1080 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Yea I'm not a fan of anything that changes the way the weapons function in their current form or changes the fact that I can't hit where I aim.

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

There's NEVER going to be a universal balance that everyone likes because it's always going to affect someone's favorite build or weapon. That's neither here nor there. Regardless of the cynicism, apathy, etc. PGI DOES listen to the forums. They do listen to player ideas and suggestions. I'm more concerned with what THEY think about ideas.

I used to disagree with you, but i have seen an instance where a dev did post, but didn't provide any insight with what THEY think about forum ideas or counter reasons for that position.

Interaction with PGI is desired desired by the forum community, but would probably cause more issues then solve.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

It would be nice to see a mix of:

• A global cooldown on weapons,
  
• range normalization between weapons classes (adjusting back towards BT and/or changes to the 2x, 3x extreme ranges on damage against other mechs, I say that hoping to get tanks, fortifications and so on as more targets with different effective ranges if possible added in the future),
  
• and adding burst-fire into the weapon mix.

These three would be very nice to have in the future.

[Wraith05]

The only thing that needs done (if anything) is loosen the convergence.

AC 20 would be a wide cone while the AC 2 is a pinpoint accuracy we have now. It would spread their damage out but make keep the weapons mech warrior flavor.

Do NOT make them stream their damage over time because then whats the point of taking the 5x heavier, 3x larger, ammo dependent weapon over a similar damage laser?

[Tombstoner]

stjobe, on 05 January 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, of course; I meant "Burst-fire". Chain-fire would be the GCD (option 3, sometimes referred to as "forced chain-fire").


There was no "pin point group fire" in TT to translate to this FPS shooter, hence why some of us think there shouldn't be in the shooter either.

But it looks like we will be forced to just live with it "pin point accuracy".

An Ultra high detail hit and damage model is the next logical game mechanic for handling "pin point accuracy" .
front loaded damage is penalized due to the low probability of hitting the exact same spot. lasers are enhanced because they slash across the target.

Cant change the number of shots then change the number of hit locations. skill is rewarded by hitting the vulnerable spots multiple times. its a win win for everyone but PGI they get to build it.

[Sandpit]

Tombstoner, on 05 January 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

I used to disagree with you, but i have seen an instance where a dev did post, but didn't provide any insight with what THEY think about forum ideas or counter reasons for that position.

Interaction with PGI is desired desired by the forum community, but would probably cause more issues then solve.

Now keep in mind that interaction and listening are two different actions.

I used to think (and still do to an extent) think that the Devs have written off the forums. While they themselves don't interact they do have ways of collecting constructive feedback and ideas from the forums. What impedes that?
Troll posts
Nonsense
DUPLICATE THREADS (this is one of the main culprits)
Because a small handful of people have to dig through all of that to find actual suggestions and ideas in order to collect and send in to PGI. This isn't theoretical btw, this is the exact process used. Don't believe me feel free to ask the mods.

[Mcgral18]

Wraith05, on 05 January 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

The only thing that needs done (if anything) is loosen the convergence.

AC 20 would be a wide cone while the AC 2 is a pinpoint accuracy we have now. It would spread their damage out but make keep the weapons mech warrior flavor.

Do NOT make them stream their damage over time because then whats the point of taking the 5x heavier, 3x larger, ammo dependent weapon over a similar damage laser?

Because its low heat high damage, with 3 times optimal range. You won't see a reduction in use, since they will still be king in damage output. What you will see is mechs living longer since you can't instantly core anything that torso twists.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Wraith05, on 05 January 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

The only thing that needs done (if anything) is loosen the convergence.

AC 20 would be a wide cone while the AC 2 is a pinpoint accuracy we have now. It would spread their damage out but make keep the weapons mech warrior flavor.

There is a problem there though, here's one comment from the Devs:

Quote

Answer from Paul: Weapon convergence is a tough nut to crack. We want to keep the number of random “dice rolls” to a minimum, and network synchronization can become unpredictable when trying to determine a convergence point that may or may not be moving. It will be necessary to make the convergence point calculation server authoritive and that can cause a desync due to the fact that the simulation runs at different frequencies on the server and client.

Quote

Do NOT make them stream their damage over time because then whats the point of taking the 5x heavier, 3x larger, ammo dependent weapon over a similar damage laser?

The duration would still be shorter than lasers for most burst fire setups. And it would still be instant damage on projectile impacts compared to the laser beam duration ticks.

For example, with an AC/20 the lowest damage that should be considered is 2 damage per shot, that would be a burst of 10 shots, space them 0.10 seconds apart that's a total of one second for the whole burst before hitting the regular longer cooldown.

Then buffing projectile speeds and ammo (to have equal damage per ton of ammo) as necessary and we can then have more available options to mount that have examples in the lore, and could even be used to help balance variants out with appropriate and reasonably restrictions if the devs want, if we get burst fire available.

And we could also keep other fully auto versions available for even more dakka too. I can imagine having an AC/20 firing an unholy stream of bullets dealing 2 damage each with a short cooldown between each shot, keeping the high 5.0 DPS value, with heat, ammo and projectile speeds adjusted, it could be a fun dakka choice IMHO.

[Cimarb]

Praetor Shepard, on 05 January 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

The duration would still be shorter than lasers for most burst fire setups. And it would still be instant damage on projectile impacts compared to the laser beam duration ticks.

For example, with an AC/20 the lowest damage that should be considered is 2 damage per shot, that would be a burst of 10 shots, space them 0.10 seconds apart that's a total of one second for the whole burst before hitting the regular longer cooldown.

Then buffing projectile speeds and ammo (to have equal damage per ton of ammo) as necessary and we can then have more available options to mount that have examples in the lore, and could even be used to help balance variants out with appropriate and reasonably restrictions if the devs want, if we get burst fire available.

And we could also keep other fully auto versions available for even more dakka too. I can imagine having an AC/20 firing an unholy stream of bullets dealing 2 damage each with a short cooldown between each shot, keeping the high 5.0 DPS value, with heat, ammo and projectile speeds adjusted, it could be a fun dakka choice IMHO.

This is exactly what I prefer. It would still do the same amount of damage in the same cooldown, all ACs could then be normalized with each other based on category, different rates of fire could differentiate manufacturers, and tons of other benefits.

Autocannons would still be valuable, btw, just like pulse lasers are valuable. LBX are used quite a bit, MGs, and so many other weapon systems that spread their damage. It wouldn't ruin autocannons at all, but I have no way of proving that to you guys without us actually trying it out.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 05 January 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

This is exactly what I prefer. It would still do the same amount of damage in the same cooldown, all ACs could then be normalized with each other based on category, different rates of fire could differentiate manufacturers, and tons of other benefits.

Autocannons would still be valuable, btw, just like pulse lasers are valuable. LBX are used quite a bit, MGs, and so many other weapon systems that spread their damage. It wouldn't ruin autocannons at all, but I have no way of proving that to you guys without us actually trying it out.

I disagree and still feel it would ruin autocannon. However yes it should be tested.

[Varent]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

I disagree and still feel it would ruin autocannon. However yes it should be tested.

I will say to make up for this change you should make hit boxes larger for small mechs to incorporate the advantages they would be gaining. Its been thrown around that TT does not support this armor and alpha system however TT also does not support the overt advantage light mechs have simple compounding there speed into the inability to hit them effectively. Obviously it should be therefore made much easier to hit light mechs to compensate for this change, it would only make it more fitting to TT. I hope some find the humor in this, on both ends.

[Gaan Cathal]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

I will say to make up for this change you should make hit boxes larger for small mechs to incorporate the advantages they would be gaining. Its been thrown around that TT does not support this armor and alpha system however TT also does not support the overt advantage light mechs have simple compounding there speed into the inability to hit them effectively.

TT also doesn't have a limited number of pilots per side. You simply cannot have the linear increase in power in every respect with weight that TT does in a game like this. Lights should be piloted for the value of piloting them, not because one-in-four players drew the short straw to let his mates drop in real mechs.

[Varent]

Gaan Cathal, on 05 January 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

TT also doesn't have a limited number of pilots per side. You simply cannot have the linear increase in power in every respect with weight that TT does in a game like this. Lights should be piloted for the value of piloting them, not because one-in-four players drew the short straw to let his mates drop in real mechs.

Point being. Its a shooter, not table top. some things cant be compared on many levels, its its own beast and designed as such.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

I disagree and still feel it would ruin autocannon. However yes it should be tested.

How would they be ruined, in theory?

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

I will say to make up for this change you should make hit boxes larger for small mechs to incorporate the advantages they would be gaining. Its been thrown around that TT does not support this armor and alpha system however TT also does not support the overt advantage light mechs have simple compounding there speed into the inability to hit them effectively. Obviously it should be therefore made much easier to hit light mechs to compensate for this change, it would only make it more fitting to TT. I hope some find the humor in this, on both ends.

Right now if you miss with a ballistic weapon no damage applies, but you could walk multiple shots on to a moving target to get some damage, like we can with lasers, so adjusting hitboxes seems to be a separate matter IMHO.

And I feel that mech agility should be reduced for all mechs, due to how our current Mech Efficiencies and Engines related boosts are setup; we are far too agile in all classes still when we stick in a big engine, for example. I think there should a stock agility to each mech variant regardless of Engine, where Engine Rating would then only modify speed.

[Wraith05]

Praetor Shepard, on 05 January 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

There is a problem there though, here's one comment from the Devs:




The duration would still be shorter than lasers for most burst fire setups. And it would still be instant damage on projectile impacts compared to the laser beam duration ticks.

For example, with an AC/20 the lowest damage that should be considered is 2 damage per shot, that would be a burst of 10 shots, space them 0.10 seconds apart that's a total of one second for the whole burst before hitting the regular longer cooldown.

Then buffing projectile speeds and ammo (to have equal damage per ton of ammo) as necessary and we can then have more available options to mount that have examples in the lore, and could even be used to help balance variants out with appropriate and reasonably restrictions if the devs want, if we get burst fire available.

And we could also keep other fully auto versions available for even more dakka too. I can imagine having an AC/20 firing an unholy stream of bullets dealing 2 damage each with a short cooldown between each shot, keeping the high 5.0 DPS value, with heat, ammo and projectile speeds adjusted, it could be a fun dakka choice IMHO.

What you described is still a laser that uses ammo (and thus would be heavier). Instead of it just being an invisible 'tick' of damage you have use a round of ammo. If you want faster lasers use pulse.

Another thing not yet mentioned is what about the IP? Remember this isn't just a new title that can tweak what they want. They have to stay relatively true to IP or it gets pulled and we lose a game.

And in terms of IP what you are asking for is a watered down rotary cannon or a uac firing in bursts.

edit: for the record the main reason I am against it is I feel there should be key differences between weapon group mechanics. Missles use locks or spread. Lasers do DoT and have no ammo restriction. Ballistics do front end damage and the projectile has travel time.

Edited by Wraith05, 05 January 2014 - 08:20 PM.

[Varent]

Praetor Shepard, on 05 January 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

How would they be ruined, in theory?



Right now if you miss with a ballistic weapon no damage applies, but you could walk multiple shots on to a moving target to get some damage, like we can with lasers, so adjusting hitboxes seems to be a separate matter IMHO.

And I feel that mech agility should be reduced for all mechs, due to how our current Mech Efficiencies and Engines related boosts are setup; we are far too agile in all classes still when we stick in a big engine, for example. I think there should a stock agility to each mech variant regardless of Engine, where Engine Rating would then only modify speed.

Indeed that way we really can feel like big moving tanks with no agility just trading blows back and forth like the old English armies.#Humor.

sidenote - If you actually think that will be fun, I worry for you.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Wraith05, on 05 January 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

What you described is still a laser that uses ammo (and thus would be heavier). Instead of it just being an invisible 'tick' of damage you have use a round of ammo. If you want faster lasers use pulse.

Another thing not yet mentioned is what about the IP? Remember this isn't just a new title that can tweak what they want. They have to stay relatively true to IP or it gets pulled and we lose a game.

And in terms of IP what you are asking for is a watered down rotary cannon or a uac firing in bursts.

edit: for the record the main reason I am against it is I feel there should be key differences between weapon group mechanics. Missles use locks or spread. Lasers do DoT and have no ammo restriction. Ballistics do front end damage and the projectile has travel time.

BattleTech does have burst-fire and fully auto weapons in the lore. It has been discussed in various threads, here is one example.

Lasers in the previous games have been more dominant due to a front loaded nature they had in those games and no ammo needs, but that was changed for the better in MWO.

And what I've been adding is that I'd like to see a mix of different ballistic weapons with differing qualities to at least provide some more variety.

Rotary's will be another matter, where they might have a higher rate of fire with more ammo per ton in comparison, which each shot maybe dealing less damage to match their class damage rating, but having a DPS either matching an AC/10 or AC/20. That kind of dakka will be glorious.

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 08:18 PM, said:

Indeed that way we really can feel like big moving tanks with no agility just trading blows back and forth like the old English armies.#Humor.

sidenote - If you actually think that will be fun, I worry for you.

I get it now. You are playing Devil's Advocate now aren't you?
(At least I hope so).

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 05 January 2014 - 08:34 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Wraith05, on 05 January 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

What you described is still a laser that uses ammo (and thus would be heavier). Instead of it just being an invisible 'tick' of damage you have use a round of ammo. If you want faster lasers use pulse.

Another thing not yet mentioned is what about the IP? Remember this isn't just a new title that can tweak what they want. They have to stay relatively true to IP or it gets pulled and we lose a game.

And in terms of IP what you are asking for is a watered down rotary cannon or a uac firing in bursts.

edit: for the record the main reason I am against it is I feel there should be key differences between weapon group mechanics. Missles use locks or spread. Lasers do DoT and have no ammo restriction. Ballistics do front end damage and the projectile has travel time.

No, actually in lore ACs are just that, auto cannons, which fire lots of rounds. Some AC20s shoot 4 projectiles, some shoot 10, others shoot 100 and anywhere inbetween. What PGI implemented are Rifles, which are single shot.

This is an example of a low caliber, high round count AC:

Edited by Mcgral18, 05 January 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Varent]

Praetor Shepard, on 05 January 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

I get it now. You are playing Devil's Advocate now aren't you?
(At least I hope so).

AHA you got it That said, do you really thing that there would be an online community (which is dominated by younger players interested in shooters) that would support a game like that? Because as a game that needs to make money to survive you need to consider that before any changes are made.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

AHA you got it That said, do you really thing that there would be an online community (which is dominated by younger players interested in shooters) that would support a game like that? Because as a game that needs to make money to survive you need to consider that before any changes are made.

On the matter of lights, fully unlocked, they can be tough enough to control due to how easily they respond once fully Elited and packing a big engine; to the point one needs to seriously adjust various settings depending on what's used (such as mouse sensitivity) to make them more manageable.

So on this point, I'd simply like to simplify how that is set up, since control under or over responsiveness can be a big enough issue. It is easier to move on to another game, than keep tinkering with such settings if you don't now where to look.

Here are my thoughts from a previous discussion on that matter of mech agility and what I'd like to explore:

Spoiler

The boost from the Engine on turning and twist speeds still needs to change. I'd say set a single turning and twist speeds directly to mechs regardless of engine choice. Then any quirks can be added to individual variants.

That way the Engine Rating only influences straight line speeds. Then consider modifying or simply removing the Basic Efficiency boosts from the Mech Tree for at least Heavies and Assaults. They will be slightly slowed but not by too much, if fair values are selected.

So I cooked up a quick table, so I also apologize in advance for any errors, that shows how mechs relate to each other in terms of their agility, if we stayed close to their stock engine, and how that engine rating influences turn, torso twist and arm speed with the mech efficiencies.




So after making that table I wondered if what can be done is set Agility Archetypes similar in nature to the Movement Archetypes?

Perhaps something like this could be tested out with the known formulas to see if these kinds of values can work:

20-40: Locust, Jenner, Commando, Spider, Raven, Cicada

• Turn Speed: 91.72°/s 3.93s
  
• H. Torso Twist: 160°/s
  
• V. Torso Twist: 90°/s
  
• Arm Speed: 360°/s

45-60: Blackjack, Centurion, Dragon, Trebuchet, Shadowhawk, Quickdraw, Hunchback

• Turn Speed: 57.32°/s 6.28s
  
• H. Torso Twist: 125°/s
  
• V. Torso Twist: 56°/s
  
• Arm Speed: 225°/s

65-80: Awesome, Catapult, JagerMech, Cataphract, Orion, Thunderbolt

• Turn Speed: 45.86°/s 7.85s
  
• H. Torso Twist: 80°/s
  
• V. Torso Twist: 45°/s
  
• Arm Speed: 180°/s

85-100: Atlas, Highlander, Victor, Stalker, Battlemaster

• Turn Speed: 34.39°/s 10.47s
  
• H. Torso Twist: 60°/s
  
• V. Torso Twist: 33°/s
  
• Arm Speed: 135°/s

So these are just ideas to discuss the issue further and to see if something like this can work.




And with the mechs 20 to 40 tons I am aware that using the biggest engines and with the Efficiencies it gets harder to aim with how fast they respond, so one can often over correct for example so there is a benefit there in capping the speed some, just not sure where that threshold lies for those mechs though.

Edit: and wouldn't having more weapons available be a good thing for casual gamers?

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 05 January 2014 - 09:00 PM.