsequential its still respawn all the same. Youre just arguing the details.

You could also have infinite respawns with a seperate reinforcement counter for each team that goes down whenever mechs are destroyed. Alternatively you could also have a gamemode where each team gets a dropship, and they get infinite respawns as long as their dropship is intact, but if their dropship is destroyed they stop getting respawns. The point is theres dozens of ways respawn could be incorporated that would make the game more fun. The benefits of respawn certainly outweigh the disadvantages.

Any gamemode with respawn will feel more intuitive and involved for the player. There will never be games where you die early on and have to spend 5-10 minutes doing absolutely nothing until the match ends.

Edited by Khobai, 07 January 2014 - 09:08 AM.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Fair enough

IF that was the only option and PGI announced they were going to implement it tomorrow and asked me for input on HOW to implement it.........

well hmmmmm.............

I guess I would say 2 slugs fired nearly simultaneously. Maybe .1 seconds apart?

And that there, my friends, is called "compromise"!

Halving damage between two shells - same damage within the cooldown, but with it potentially spread between two different hitboxes - is a start for me. I think we could then give different manufacturers different firing rates, as I listed about 10-15 pages back, to give variety.

If this was done, plus autocannons were normalized, I think they would be in a much better place compared to the other weapons.

EDIT: by normalized, I mean to each other: AC2 < AC5 < AC10 < AC20 as far as damage output per cooldown.

Edited by Cimarb, 07 January 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 07 January 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Respawns are hardly evil like people seem to think. MWO would be a much better game with a respawn gamemode. It would be friendlier for new players, you could allow players to join and reconnect to live games, thered be less downtime where you cant play the game, mechs like the locust become way more viable with respawns, gamemodes would be more strategic and focused on completing objectives rather than mindless deathballing. Plus having a respawn gamemode doesnt mean you have to get rid of the current gamemodes.

For a planetary assault... maybe. But for a mere 15 minute fight... Not needed at all.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

No respawn. Dropship mode where you load up 4 mechs and switch out after one gets destroyed would be a much better idea to me. This isn't your typical shooter, thankfully, and as such the whole respawn aspect just goes completely against the grain for many of us who are here for the Btech IP

Khobai, on 07 January 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Thats still respawn.

It's a matter of semantics. Sandpit is saying basically the same thing as me, which I think Khobai was saying without actually being specific.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 07 January 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Thats still respawn. Whether you have infinite respawns or youre limited to 4 respawns is really inconsequential its still respawn all the same. Youre just arguing the details.

Alternatively you could also have a gamemode where each team gets a dropship, and they get infinite respawns as long as their dropship is intact, but if their dropship is destroyed they stop getting respawns.

It's not respawn because you aren't coming back in the exact same mech and loadout unless you're mr. money pants (which I'm sure this will happen but it won't be the norm) and have 4 of the exact same mech and loadout in your dropship

[Noesis]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

I answered his question as well as asked a counter-question, so I am all fine with his "organization" of it, as long as it helps the conversation progress and avoids this logic loop we have been in for 30 or so pages...

Your perogative, not mine. Moderation control posting behaviour not players.

I already try not to repeat myself where possible, but sometimes fallacies need correcting or defending against, especially personal attacks.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

It's a matter of semantics. Sandpit is saying basically the same thing as me, which I think Khobai was saying without actually being specific.

Essentially but it's still a different mechanic. It would make for some longer matches but it would also make players (along with tonnage limits) diversify the mechs they load up in the drop ship and isn't an infinite respawn mechanic for the duration of the game. You derp out and get shot up 3 times quickly well then you're down to your last mech for the match and you're done after that.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

It's a matter of semantics. Sandpit is saying basically the same thing as me, which I think Khobai was saying without actually being specific.

No matter the hair being split, Pilots only have one seat to put their butt in, having a Leopard class dropship available is just universe breaking. Dropships are very expensive pieces of hardware that whole lances/companies are needed to rent/buy. Planetary Assault campaign I could see having a few extra Mechs, but this is a logistics question I just have a hard time flexing on.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

And that there, my friends, is called "compromise"!

Halving damage between two shells - same damage within the cooldown, but with it potentially spread between two different hitboxes - is a start for me. I think we could then give different manufacturers different firing rates, as I listed about 10-15 pages back, to give variety.

If this was done, plus autocannons were normalized, I think they would be in a much better place compared to the other weapons.

EDIT: by normalized, I mean to each other: AC2 < AC5 < AC10 < AC20 as far as damage output per cooldown.

That's a big IF though good sir. Again I just don't see front loaded damage as the culprit.
I'd MUCH rather see range reduced to start with and see what happens with that.
As it is now you can take an AC20 and essentially have An AC20 for short range, AC 10 for medium range, AC5 for long range, and AC 2 for extreme range.
Other than speed of projectile you essentially have every caliber AC in one with the way ranges work now

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Fair enough

IF that was the only option and PGI announced they were going to implement it tomorrow and asked me for input on HOW to implement it.........

well hmmmmm.............

I guess I would say 2 slugs fired nearly simultaneously. Maybe .1 seconds apart?

I would have the burst be at about .75 seconds long and the number of rounds being fixed for all auto cannons but each shell scaling upwards in damage to the autocannons damage type.

i think burst fire can exist along side of single slugs quite well. The visual effects of multiple shells would be very cool IMO.
it doesnt have to be one way or the other.

Burst fire can also be extended to be continuous fire. the ac-20 with a fire rate of 4 for a single shell could become 20 x .2 damage points with one shell every .2 seconds. options exist that wont effect how anyone plays.