261 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

Weapon convergence is pinpoint, this makes sniping the #1 best thing to do.
Damage is often front loaded, this makes pinpoint weapon convergence even worse.

If either one of these are fixed, then the game suddenly changes, massively, and this would be a positive change.

Make no mistake, these two issues are the root of our problems in MWO's meta.

As for recoil, your battlemech's targeting computer is supposed to compensate for recoil, so for the pilot, there is effectively no recoil.

[Cimarb]

pbiggz, on 13 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Weapon convergence is pinpoint, this makes sniping the #1 best thing to do.
Damage is often front loaded, this makes pinpoint weapon convergence even worse.

If either one of these are fixed, then the game suddenly changes, massively, and this would be a positive change.

Make no mistake, these two issues are the root of our problems in MWO's meta.

As for recoil, your battlemech's targeting computer is supposed to compensate for recoil, so for the pilot, there is effectively no recoil.

I do agree with you about both, but I think the root is the front loaded damage, and the convergence is the aggravator - the opposite of how you phrased it. It could easily be argued either way, but an AC20 by itself is completely unaffected by convergence, while a change to burst is huge for it. Two AC20s are affected by convergence, but not a lot (2 hit locations instead of 1), while burst is again immensely more significant. Smaller weapons are affected less by FLD changes and more by convergence, but they are not the meta weapons we are trying to fix.

[Pariah Devalis]

I have to agree. The frontloaded damage is the bigger of the two issues. Pinpoint convergence is an issue, but it beats a randomization system as far as the context of a video game is concerned - though I did like the homeless bill targeting computer load idea. To effectively deal with the front load problem, PPC, autocannon, and possibly gauss would need to be looked at, though I would argue that the charge on gauss is its own balance factor. As far as autocannons, you know I favor a string of 2-5 shells.

For PPC, I saw an interesting suggestion on the forums months ago about making it deal the bulk of its damage on the point of impact, but split 1/3 of the damage into a two stage RNG arc effect where 2/3 of the remaining damage hits a random adjacent part and the remaining damage from there hits another random adjacent part to that, allowing u to two hits to the same component from a single PPC.

Edit:

Clarification on PPC. IS PPC deals 10 total damage. 7 hits point of impact, say Left Torso. 2 hits random adjacent section, say Center Torso. 1 Hits random adjacent section, say the Head. ERPPC deals 15 total damage. 10 hits Center Torso, 3 hits Right torso, 2 hits Center Torso. In both cases, the full damage of the weapon is not being placed in any one location.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 13 February 2014 - 01:31 PM.

[wanderer]

Indeed. Frontloaded damage is what allows for precise, pinpoint alphas.

Spread an AC's damage across a .4-.6 duration burst of shells and it's not nearly as nightmare fuel, especially if target and attacker are moving to increase spread further. PPC's having some kind of splash/multilocation mechanic or perhaps slower ROF would pretty much do the trick of killing multiple birds with one stone- not only would poptarting be mellowed out thanks to damage spreading, but groundpounders with PPC/AC metabuilds as well.

[Cimarb]

Pariah Devalis, on 13 February 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

I have to agree. The frontloaded damage is the bigger of the two issues. Pinpoint convergence is an issue, but it beats a randomization system as far as the context of a video game is concerned - though I did like the homeless bill targeting computer load idea. To effectively deal with the front load problem, PPC, autocannon, and possibly gauss would need to be looked at, though I would argue that the charge on gauss is its own balance factor. As far as autocannons, you know I favor a string of 2-5 shells.

For PPC, I saw an interesting suggestion on the forums months ago about making it deal the bulk of its damage on the point of impact, but split 1/3 of the damage into a two stage RNG arc effect where 2/3 of the remaining damage hits a random adjacent part and the remaining damage from there hits another random adjacent part to that, allowing u to two hits to the same component from a single PPC.

Edit:

Clarification on PPC. IS PPC deals 10 total damage. 7 hits point of impact, say Left Torso. 2 hits random adjacent section, say Center Torso. 1 Hits random adjacent section, say the Head. ERPPC deals 15 total damage. 10 hits Center Torso, 3 hits Right torso, 2 hits Center Torso. In both cases, the full damage of the weapon is not being placed in any one location.

I'm not sure if you read my post or someone else suggested roughly the same thing, but how you described PPC damage is exactly how I prefer it to be. The other option would be a small-cone LBX damage model, where it does 10x1 points of energy damage to a small area, which could easily be spread across 2 or more hitboxes through distance, poor aim, torso twisting, etc.

I actually think Gauss is fine where it is at, and the only exception in the FLD change, because the charge mechanic really does raise the bar for its use quite high comparatively. I wouldn't oppose a change, but I don't think its necessary.

Autocannons need to be normalized against each other (so they did damage based upon their class, not all ~AC20 damage) and their ranges brought back to where all other weapons systems are at (x2). Then you can implement immense numbers of RoF and caliber variations based upon manufacturer to get anywhere from the THUMP-THUMP guns that Joe likes to the WHRRRRRRRRRR gatling-type of autocannon they should be.

[Imperius]

Cimarb, on 13 February 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

I'm not sure if you read my post or someone else suggested roughly the same thing, but how you described PPC damage is exactly how I prefer it to be. The other option would be a small-cone LBX damage model, where it does 10x1 points of energy damage to a small area, which could easily be spread across 2 or more hitboxes through distance, poor aim, torso twisting, etc.

I actually think Gauss is fine where it is at, and the only exception in the FLD change, because the charge mechanic really does raise the bar for its use quite high comparatively. I wouldn't oppose a change, but I don't think its necessary.

Autocannons need to be normalized against each other (so they did damage based upon their class, not all ~AC20 damage) and their ranges brought back to where all other weapons systems are at (x2). Then you can implement immense numbers of RoF and caliber variations based upon manufacturer to get anywhere from the THUMP-THUMP guns that Joe likes to the WHRRRRRRRRRR gatling-type of autocannon they should be.

You meant this

http://mwomercs.com/...fix-suggestion/

[Cimarb]

Imperius, on 13 February 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

You meant this

http://mwomercs.com/...fix-suggestion/

Actually, I beat you to it, and this wasn't the first time I described this method, though I'm also sure I'm not the first one to do so either:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3130667

[Imperius]

Cimarb, on 13 February 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

Actually, I beat you to it, and this wasn't the first time I described this method, though I'm also sure I'm not the first one to do so either:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3130667

Great minds think alike?

[GalaxyBluestar]

IS GunGrave, on 13 February 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

PS. GalaxyBluestar EPIC SIGNATURE made my visit to mwo forum worth it!!! THANKS MAN

my pleasure.

@ wanderer

so much in agreement about the vanilla or vanilla gameplay coming up. that's what i'm reading in the latest 10vs12 discusion. the 12vs12 bunch really want clans = IS 12 = 12 staleness cause that's the only way the game can work. if that's the case then there's really no point in releasing clans and a stale game is a dead game. I so agree with all that you say man. happy to see you on the forums. hope you point this out to them because people left most of all because of lack of progress and mechs mechs mechs. i feel the clans opotunity to give us gameplay depth is being wasted to the more mechs is good regime and people don't realise that after the buzz you better hope CW is well underway or there's no reason to stay... unless you have ADD.

edit; oh the conversation moved on to alpha pinpoint damage is bad. {which in an uncontroled state it is} carry on everyone!

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 February 2014 - 01:36 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

wanderer, on 13 February 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

If that's the case, you end up with 12v12 Clan vs. IS....and no difference between the two in the process. The truth is, the "It's the biggest!" is one-THIRD of the options for players. The "Timmy", as CCG players would call it. It's not just those, it's the "Johnnies" and "Spikes" as well.

http://www.wizards.c...om/daily/mr220b

You make the Clanners into wanna be IS players, you've just killed options for two-thirds of the potential playerbase. There's nothing to prove if everyone's the same. The less unique the game becomes, the -worse- it becomes in the long run. We're on the road to pudding. Tapioca pudding and vanilla pudding, IS and Clan flavored.

Balancing strictly by effectively identical stats and numbers for two sides that were inherently NOT identical stats and numbers is the height of failure for Clan play.

They're going to put Clans into lances, balance them to be equivalent to a 3050-tech IS unit, and insert them into 12v12 games. While Russ backpedaled furiously on that, why the heck do you think it dropped on VLog #2 by the entire team sitting there?

You're not playing a Clan 'Mech at that point. You're playing an IS unit with a reskin and a couple of weapon modules slapped on randomly to your weapons for the lulz.



Screw roleplaying. Starcraft didn't have me playing Terrans vs. Terrans vs. Terrans. That's what we're heading for here. I need to see my Terrans vs. Protoss or Protoss vs. Zerg. If I could figure out how to do it, I'd be frickin' delighted to see them slap a high-tech ComStar faction in later a few years for now so we can have three DIFFERENT tech-treed factions.

Since you used starcraft as an example ill carry that on - Terrans vs Protoss vs Zerg ARE balanced vs each other. the difference is it is an RTS, and ONE player controls the entire force. A Zerg player just controls more, less powerful units compared to a Protoss player, but hes not individually out matched, whereas here HE WOULD BE, since he only controls his one mech, not the whole company. to take it further if the starcraft IP was converted to an FPS with balance between units as it is in the RTS, how many people would play zerglings, compared to protoss warriors? not 5x as many, thats for DAMN sure.

The saying 'There is no I in team' does not apply to online games where people do not (most of the time) even personally know their team mates

And as i said, balancing 1v1 is an interesting challenge if you want to keep the different flavours - as you say they shouldnt be the 'same' but they cant take the balance fromn TT and balance on numbers. it wont work.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Widowmaker1981, on 14 February 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

And as i said, balancing 1v1 is an interesting challenge if you want to keep the different flavours - as you say they shouldnt be the 'same' but they cant take the balance fromn TT and balance on numbers. it wont work.

i see you haven't been here wrong. learn fast that challenge + PGI = horribad.

examples.

TT translation for firerates and the double armour heat imbalences therein

infowarfare and ecm's implementaiton.

heat threashold and the extra ghostheat to combat it

pitching to sim fans cave in to 3pv

UI 2.0

CW the never ending carrot.

so yeah PGI taking on clans when IS mechs are still a bit messy and some weapon systems are still out of whack or broken and 3 "awe inspiring" gamemodes... they're in no position to pull this off at all.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 February 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[ImperialKnight]

Y U NERF top speed???

[wanderer]

Quote

The saying 'There is no I in team' does not apply to online games where people do not (most of the time) even personally know their team mates

This, right here is pure PUG thought.

"We can't balance around numbers because people can't even into teamwork".

There are entire multi-page threads devoted to the mocking of the Rambo Player. For good reason. If we have Clanners who are even more team-focused due to smaller numbers in order to succeed, this makes them actually *gasp* better players in order to fight at numerical disadvantage vs IS forces to win.

Almost as if Clan pilots would end up better by dint of need to fight the Inner Sphere....hmm...

Given the un-nerfed tools to face the challenge, you'd attract players for the right reasons.

Clantech should be Clan factions alone. This is 3050. Unless your name is "Wolf Dragoons" (newsflash: actually a Clan unit) or you're an Heir to a Successor State....you're NOT driving a Clan 'Mech. You can't hire a company of Clan 'Mechs to go raid a planet. Nothing stops people from having an IS account and a Clan account- this is a F2P game, if you want to play both sides it costs you NOTHING.

The more similar and non-unique Clan forces become, the less reason there is to play them in the first place. PGI is pointing Clan factions straight towards the toilet, since they have no real reason to exist other than annoying fleabite "Houses" that will be numerically inferior as it is to the Steiner-Davion juggernaut as it stands now, who will field the same 'Mechs, with the same "power level" per 'Mech, only with more fanboys to throw in them and a grognardian desire to "keep the Clans out" and "win the unwinnable war".

Trust me. House Liao player from the old days. If you don't have uniqueness to appeal to players, you will become an afterthought, and PGI is leading you straight down the road to oblivion, one "balance" at a time.

• Quote

  Y U NERF top speed???
  
  
  Clan 'Mechs in MWO have the same top speed by engine/tonnage as IS ones. TT rounds max speed up, MWO doesn't do so for IS or Clan 'Mechs.

[dwwolf]

I'm not sure if ACs need to be completely normalised. A progression in dps for weight used / weapon sure but completely normalised: no. TT devs have acknowledged that the /2 and the /5 are poor performers ( not too mention clan tech being imba in places ) we dont need to carry all poorly designed bits over to the FPS/SIM we like to play online.

[Pariah Devalis]

dwwolf, on 14 February 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

I'm not sure if ACs need to be completely normalised. A progression in dps for weight used / weapon sure but completely normalised: no. TT devs have acknowledged that the /2 and the /5 are poor performers ( not too mention clan tech being imba in places ) we dont need to carry all poorly designed bits over to the FPS/SIM we like to play online.

Problem is the 2 and 5 are still 'safer' weapons to bring into a fight than most energy weapons or missile systems, because that is 2 and 5 damage, pinpoint, on a spot, on demand. The DPS could use normalization across the autocannons, sure, but that does not solve the issue of dealing chunks of damage packets. If autocannons dealt their damage over a stream of bullets that lasted even half a second the effectiveness of poptarts would be reduced significantly and the relative effectiveness of the other weapon systems would increase accordingly.

[DreamFallen Novacat]

I have to agree, AC 2's and 5's are pretty strong right now if you can keep a lead on the target.

[GalaxyBluestar]

wanderer, on 14 February 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:

talking sense as usual

i'd just add that you needn't split accounts up. PGI have already stated no mixed tech and mechlabs for clans and IS are seperate. on that note it would be easier if they...

enable the faction button to choose clan or IS, next drop down {in keeping with UI 2.0 style... i know i'm bad} shows the factions themselves with tick boxes {saves having to use the website for faction change} if not changing from davion to stiener or ghostbear to wolf then click okay and you have access to the hange menu as normal. either with clan affiliations and omnimechs or the one we currently have. other than that agree completely with you as usual.

[CyclonerM]

Quote

enable the faction button to choose clan or IS, next drop down {in keeping with UI 2.0 style... i know i'm bad} shows the factions themselves with tick boxes {saves having to use the website for faction change} if not changing from davion to stiener or ghostbear to wolf then click okay and you have access to the hange menu as normal. either with clan affiliations and omnimechs or the one we currently have. other than that agree completely with you as usual.

Too easy. I want to see something to prevent this. Welln in a single player game you may have had to choose only a faction, and it would have been right. In MWO, apparently, people need to be able to switch factions but at least i would introduce a minimum LP or time requirement: for example, you can change faction after a week from the last switch OR, better, you can change faction after having earned minimum 70% LPs, or maybe the max.

[Cimarb]

CyclonerM, on 15 February 2014 - 04:46 AM, said:

Too easy. I want to see something to prevent this. Welln in a single player game you may have had to choose only a faction, and it would have been right. In MWO, apparently, people need to be able to switch factions but at least i would introduce a minimum LP or time requirement: for example, you can change faction after a week from the last switch OR, better, you can change faction after having earned minimum 70% LPs, or maybe the max.

From what I have read, changing faction results in a loss of LP from the previous faction(s). To be part of the Dragoons, you have to max each one out, and probably earn the achievement for doing so, even though they won't all be maxed at the same time. You will also lose LP for defeating members of that faction, so if you are Davion, and defeat a Kuritan, you would gain Davion LP and lose Kuritan LP. That is why they are going to organize us by faction in the MM (and therefore can't give us LP currently because the current MM doesn't do that).

Edited by Cimarb, 15 February 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

CyclonerM, on 15 February 2014 - 04:46 AM, said:

Too easy. I want to see something to prevent this. Welln in a single player game you may have had to choose only a faction, and it would have been right. In MWO, apparently, people need to be able to switch factions but at least i would introduce a minimum LP or time requirement: for example, you can change faction after a week from the last switch OR, better, you can change faction after having earned minimum 70% LPs, or maybe the max.

i'd hate to be the one who has to tell the "muh friendz" crowd that hey you have to wait a week to be in the same faction to drop with your friends mechs. that's why the LP system will do all that giving and taking away for the players allegance actions.