1080 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

urban mech says no.

...we've been through this before, that is not a single shot AC20. That is a burstfire AC20, like the one mounted on the Atlas, the Hunchback and the Victor, all mentioned in the books.

I can only imagine how far that Urbie would fly with that single shot...

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

realistically if you wanna go full sarna there should be multiple makes of each autocannon type that all have different gages of slugs, some full solid rounds, some burst, etc etc... each with different degrees of reliability.

Great, and lets go full BTech Lore. I've linked before, but I find this a fine source for such discussions.

That kind of variety would be awesome IMHO.

[Varent]

just stating things in sarna.

If you dont wanna go battletech lore then sure.

Its instituted this way because pgi has created a shooter system. It promotes and attracts shooting gamers. And they like it.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

just stating things in sarna.

If you dont wanna go battletech lore then sure.

Its instituted this way because pgi has created a shooter system. It promotes and attracts shooting gamers. And they like it.

More flights of fantasy? Or simply refusing to recognise your own loss of evidence supporting your statement since it ended up working against you. (Again).

As to this chameleon response to debate I would say, the game attracts multiple interested parties from various origins not just those who play shooting games.

I play "shooters" (I think, not sure with Varents understanding sometimes), and I think burst fire in anything could help to improve the skill level for "shooters". Thus making it a more challenging "shooter" game.

Besides haven't you suggested examples previously of successful shooting games as having burst fire? E.g. COD. Seems a bit inconsistent as to how you frame "shooters" if your suggesting that they now want things a different way? Otherwise can you quote any evidence that supports the preference or is it just an assumption since you like it that way?

Whether then burst fire is the most beneficial thing for MWO is another thing but from a "Shooters" perspective concerned with skill I would consider it to be more appealing purely from that perspective. Point and shoot aiming with ballistics is pretty much a doddle in this game in comparison to others.

Edited by Noesis, 03 January 2014 - 11:31 PM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 03 January 2014 - 11:31 PM, said:

Stuff and things.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night Noesis.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:

Whatever helps you sleep better at night Noesis.

Hot chocolate then please.

[mania3c]

stjobe, on 03 January 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

By making ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam-duration you lessen the synergy these weapons currently have with the convergence system, making them work under the same conditions as the other weapon types; to put all your damage into one spot you need a steady hand and a bit of skill.

Why would anyone use ACs and PPCs than? I don't understand..maybe PPCs would have place..based on numbers..

But ACs as beam weapon would be just worse laser, with projectile speed, which weight twice as much and size is 2-3 times bigger, needs ammo, which can explode and kill you... oh..and produce less heat..

if anyone could answer this..and we can somehow ignore fact, that weapon homogenization would make this game boring as hell..than we can talk about some of these ideas.. because up to this point.. I don't see any logic behind these suggestions at all..

Edited by mania3c, 04 January 2014 - 01:43 AM.

[stjobe]

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 01:42 AM, said:

Why would anyone use ACs and PPCs than? I don't understand..maybe PPCs would have place..based on numbers..

But ACs as beam weapon would be just worse laser, with projectile speed, which weight twice as much and size is 2-3 times bigger, needs ammo, which can explode and kill you... oh..and produce less heat..

if anyone could answer this..and we can somehow ignore fact, that weapon homogenization would make this game boring as hell..than we can talk about some of these ideas.. because up to this point.. I don't see any logic behind these suggestions at all..

I've already answered this a few times, but I can do it again:

The proposed ACs would have a 3-5 projectile burst over e.g. 0.5 seconds, where each projectile did 1/3rd to 1/5th of the total damage - an AC/5 burst would be e.g. 3 x 1.66 or 5x1 hits, and AC/20 burst would be 3x6.66 or 5x4 hits - so ACs would still hit harder per projectile than lasers (which do 10 ticks spread over the beam duration).

The proposed PPC would be the same; less ticks, more damage per tick compared to lasers. Instead of 10 ticks of 0.9 damage spread over 1 second that a Large Laser does, the PPC could e.g. do 5 ticks of 2 damage in 0.5 seconds; enough of a difference to make them not "just worse laser[s]".

Who would use them? Anyone with ballistic hard points, same as now. The damage they do won't be less than it is now, it will just be delivered in a non-instant fashion.

As for why this is necessary, I'm loath to explain it all again (and I'm sure e.g. Varent dreads reading it one more time), but look at my post at the top of page 27 of this thread for an explanation.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that a lot of people opposed to this idea paint it as suddenly making ACs and PPCs useless, as if the only thing making them usable right now is the fact that they deliver all their damage in an instant. I wonder what these people think of the rest of the weapons in MWO, who all already have some variation of this system.

Edited by stjobe, 04 January 2014 - 02:31 AM.

[mania3c]

stjobe, on 04 January 2014 - 02:29 AM, said:

I've already answered this a few times, but I can do it again:

The proposed ACs would have a 3-5 projectile burst over e.g. 0.5 seconds, where each projectile did 1/3rd to 1/5th of the total damage - an AC/5 burst would be e.g. 3 x 1.66 or 5x1 hits, and AC/20 burst would be 3x6.66 or 5x4 hits - so ACs would still hit harder per projectile than lasers (which do 10 ticks spread over the beam duration).

The proposed PPC would be the same; less ticks, more damage per tick compared to lasers. Instead of 10 ticks of 0.9 damage spread over 1 second that a Large Laser does, the PPC could e.g. do 5 ticks of 2 damage in 0.5 seconds; enough of a difference to make them not "just worse laser[s]".

And you think this would help? How??

I understand math behind it but in game..it will make no difference... statistically ..it really doesn't matter if weapon is dealing little damage every ..lets say every MS (like lasers)..or has hidden ticks (3-4 ticks over short period of time)..only thing which is important is "how long you can hold cursor over your target"..if you can hold cursor for 0,5s over your target..damage dealing rate really doesn't matter at all..statistically..
..in very rare situations one weapon system could have edge over another weapon system.. but both are just beam - like weapons .. and in the end.. even with your suggestions .. lasers would be FAR superior to ACs..

not even that would screw balance in other side, you also made weapons mechanically similar..

Edited by mania3c, 04 January 2014 - 02:42 AM.

[Noesis]

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

.. lasers would be FAR superior to ACs..

Prove it, without tested values that could be fine tuned based on actual game play.

[mania3c]

Noesis, on 04 January 2014 - 02:51 AM, said:

Prove it, without tested values that could be fine tuned based on actual game play.

It's easy to prove... just double the weight of lasers, give them ammo, increase their size, remove their instant-hitting capabilities, allow ammo to explode but decrease heat production

now tell me what would you use.. because..again..statistically ..it really doesn't matter if weapon deal damage within 0,5 sec in 1000, 100, or 10 ticks..

[stjobe]

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

And you think this would help? How??

I'd rather not hash it all out one more time, I've already posted 30 times in this thread alone. So please, read the post I linked to in my last post, it explains the "why".

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

I understand math behind it but in game..it will make no difference... statistically ..it really doesn't matter if weapon is dealing little damage every ..lets say every MS (like lasers)..or has hidden ticks (3-4 ticks over short period of time)..only thing which is important is "how long you can hold cursor over your target"..if you can hold cursor for 0,5s over your target..damage dealing rate really doesn't matter at all..statistically..
..in very rare situations one weapon system could have edge over another weapon system.. but both are just beam - like weapons .. and in the end.. even with your suggestions .. lasers would be FAR superior to ACs..

not even that would screw balance in other side, you also made weapons mechanically similar..

At least in my experience, if we're talking statistics, there's a difference between the instant-hit ACs/PPCs and the beam-duration lasers - I hit about 85% of the time with lasers, but each shot only does about 55% damage. With ACs/PPCs, I hit about 50% of the shots, but each shot hitting does 100% damage. The net effect is that laser weapons for me deal about 40-45% of their listed damage, and ACs/PPCs about 50-60%.

But again, this isn't really about trying to "nerf" ACs/PPCs, it's about trying to deal with the instant-damage pin-point problem MWO has. Making ACs/PPCs deal their damage over a small amount of time has the very real benefit of affording the target some time to react and twist to spread the damage (and of course, firing from a moving platform at a moving target may make part of the burst miss as well).

[Noesis]

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 02:59 AM, said:

It's easy to prove... just double the weight of lasers, give them ammo, increase their size, remove their instant-hitting capabilities, allow ammo to explode but decrease heat production

now tell me what would you use.. because..again..statistically ..it really doesn't matter if weapon deal damage within 0,5 sec in 1000, 100, or 10 ticks..

So you have no actual values or evidence, fair enough, but still capable of making wild claims based on speculative ideas.

Figures, if you pardon the pun.

Edited by Noesis, 04 January 2014 - 03:07 AM.

[mania3c]

Noesis, on 04 January 2014 - 03:03 AM, said:

So you have no actual values or evidence, fair enough, but still capable of making wild claims based on speculative ideas.

Figures, if you pardon the pun.

You had really hard times with math, right?

if you can hold cursor over your target for 50% of time, how many ticks will be applied in average ?

In lasers..it's almost exact 50% ..while with AC's would be 50% of ticks in average..it doesn't matter if it deals damage in 1000 ticks or 2 ticks..go figure..

[Noesis]

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 03:34 AM, said:

You had really hard times with math, right?

if you can hold cursor over your target for 50% of time, how many ticks will be applied in average ?

In lasers..it's almost exact 50% ..while with AC's would be 50% of ticks in average..it doesn't matter if it deals damage in 1000 ticks or 2 ticks..go figure..

Except if the burst duration for ACs is theoretically less, then the ticks (irrespective of number) could have less applied spread over the duration of its use in comparison to beams. The increased frequency of the fire would in effect allow for less spread effects as a result. The question is how much tuning is needed with real application to find the sweet spot to make a comparative difference and also address the issue Jobe want to address.

It isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be and can only make a real judgement call with applied use as their are many varying factors and mechanics in real game play that effects weapons use.

The only thing your scare mongering helps to address is ensuring it doesn't destabalise things, so it is a useful reminder of what to avoid. But nowhere in the idea of burst fire does it mean that these things cannot be fine tuned to achieve such or that these things aren't something that would be tried and tested as a part of a balancing exercise.

Questionably however, if the fine tuned values would end up being so small that the overall effect is to not change things at all by effectiveness in terms of removal of some pinpoint damage effects without making ballistic significantly worse then you could argue it is then not worth the production investment to do so.

This is why I have reservations about the idea of burst fire as opposed to first trying to achieve the disparity adjustments with effective range, bullet speeds and cycle times with existing mechanics as to avoid wasting time on things that may not achieve the desired results without having to consider a complete shift in how weapons work. And considering that effective disparities are slight then the shifts need to be subtle imho.

But the above values could also be improved and combined with burst fire mechanics to find values that do work for similar effects. Again it depends how these things are fine tuned as a result of seeing them applied.

The value that some see with applying burst fire then is to remove the effects of pinpoint accuracy with the application of damage. And if this problem is greater than losing some variety or a slight shift in weapons being similar then for some it seems that the removal of that problem is the more important factor.

But to claim that a solution is not potentially possible to be found with the inclusion of burst fire is just speculation without any applied understanding of how these effects are applied in game. Especially when the idea is to have significantly different periods for the duration of these effects.

Trying to look at these things from a linear perspective as you suggest with your "halving" wont produce the effect you think when it comes to applied aiming effects in game. E.g. 1s beam time produces 50% effectiveness to potential with laser effects as per the ML. But 0.5s duration wont produce 100% effectiveness as you will still get some reduction due to spread over 0.5s.

The question is what value would work for ballistics, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5? But more so are these times significant enough to to achieve the desired subtle effects. Since would a 0.1 duration for ballistics simply be almost the same thing as what we have now and not worth the investment when say reducing bullet travel speeds and them being different to each other could help with some combined weapons fire arriving at the different times than other weapons resulting in similar effects as per the intended burst fire mechanics .

Edited by Noesis, 04 January 2014 - 04:52 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 03 January 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Exactly, the main problem is convergence. All weapons hitting the same spot is anathema to the BattleTech Universe - or TT would have had just one to-hit roll per turn for all weapons fired instead of one for each weapon (or missile/missile group in the case of SRMs/LRMs).

But convergence isn't easy to fix in a satisfying manner; either you have to introduce randomness in the form of a cone of fire, or you have to institute some complex (one reticule for each weapon/limb), crippling (global cooldown/forced chain-fire) or otherwise unintuitive system (ghost aim? just think of what Paul could dream up...) that limits aim - and that's an issue for a lot of players. Most seem to want to hit what they aim at - and I'm wholly in that camp myself. Aiming should be skill-based, not random.

So if you don't want to limit players' ability to aim, you have to attack the problem from another angle - and I think I've made it clear what angle I see as the most efficient: Take away instant damage by making ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam-duration.

Two out of three weapon types already work this way, and it's not a coincidence that the third group is currently dominating the game; it's for all intents and purposes superior to put all your damage in one spot than to spread it out.

By making ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam-duration you lessen the synergy these weapons currently have with the convergence system, making them work under the same conditions as the other weapon types; to put all your damage into one spot you need a steady hand and a bit of skill.

And I believe that doing this would also if not outright solve then at least alleviate the problem we currently have with convergence; if a dual AC/20 put 4 or 8 damage in one spot instead of 40, and the rest of the damage was spread out in a short time-frame, that would be enough to not have to bother with convergence.

I am more for taking away convergence as it is right now. The way our weapons hit a single pixel would require 4-7 tons of Advance Targeting Computer on TT. Folks say they want to hit what they are aimimg at. I agree, but I also understand firing more than one weapon at a time should make our aim a bit... sloppy.

[Allen Ward]

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Maybe because not everyone agrees with this opinion? I'd wager to guess that at least as many that argue your side argue against it. There's a lot that think weapons are very well balanced in their current form. Feel free to peruse the other dozen or so threads on this subject.

It depends on what you consider "balanced". PGI obviously tried to stick to the TT damage ratings mostly, but they introduced cooldown to makeup for the missing 10 second round restriction. So far so good. The problem is, they did not convert TT damage ratings into MWO damage ratings according to "10 second round vs cooldown round". They simply kept high damage values in ACs and Gauss but effectively lowered damage for lasers in addition to the inherent problems of delivering damage with lasers (beam duration, which is actualy not there in TT). In TT all weapons are pinpoint damage weapons, lasers hit one location with full damage (or miss). I can live with the laser beams in MWO as it makes them really different from PPC and ballistics. But the weird and inconsistent changes to damage and heat (Med Laser +1 heat, LL +1 damage but -1 heat) don't help to solve the problem. They simply should have calculated the rate of fire possible in MWO compared to a full round of damage in TT. Just check the AC/2 - it has a DPS like the AC/10! And a rate of fire higher than an Ultra AC/5 without risk of jamming! Not proper balancing imho, but this goes beyond damage rate.

For example, the AC20 does 20 damage in 10 seconds in TT. In MWO we can do 50 damage in 10 seconds. Lasers in MWO can do more damage "per round" too, but you have the inherent problem of beam length and damage deviation here which is has serious impact. Lasers are really hard to use precisely while your mech is moving, increasing with running speed and your turning rate. Pinpoint weapons on the other hand more often miss completely, but the souped up damage rate compensates for that. Only looking at (MWO) DPS does show it clearly. See how many Ballistics and PPCs (and Missiles) are being used (effectively) vs lasers being used tells you that this is real and PGI simply don't recognize or ackowledge the issue.

I'm working on some calculations to transfer TT damage to MWO consitently here (there might be major errors in here still): https://docs.google....U1E&usp=sharing

If someone has done something similar already, please show me the link.

These calculations only care about weapon damage ratings, they completely ignore weapon efficiency parameters beyond damage. But I think this would have been a better start for balancing than what PGI did. Assuming you don't question the balancing of the TT weapons already. First you set all damage ratings, then you add additional parameters like jamming to compensate for high rates of fire and stuff. The PGI system looks like a lot "out of the stomach" balancing to me.

[dwwolf]

The fatal flaw with the weapon system is instant pinpoint weapons and no recoil or cone of fire. All shooter games as well as real life have those factors. Which is a shame really since factors such as battledamage(actuators),mech speed,platform uniqueness(ie. hunchback role/ac20 ) could be tied into such a system.

Edited by dwwolf, 04 January 2014 - 08:41 AM.

[Artgathan]

To that debate going around about single vs burst fire AC/20s fro the lore:

There's one mech-mounted AC/20 that fires a single shell - it's a Clan Model Ultra AC/20 mounted on a Cauldron-Born (Ebon Jaguar) variant. Koniving has mentioned this before (I suppose it's stated in one of the TT Books? It doesn't appear on Sarna AFAIK). All other battlemechs use burst-fire AC/20s.

As for the benefits of ACs vs Lasers if we made ACs burst fire - we could add the impact mechanic from previous mechwarrior games (where getting hit with heavy autocannons would force the target to torso twist due to the recoil of the impact). At the moment we already have screen shake (which I think is mostly an annoying mechanic), which helps differentiate the two.

[Wildstreak]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

I have my doubts on your abilities as a heavy/assault pilot fighting off lights then.

Any assault pilot will tell you there saving grace is a high alpha weapon working for a leg or crippling shot.

Could care less of anything you say anymore given you proved in another topic on this you have little skill already and overinflate yourself. Add onto that you are another who overstates the disadvantages to make a false case further invalidating your argument. Your obesession with an unbalanced game publicly stated by you renders your opinion irrelevant.