1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Praetor Shepard, on 05 January 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

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 to, 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.

THey are not that hard to control honestly and they naturally still will exploit a system of reaction of a player.

*since that is the same thing we are arguing with the twitch mechanics of a shooter*

Therefore since we can argue that things need to be nerfed because of that, obviously mech speed overall must be next. We must obviously make this a true TT experience and make all mechs much slower and treat the game like a slow moving tank battle where DPS is the most important statistic in applying damage over a spread of a machine over long periods of time.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I stay and spectate matches, they can be tough for many casual gamers and newer players.


Don't know what you mean with your third paragraph, like getting rid of speed tweak? Or something?

[Gaan Cathal]

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.

It's already not true to the IP in that sense, since in no way elsewhere in the IP does a Large Laser's 10 damage get spread around the target mech.

The problem isn't necessarily frontloaded AC damage, that could be their 'thing', certainly. The problem is that PGI apparently don't recognise what an overwhelming advantage frontloaded damage is, and thus haven't applied sufficient opportunity cost to those weapons. Infact, lasers - which are inherently weaker as a result of not having frontloaded damage - have a higher opportunity cost than ACs. If ACs are to keep that advantage then there needs to be other changes, like slowing down their refire and reducing ammo/ton to levels where you regularly run out. ACs frontloading their damage in the match sense as well as the shot sense, forcing reliance on backups and shifting the balance of power to energy at the tail end of a match would be a viable solution. Removing the stupid x3 range falloff advantage would also help lasers and the weaker ACs (the fact that an AC/20 is as good as an AC/10 at the latter's optimal is a massive design oversight).

It would also help if they fixed UACs before we get the UAC/20 so the second shot can only be fired at >1/2 refire, meaning that a UAC/5 does 5 damage twice as fast as an AC/5, not 10 damage at the same rof as an AC/5.


Edit: With regard to paragraph two - and raising heat dissipation so that energy weapons can sustain some sort of reasonable fire rate, as opposed to nerfing them to the floor in the name of preventing the mythological "three second Jenner" from appearing.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 05 January 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[Wraith05]

Gaan Cathal, on 05 January 2014 - 09:08 PM, said:

It's already not true to the IP in that sense, since in no way elsewhere in the IP does a Large Laser's 10 damage get spread around the target mech.

The problem isn't necessarily frontloaded AC damage, that could be their 'thing', certainly. The problem is that PGI apparently don't recognise what an overwhelming advantage frontloaded damage is, and thus haven't applied sufficient opportunity cost to those weapons. Infact, lasers - which are inherently weaker as a result of not having frontloaded damage - have a higher opportunity cost than ACs. If ACs are to keep that advantage then there needs to be other changes, like slowing down their refire and reducing ammo/ton to levels where you regularly run out. ACs frontloading their damage in the match sense as well as the shot sense, forcing reliance on backups and shifting the balance of power to energy at the tail end of a match would be a viable solution. Removing the stupid x3 range falloff advantage would also help lasers and the weaker ACs (the fact that an AC/20 is as good as an AC/10 at the latter's optimal is a massive design oversight).

It would also help if they fixed UACs before we get the UAC/20 so the second shot can only be fired at >1/2 refire, meaning that a UAC/5 does 5 damage twice as fast as an AC/5, not 10 damage at the same rof as an AC/5.


Edit: With regard to paragraph two - and raising heat dissipation so that energy weapons can sustain some sort of reasonable fire rate, as opposed to nerfing them to the floor in the name of preventing the mythological "three second Jenner" from appearing.

This I could agree with.

As for those replying to me about the burst fire thing. I honestly am ok with the burst fire idea IF they can make the actual mechanics different from laser. By that I mean the full damage over a time difference mechanic. I just want the 3 weapon classes to have mostly distinct mechanics with 1 or 2 cross over weapons like the PPC or LBX.

edit: maybe something as simple as a max ammo capacity per weapon type? So say you couldn't go above 21 AC20 shots (even if 2 were equipped).

Edited by Wraith05, 05 January 2014 - 09:26 PM.

[Cimarb]

Wraith05, on 05 January 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

As for those replying to me about the burst fire thing. I honestly am ok with the burst fire idea IF they can make the actual mechanics different from laser. By that I mean the full damage over a time difference mechanic. I just want the 3 weapon classes to have mostly distinct mechanics with 1 or 2 cross over weapons like the PPC or LBX.

As an example of how they could do the various manufacturers, I'm seeing something like this:

1. ChemJet SHC
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 4 5-damage rounds fired
- 0.5 seconds between rounds
- no additional cooldown
2. Avenger Cannon
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 10 2-damage rounds fired
- 0.6 second burst
- 1.9 second cooldown
3. Gatling Light Cannon
- AC5 classification (5 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 50 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 0.5 second burst
- 2.0 second cooldown
4. Gatling Heavy Cannon
- AC10 classification (10 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 100 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 1 second burst
- 1.5 second cooldown
5. Gatling SHC
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 200 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 2 second burst
- 0.5 second cooldown

Hopefully that gives an idea of the diversity you can get. Autocannons would be extremely diverse, like they should be, and you could still have just as much fear inspired by the big cannons as there currently is.

NOTE: I used 2.5 as the normalization number for the ACs. It would be an increase in DPS for the AC20 class, but I think it is the most balanced choice while still allowing for a variety of firing rates. ACs would all do their classifications damage (2/5/10/20) in the 2.5 second duration.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 05 January 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

As an example of how they could do the various manufacturers, I'm seeing something like this:

1. ChemJet SHC
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 4 5-damage rounds fired
- 0.5 seconds between rounds
- no additional cooldown
2. Avenger Cannon
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 10 2-damage rounds fired
- 0.6 second burst
- 1.9 second cooldown
3. Gatling Light Cannon
- AC5 classification (5 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 50 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 0.5 second burst
- 2.0 second cooldown
4. Gatling Heavy Cannon
- AC10 classification (10 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 100 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 1 second burst
- 1.5 second cooldown
5. Gatling SHC
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 200 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 2 second burst
- 0.5 second cooldown

Hopefully that gives an idea of the diversity you can get. Autocannons would be extremely diverse, like they should be, and you could still have just as much fear inspired by the big cannons as there currently is.

NOTE: I used 2.5 as the normalization number for the ACs. It would be an increase in DPS for the AC20 class, but I think it is the most balanced choice while still allowing for a variety of firing rates. ACs would all do their classifications damage (2/5/10/20) in the 2.5 second duration.

if you increase the dps you will lower the overall use of lesser autocannon.

[Syvarris]

Rhent, on 22 December 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Or, now just hear me out, OR, you change AC and PPC to do streaming damage just like lasers. All of a sudden you no longer need to worry about front loaded damage and poptarts and hill cresting is no longer an effect tactic. Lasers, even with ghost heat becomes more competitive. Everyone is now forced to aim and expose themselves when they are dealing damage.

I somewhat agree with AC's doing steaming damage, that's in fact supported by canon, and the TRO and any other supplied definition of an AC. But a PPC doing streaming damage completely ruins the point of a PPC. If it does streaming damage, then it becomes a laser. The ENTIRE point of a PPC is that it fires a ball of particles at something.

[Varent]

Syvarris, on 05 January 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

I somewhat agree with AC's doing steaming damage, that's in fact supported by canon, and the TRO and any other supplied definition of an AC. But a PPC doing streaming damage completely ruins the point of a PPC. If it does streaming damage, then it becomes a laser. The ENTIRE point of a PPC is that it fires a ball of particles at something.

can argue that with the current implimentation, weight, etc it defeats the point of the ac as well. I will just laser/srm boat if that happens to ac. would be exponentially more effective and cost efficient.

Edited by Varent, 05 January 2014 - 10:48 PM.

[Syvarris]

Wraith05, on 05 January 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

This I could agree with.

As for those replying to me about the burst fire thing. I honestly am ok with the burst fire idea IF they can make the actual mechanics different from laser. By that I mean the full damage over a time difference mechanic. I just want the 3 weapon classes to have mostly distinct mechanics with 1 or 2 cross over weapons like the PPC or LBX.

edit: maybe something as simple as a max ammo capacity per weapon type? So say you couldn't go above 21 AC20 shots (even if 2 were equipped).

I really like the max ammo capacity idea, it wouldn't hurt medium mechs like ammo per ton reductions, but I wouldn't be able to put say, ten tons of UAC/5 ammo in my Ilya with triple UAC/5's like I can right now, maybe something more (admittedly) sensible, like 6 tons or somesuch.

[MustrumRidcully]

Convergence and single projectile damage - be it hit-scan or with a slow projectile with drop behaviour - always leads to a strong synergy effect for boating.

So if one wants to keep some weapons as single projectile damage, I think you need to either disallow convergence or group-fire/alpha-strikes with this type of weapon. You cannot balance a weapon if it is worth x points when used alone but two weapons are worth 2x+y and three are worth 2x+z (with 0 < y < z ).

I think it would be possible to do something like that for PPCs and Gauss Rifles. Both weapons are in lore stated to produce high energy drain. So these two weapons could stay as single projectile weapons, but come with the qualifier that you can't group fire or alpha-strike them - when you fire one of them, all other PPCs and Gauss Rifles go on a global cooldown. Or maybe Gaus triggers a global cooldown and PPCs have intense ghost heat and set the Gauss on GCD (as much as I hate, despite and utterly object the very concept of ghost heat, it could at least be a "-y" and "-z" component in the above group fire equations).

Note the synergy effect of boating does never quite get away, even with duration-based weapons. But the effect is lessened-. And convergence is not the only cause of synergy effects. Equal weapon cooldowns, beam cycle lengths, ammo types, ranges, and all that contribute, too.

[Gaan Cathal]

Wraith05, on 05 January 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

This I could agree with.

As for those replying to me about the burst fire thing. I honestly am ok with the burst fire idea IF they can make the actual mechanics different from laser. By that I mean the full damage over a time difference mechanic. I just want the 3 weapon classes to have mostly distinct mechanics with 1 or 2 cross over weapons like the PPC or LBX.

edit: maybe something as simple as a max ammo capacity per weapon type? So say you couldn't go above 21 AC20 shots (even if 2 were equipped).

Lasers aren't really 'burstfire' though, they have a beam-on-requirement of approximately 1/4 of their total recycle time. That's a beam time, not a burst, really. If you give ACs burstfire you use a drastically lower firing period for it (<0.5s even for a /20) and give it vertical climb within the burst (i.e. pseudo-recoil). That produces a different damage dispersal pattern to lasers (wherever you're waving it) and SRMs (a blob), and produces just enough variance that a fast moving and/or twisting target is liable to spread damage. It'd still be spectacularly easy to place a full AC/40 volley into someone's CT when they round a corner into you like a muppet. It would also help mitigate their ridiculous potential at long range thanks to the x3 falloff ********.

The trick is to introduce damage spread due to speed/twisting, not to turn ACs into lasers or prevent you putting full damage into one location. The latter never happens strictly, and in cases where it's 'softly' enforced like SRMs they get a damage buff to compensate (bar the LBX, but that's why it's ****).

[stjobe]

Syvarris, on 05 January 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

The ENTIRE point of a PPC is that it fires a ball of particles at something.

Is that so?

Quote

The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is a unique energy weapon. PPCs fire a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target, causing damage through both thermal and kinetic energy.
[...]
The ion beam also extends to much farther ranges than autocannon fire, though PPCs generate large amounts of waste heat.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/PPC



Image from the sarna.net article with the caption: "PPC fired by Timber Wolf - notice characteristic helix around the stream of particles"

Edited by stjobe, 06 January 2014 - 12:58 AM.

[Noth]

Gaan Cathal, on 06 January 2014 - 12:54 AM, said:

Lasers aren't really 'burstfire' though, they have a beam-on-requirement of approximately 1/4 of their total recycle time. That's a beam time, not a burst, really. If you give ACs burstfire you use a drastically lower firing period for it (<0.5s even for a /20) and give it vertical climb within the burst (i.e. pseudo-recoil). That produces a different damage dispersal pattern to lasers (wherever you're waving it) and SRMs (a blob), and produces just enough variance that a fast moving and/or twisting target is liable to spread damage. It'd still be spectacularly easy to place a full AC/40 volley into someone's CT when they round a corner into you like a muppet. It would also help mitigate their ridiculous potential at long range thanks to the x3 falloff ********.

The trick is to introduce damage spread due to speed/twisting, not to turn ACs into lasers or prevent you putting full damage into one location. The latter never happens strictly, and in cases where it's 'softly' enforced like SRMs they get a damage buff to compensate (bar the LBX, but that's why it's ****).

So in essence you are turning them into lasers with recoil, flight time, ammo, more weight, chance of blowing up, and more time between damage ticks. What you propose is a damage over time, just the ticks are visible shells instead of in a beam. This would instantly make AC underpowered. The only thing going for ACs at the moment is the fact that they do all their damage upfront.

[mania3c]

Noth, on 06 January 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

So in essence you are turning them into lasers with recoil, flight time, ammo, more weight, chance of blowing up, and more time between damage ticks. What you propose is a damage over time, just the ticks are visible shells instead of in a beam. This would instantly make AC underpowered. The only thing going for ACs at the moment is the fact that they do all their damage upfront.

It's good to see someone is using brain in this forum...

[Mcgral18]

Noth, on 06 January 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

So in essence you are turning them into lasers with recoil, flight time, ammo, more weight, chance of blowing up, and more time between damage ticks. What you propose is a damage over time, just the ticks are visible shells instead of in a beam. This would instantly make AC underpowered. The only thing going for ACs at the moment is the fact that they do all their damage upfront.

No, what they have going for them is low heat high damage low recycle. Frontloaded just makes them that much better.

[mania3c]

Mcgral18, on 06 January 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

No, what they have going for them is low heat high damage low recycle. Frontloaded just makes them that much better.

They are not high damage.. nor low recycle.. their damage is sup-bar if you will get tonnage and size into consideration.. AC 10 is powerful..right? make it "dot" weapon and you will quickly realize .. "Why should I care about all of these disadvantage if I can just pack two large lasers and some heatsinks and be done about it"

[Mcgral18]

mania3c, on 06 January 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

They are not high damage.. nor low recycle.. their damage is sup-bar if you will get tonnage and size into consideration.. AC 10 is powerful..right? make it "dot" weapon and you will quickly realize .. "Why should I care about all of these disadvantage if I can just pack two large lasers and some heatsinks and be done about it"

Because you'll overheat with even 2 large lasers since you need 3 times as many heatsinks to dissipate when compared to TT.

10 damage is the 3rd most damaging weapon in the game, and it fires much quicker than lasers or PPCs, with much less heat.

And it wouldn't be DoT in the same sense as lasers, since you can't control the burst in the same sense as a laser because that's hitscan, with the proposed burst all that happens is it gives the target time to twist to mitigate damage.

You'll realise it will still be used, just not abused.

[Sandpit]

Mcgral18, on 06 January 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Because you'll overheat with even 2 large lasers since you need 3 times as many heatsinks to dissipate when compared to TT.

10 damage is the 3rd most damaging weapon in the game, and it fires much quicker than lasers or PPCs, with much less heat.

And it wouldn't be DoT in the same sense as lasers, since you can't control the burst in the same sense as a laser because that's hitscan, with the proposed burst all that happens is it gives the target time to twist to mitigate damage.

You'll realise it will still be used, just not abused.

My 5LL Stalker and 6+ LL Bmaster will disagree but ok

[mania3c]

Mcgral18, on 06 January 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Because you'll overheat with even 2 large lasers since you need 3 times as many heatsinks to dissipate when compared to TT.

10 damage is the 3rd most damaging weapon in the game, and it fires much quicker than lasers or PPCs, with much less heat.

And it wouldn't be DoT in the same sense as lasers, since you can't control the burst in the same sense as a laser because that's hitscan, with the proposed burst all that happens is it gives the target time to twist to mitigate damage.

You'll realise it will still be used, just not abused.

Heat is issue only on some maps.. I have quad LL in my orion (alongside with 2xSSRM and LBX) .. in mordor and tourmaline..heat is big issue indeed.. in rest.. I can fire all day long..

First..I agree heat system has own issues and need to be corrected/fixed.. however for ACs..it would depend how long that burst would be.. some very short burst ..like 0,2 sec.. okay .. I can agree that it would still keep ACs different enough from lasers..but if we are talking about burst close to 0,5 sec.. just no..hitscan or burst.. it will make no difference (actually hitscan is more reliable and less luck based - better overall ..for user and target)

Edited by mania3c, 06 January 2014 - 07:02 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Noth, on 06 January 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

So in essence you are turning them into lasers with recoil, flight time, ammo, more weight, chance of blowing up, and more time between damage ticks. What you propose is a damage over time, just the ticks are visible shells instead of in a beam. This would instantly make AC underpowered. The only thing going for ACs at the moment is the fact that they do all their damage upfront.

Hey, look - someone who doesn't read posts. I quite specifically said that the burst shouldn't last anywhere near as long as a laser beam-on. Play any given game with a three-round burst rifle, that's what I'm talking about, nothing like a 1s duration beam. And you'd likely get better damage concentration anyway, lasers use fractional-damage ticks, a burstfire AC/20 would probably be spitting out four 5-damage shells.

Oh, and the 'only thing going for ACs' thing is utter nonsense. They have minimal opportunity cost compared with energy, and their 'weaknesses' don't really show in practice since the main one (weight) is mitigated by the huge number of heatsinks MWO's borked heat system requires to fire more than two medium lasers and ammo count is high enough to have negligible effect. It's seriously hard to run dry on ammo in MWO.