94 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

daneiel varna, on 15 November 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

The problem is not in the weapons accuracy the problem is to avoid boating the same weapons

Wrong. There are canon boats, and the same problems with alpha strikes happen even with mechs with varied weapons, they just aren't favored by the munchkin crowd.

[TheRulesLawyer]

woodstock, on 15 November 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

Yeah messing with the heat mechanics is gonna need constant rebalancing as we introduce new and better heat controling methods as new tech comes in.

It also does not represent the scattergun effect that is constantly referred to in all the books and TT games. I honestly think the MW games only did it the way they did due to programming / hardware restrictions of the day.

I think it really had to do with multiplayer being in its infancy way back then. Pinpoint hitscan weapons were fine for single player games and nobody had really bothered to think about how to deal with the balance issues in multi-player games. Its no just the MW series. I remember that constant headshots were a real problem in multiplayer FPS for awhile.

[Daneiel]

TheRulesLawyer, on 15 November 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

Wrong. There are canon boats, and the same problems with alpha strikes happen even with mechs with varied weapons, they just aren't favored by the munchkin crowd.

I dont think so , most of the alpha strikes with suggest from me variant we will lead you to edge of the heat level , the canon boat designs are not problem , most of them are with rocket weapons - if i don't mistake - i think it was mentioned that the missiles will be more area of effect then surgical weapons - the bigger problem are 10 medium lasers , 3 or 4 AC/20 and in that way .

Edited by daneiel varna, 15 November 2011 - 12:20 PM.

[Owl Cutter]

I remember suggesting, in one of the many redundant threads, something along the same lines as what Gawain, Glare, and feor said here.

Beam weapons should be consistent and precise, but 9 tons of laser and heatsink should not be unambiguously superior in every possible situation to 16 tons of Autocannon and ammo. (I figure 10 turns is a more reasonable minimum load than 5.) The solution I like most, since it does not rely on additional die rolls or heavy computational load for tracking every weapon's aimpoint based on the 'mech mesh and animation, is to give beam weapons a firing delay and string them out when group-firing, including alpha strikes. Nonlinear heat buildup as described above seems backward to me, since it should dissipate faster when you run hotter, but the desired balance mechanic can easily be rationalised as a result of limited ability to deliver power to weapons and need to commit a beam weapon to firing a split second before it can actually get to the point of firing, as opposed to a gun where the shell is all ready to go instantly at the drop of a pin.

This breaks up damage so we can't Lego together sandblasting weapons into overpowered limb breakers. Pulse lasers and their accuracy bonus would be represented by a uniquely short firing delay and, if normal lasers still fire in bursts longer than an eyeblink, pulse lasers could dump instantly simply so the name doesn't confuse newcomers. I also like it better than drawing out normal laser attacks into sustained beams since that would punish little guys that can only carry one or two lasers.

[TheRulesLawyer]

daneiel varna, on 15 November 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

I dont think so , most of the alpha strikes with suggest from me variant we will lead you to edge of the heat level , the canon boat designs are not problem , most of them are with rocket weapons - if i don't mistake - i think it was mentioned that the missiles will be more area of effect then surgical weapons - the bigger problem are 10 medium lasers , 3 or 4 AC/20 and in that way .

There are canon energy boats for sure are well. Just about any weapon you type you can think of has a canon "boat" of it at some point.

Even if you're firing a whole array of different weapons they still have the same basic issue if allowed to all hit the same spot. Granted it is more complicated to use, with different range brackets and reload times, but its still doable.

[Aeolian]

Something I hadn't really considered is that the missions aren't going to be strictly deathmatches. You're going to need balanced loadouts to do some of them, ideally.

[wpmaura]

well I will say this, I think the way mech 4 handles it is great. a hunch back can only swap out balistic weapon where its ac is located etc.

but you should defiantly have some type of cone of fire.

but then again all this is pointless as we have heard zero from the developer.

[Belrick]

Thanks OP. I agree with your sentiments on balancing between weapons but I hardly think it makes the cone of fire question irrelevant.

Finding a way to make it so every single shot does not land precisely on target is crucial. That's what made pop-tarting (along with third person view) so deadly in mw4. There was simply no penalty to jumping into the air and firing off all your weapons at once.

If not some sort of exponential heat penalty (at least on energy weapons) a larger cone of fire for alpha strikes would be great. It'd fit fluff wise because, as was already mentioned, alpha strikes were not common (at least in the books I've read). It'd also balance out some issues with light mechs vs everyone else. With pinpoint accuracy, alpha strike = dead Flea. I'm not saying that light mechs should be impossible to hit, but forcing people to consider the benefits of cycling vs alpha would make it more than the point and click antics of MW4. I always found it absurd that a mech could be getting whallopped with ac20s, but still pull off pin point accuracy shots. Perhaps the cone could even spread while taking fire?

Anyway, assuming you are a good pilot and hit most of your shots, if the only reason not to alpha weapons is heat, then I think there is a problem.

Edited by Belrick, 22 November 2011 - 03:21 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

If the "alpha strike" by itself is in fact one of the major issues with CoF, then its whole concept needs to be rethought perhaps. Going back to the original novels mentioned, indeed, like mentioned above, it's not like every other engagement there was handled by consecutive alpha strikes. In fact, on very few occasions was it mentioned at all that specific Mech could fire all its weapons at once.

Thus it could be the case that a 75-ton Orion Mech could do an alpha strike, a 75-ton Black Knight Mech (just picking two random Mechs as example) couldn't though. Apart from the option to try to bypass by some innovative Tech that "not designed for it" limitation, it could just exceed the, let's say, processing power of the chassis and its in-built computer/actuators/whatever. Meaning that even by mucking around with the bypass option, the best you could achieve is to have a alpha strike ready, but unfortunately with only half the normal accuracy on your weapons compared to "normal" mode (or even less). Which would make using that option a gamble except at close to point-blank ranges. Even risking a burnout of some of your systems with each alpha strike.

Many of us will remember the limitations on MASC. How it could... when unlucky or used abusively, yes, would stop you dead in your tracks. Similar mechanism for the alpha strike issue should be possible. And it might actually encourage people to not simply go into their Mechlab and throw as many weapons as possible with no regards for anything else on a chassis. To create their ultimate MUN-3-K "Munchkin" Mech with low speed. negligible armor, but the weapons loadout of half a dropship. Because that certainly is not even close to "BT canon" and just plain silly. And would do nothing at all to make gameplay attractive.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 22 November 2011 - 09:55 AM.

[Hohiro Kurita]

woodstock, on 14 November 2011 - 11:17 PM, said:

Its not the individual hit allocation that needs balancing its the clustering of weapons.

I don't think anyone is saying that a single laser should randomly hit on the body of the target. What they want to avoid is people ripping out the Hunchbacks AC20 and filling the space with Med lasers (similar range) and heat sinks to handle the heat. And then for those clustered med lasers to all hit the same point and effectively replace the AC20 with a higher damage alpha strike weapon. Which has no ammo restrictions. (With all the damage hitting one small areas)

By introducing a system where by weapon hits from alpha strike cluster shots are spread out around the target mech you simulate the countless canon references to the inaccuracy of weapon systems while also preventing people from exploiting this particular loophole.

Something that might have been tricky to code in days gone past but now I assume would be significantly easier.

You also support the role of light mechs as their armour will last longer if clustered smaller weapons cant one shot them anymore. (of course a PPC or an AC20 would still ruin their day but thats exactly as it should be.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how that's unbalanced. If you don't want to get alphastriked by a more efficient replacement of weapons, then hit that person and destroy them.

This game does not need any artificial balancing. The only modifiers needed are those mentioned, such as heat and accuracy modifiers - things from the original board game.

[Hohiro Kurita]

I really disagree that the weapons need balancing.

If you want balance, you should prevent mechlab completely.

Other than that....the game was never balanced. All they need are to translate the values from BMR, entirely, to the game's code - it will play somewhat like CBT and that's the only way it should play.

[Haeso]

One thing I've always wondered, do the people who are proponents of pinpoint accuracy actually like the idea of coring center torsos while the rest of the mech hasn't taken a single hit? One of the most frustrating things throughout all the MW computer games and the occasional unlucky battle in TT is when you get legged or Cored without taking damage anywhere else. It just feels wrong. Coring someone with minimal damage elsewhere should be a freak occurrence, not the norm it was in MW.

I really hope they make CT/RT/LT/RL/LL much harder to destroy overall, preferably by breaking the sections down into many more smaller but equally durable sections to the point where even with pinpoint accuracy it's not possible to core mechs reliably. I want to see people making the choice to knock out the Hunchback's Big gun, or the Catapults ears, not just Coring them left and right or legging them.

Note: I've got no issue doing any of those to other players, it's easy enough for me to do, but it feels very wrong and takes a lot of fun out of the game for me.

Edited by Haeso, 22 November 2011 - 07:15 PM.

[Dsi1]

Haeso, on 22 November 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:

One thing I've always wondered, do the people who are proponents of pinpoint accuracy actually like the idea of coring center torsos while the rest of the mech hasn't taken a single hit? One of the most frustrating things throughout all the MW computer games and the occasional unlucky battle in TT is when you get legged or Cored without taking damage anywhere else. It just feels wrong. Coring someone with minimal damage elsewhere should be a freak occurrence, not the norm it was in MW.

I really hope they make CT/RT/LT/RL/LL much harder to destroy overall, preferably by breaking the sections down into many more smaller but equally durable sections to the point where even with pinpoint accuracy it's not possible to core mechs reliably. I want to see people making the choice to knock out the Hunchback's Big gun, or the Catapults ears, not just Coring them left and right or legging them.

Note: I've got no issue doing any of those to other players, it's easy enough for me to do, but it feels very wrong and takes a lot of fun out of the game for me.

I don't think anyone wants the combat to be like it was in the older MW games.

Some people want to make it worse (luck based on a random CoF) and some people want to make it better (munitions are emitted directly from the weapon on the mech, and the mech is moving of course, swinging arms, rotating torso, shake from incoming weapons fire, shake from stepping, etc).

What I wonder: Why do so many people support something so outdated and (should be) obsolete as cone of fire? It certainly has no place in any game that wants to be any sort of sim.

Edited by Dsi1, 22 November 2011 - 08:19 PM.

[VYCanis]

I want believable precision, but i want it to actually be difficult to hit your target when dealing with various interfering factors messing with your aim. i.e. instead of having aim difficulty being something where i am fighting the causes (i.e. slowing down/cooling down), i would much rather directly be fighting the symptoms of the interference, an erratic crosshair

concentrated damage can be mitigated by other gameplay factors such as weapon behavior and how damage is calculated. For example large amounts of excessive damage can be spread to adjacent locations, and many weapons can spread damage to various locations either by splash or dividing up the impacts

another solution, simply never have full convergence. Pretend for the sake of argument that wherever you are aiming, your weapons are converged at an invisible point in space about 6 or 7 meters behind your target. That way, no matter what range, you can hit what you are aiming at, but are never able to concentrate your damage fully.

Edited by VYCanis, 22 November 2011 - 08:23 PM.

[Dsi1]

VYCanis, on 22 November 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

another solution, simply never have full convergence. Pretend for the sake of argument that wherever you are aiming, your weapons are converged at an invisible point in space about 6 or 7 meters behind your target. That way, no matter what range, you can hit what you are aiming at, but are never able to concentrate your damage fully.

I like this, I also vote for it having to take (a short amount of) time for your weapons to set up convergence at the target distance, actuators gonna actuate.

Edited by Dsi1, 22 November 2011 - 08:27 PM.

[Phades]

Technoviking, on 15 November 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

Easy solution. (well, perpahs hard to code and art, but a simple theory)

Don't increase the hit reticule, or the chance of hitting. Decrease in size the hit boxes, then multiply them by 1000s. This means that "Pin point accuracy" can exist, but those pin points are just those. If a mech thigh can take "multiple pin points" and have them not be cumlative, matches last longer, accuracy matters, and a moving mechs also matters.

Imagine a hex map. Now overlay that on a mechs thigh, and imagine that a laser hits (or strafes along) 1 or two hexes at a time. A autocannon 2 might hit two or three of the hexes. I could fire again, at that that thigh, and miss that first gouge. This is a great solution, and so realistic in my opinion. You could have critcals, heat sinks and actuators hidden beneat a certain section of armor, not the whole panel. If you melt through, you hit that critical. If you some how hit that again, you're in the criticals. This would be difficult at long range, easier at short range...

I've posted what was an attempt at a complete thought with the same reasoning behind it here. It is 3 posts long, with some other thoughts on the following page as pointed out with obvious errors or oversights by Nik Van Rhijn. I think it can work given proper testing, but it would require a fair amount of testing to ensure each chassis and weapon function was equally viable relatively speaking.

[Halfinax]

Dsi1, on 22 November 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

I like this, I also vote for it having to take (a short amount of) time for your weapons to set up convergence at the target distance, actuators gonna actuate.

The only variance I see beyond this is the Avatar's ability to compensate for such deviances. The computer shouldn't be perfect, or player skill would play a relatively small role in the grand scheme of things. Just because I can point at a .0001 MM location with a mouse doesn't mean I'm capable of hitting the same point with a weapon in real life.

[Dsi1]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 08:38 PM, said:

The only variance I see beyond this is the Avatar's ability to compensate for such deviances. The computer shouldn't be perfect, or player skill would play a relatively small role in the grand scheme of things. Just because I can point at a .0001 MM location with a mouse doesn't mean I'm capable of hitting the same point with a weapon in real life.

This is compensated for by breathing in milsims like ArmA, I wonder what could be done with mechs?

[DontGetCrabs]

I think a cone of fire could work well if you used it the right way in addition to using custom weapon convergence. If the tech working on your mech is of a lower pay grade or skill it directly relates to how well your weapons are mounted. Causing you to have a larger cone of fire. You shell out the cash for a good tech then your cone of fire drops. Add this on to a custom weapon convergence like what pilots of WW2 fighters had to do for there wing mounted machine guns. With this you could even add one more layer of if your adding parts on your Mech that isn't stock you would get additional penalties to your cone of fire with that one weapon.

This has the ability of adding many many MMO layers to the game. You get a form XP or whatever to spend on your mech making it a bit more accurate or a bit more engine output. As well as an XP to use on your pilot, better able to withstand the effects of a heating cockpit, better syncing with whatever mech giving better balance. These are just ruff ideas but it all leads down to making your mech yours. The more and more you get used to your mech by whatever game mechanic, or no game mechanic. If your mech is totally tuned for combat at 350 meters you get used to that. If your mech gets shot out from you and you cannot salvage it for whatever reason. You start off with a lvl 1 mech. Might have all the same stuff but it isn't going to "act" the same.

You have just now added value to a in game object. Making it where you only want to use that mech when you need all you can bring to the table. If its just another mission you use another mech you dont have so much time AND money invested into. Just a few sloppy ideas that I would like to be expanded upon.

Edited by DontGetCrabs, 22 November 2011 - 09:15 PM.

[Halfinax]

Dsi1, on 22 November 2011 - 09:12 PM, said:

This is compensated for by breathing in milsims like ArmA, I wonder what could be done with mechs?

Again you are refering to a situation in which only one weapon is taken into account. There isn't 5+ weapons and their convergences taken into account or even a computers limitations in calculating such a relatively large number of variables simultaneously.