195 replies to this topic

[Madw0lf]

Hello all, Id like to preface this by saying that;

1) I actually feel the game is pretty well balanced atm (atleast at my "level")

2) I dont "meta"

That being said, I see alot of......weird, suggestions to balance the game flying around, with som common themes. And other things brought up regularly that are.....not to my liking (cough burst ACs cough). So Ive been working on a couple ideas recently and thought Id get some input.

To start I followed a couple of simple rules;

1) Whatever is implemented must be simple to implement, simple to run, and simple to understand (so, KISS)

2) It has to make some logical physical sense (BT stretches my suspension of disbelief enough already....)

So, in order to address one of what seems to be the communities largest complaints, pinpoint damage/instant convergence/etc. I give you first;


Reticle Shake

This is the simpler, though less effective of my proposed solutions. The reticle shakes around during movement/extreme heat/etc. and affects where your shot will go. Your shot hits where the reticle shows, but the reticle moves to affect your aiming.

Implementation: Really all that would be done is to take the JJ shake mechanic and apply it at all times following a basic equation;

shake = %throttle + [.1] * m

where m is a modifier on a per mech basis. So the higher your throttle setting, the more area your reticule covers. The exact form and values for this would be up for tuning, obviously. But this gives another great area to help differentiate Mechs with each one having their own modifier.

The major downside is, an alpha strike would still all hit one location, though it would be harder to hit the one you wanted to.

This would, unfortunately, affect the less skilled more so than the more highly skilled players, who would be able to adapt much more quickly.


Simulated Convergence:

I can see this one being quite controversial. In essence what we are doing here, is providing the effects of convergence, without putting the strain of calculating so many different weapons paths on the server (Which is, IIRC why PGI said they wouldnt be implementing convergence).

We start with this equation;

r = m*(l*tan(a))

Where;
m is a per-Mech modifier
l is the range to target (or reticle)
a is the angle
and r is the radius that will be hit.

What happens:

Lets assume we target a Mech at 700m with our 4 ERPPCs in a Stalker.
Stalker has an m of [.1], our base a value is [5] so our r value becomes [6.2]m
What this means is that our ERPPC alpha will spread over an area of 6.2m radius. What actually happens, is that the damage is split up into n (number of weapons being fired) different packets each with the damage value of one weapon, which each hits a different section at random.

So in our example, we have 4 packets of 10 damage each distributed across what is probably the entire target. The damage is centered around the reticle, so if we are aiming at the CT we have 10 at the CT, 10 each side torso, and 10 to either an arm, leg, or the head.

Now, as we hold our target lock, or hold our reticle on target, our a value decreases which decreases our r, increaseing the number of weapons hitting any singular point.

Now, this solution is more complex, but better simulates actual convergence in its effects. IT would also encourage targetting.

This is all just a rough "sketch" if you will, but a place to start. Comments, questions, suggestions, flames?

Edited by Madw0lf, 21 February 2014 - 09:38 AM.

[MaxStr]

I like the cone of fire approach but it gets a lot of hate on this forum. I am very pessimistic about any feedback here being implemented ingame as the last year has taught me well. I hope some alternative solution will pop up here all the same

[Joseph Mallan]

I'm with Max. You are giving constructive ideas and looking for good feedback. I will be watching this, Some folks will give you good ideas, (Must, Kho, StJobe, DaZ, DocBach to name a few).

Me I can live with a expanding CoF as I alpha with more weapons. It would make me think about when I want to try to hit you with everything or take a pin point shot. And that is how a thinking mans shooter should be! Every action needs a reaction.

[Madw0lf]

I know this probably wont go anywhere in the end, but I just had to voice my mind

Joe, I like that idea alot actually. On its own or built into one of the ones I brought up it would be great!

[Joseph Mallan]

Madw0lf, on 19 February 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

I know this probably wont go anywhere in the end, but I just had to voice my mind

Joe, I like that idea alot actually. On its own or built into one of the ones I brought up it would be great!

Giving credit where it belongs, It is something DocBach was tossing around that made good sense to me as well.

[Craig Steele]

Madw0lf, on 19 February 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

Hello all, Id like to preface this by saying that;

1) I actually feel the game is pretty well balanced atm (atleast at my "level")

2) I dont "meta"

That being said, I see alot of......weird, suggestions to balance the game flying around, with som common themes. And other things brought up regularly that are.....not to my liking (cough burst ACs cough). So Ive been working on a couple ideas recently and thought Id get some input.

To start I followed a couple of simple rules;

1) Whatever is implemented must be simple to implement, simple to run, and simple to understand (so, KISS)

2) It has to make some logical physical sense (BT stretches my suspension of disbelief enough already....)

So, in order to address one of what seems to be the communities largest complaints, pinpoint damage/instant convergence/etc. I give you first;


Cone of Fire

Used extensively in other FPS games, this is the simpler, though less effective of my proposed solutions.

Implementation: Really all that would be done is to take the JJ shake mechanic and apply it at all times following a basic equation;

shake = %throttle + [.1] * m

where m is a modifier on a per mech basis. So the higher your throttle setting, the more area your reticule covers. The exact form and values for this would be up for tuning, obviously. But this gives another great area to help differentiate Mechs with each one having their own modifier.

The major downside is, an alpha strike would still all hit one location, though it would be harder to hit the one you wanted to.

This would, unfortunately, affect the less skilled more so than the more highly skilled players, who would be able to adapt much more quickly.


Simulated Convergence:

I can see this one being quite controversial. In essence what we are doing here, is providing the effects of convergence, without putting the strain of calculating so many different weapons paths on the server (Which is, IIRC why PGI said they wouldnt be implementing convergence).

We start with this equation;

r = m*(l*tan(a))

Where;
m is a per-Mech modifier
l is the range to target (or reticle)
a is the angle
and r is the radius that will be hit.

What happens:

Lets assume we target a Mech at 700m with our 4 ERPPCs in a Stalker.
Stalker has an m of [.1], our base a value is [5] so our r value becomes [6.2]m
What this means is that our ERPPC alpha will spread over an area of 6.2m radius. What actually happens, is that the damage is split up into n (number of weapons being fired) different packets each with the damage value of one weapon, which each hits a different section at random.

So in our example, we have 4 packets of 10 damage each distributed across what is probably the entire target. The damage is centered around the reticle, so if we are aiming at the CT we have 10 at the CT, 10 each side torso, and 10 to either an arm, leg, or the head.

Now, as we hold our target lock, or hold our reticle on target, our a value decreases which decreases our r, increaseing the number of weapons hitting any singular point.

Now, this solution is more complex, but better simulates actual convergence in its effects. IT would also encourage targetting.

This is all just a rough "sketch" if you will, but a place to start. Comments, questions, suggestions, flames?

Pretty well argued, I like the throttle vs accuracy thigs, that resonantes with me. +1

[wanderer]

Convergence is pretty much as it's gonna be thanks to the engine MWO uses. Really, the fixes have to come from the weapon side unless you do go with a cone-of-fire solution- and yes, movement based at that- but that means people get twitchy about randomshotWarriorOnline.

[Madw0lf]

wanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

Convergence is pretty much as it's gonna be thanks to the engine MWO uses. Really, the fixes have to come from the weapon side unless you do go with a cone-of-fire solution- and yes, movement based at that- but that means people get twitchy about randomshotWarriorOnline.

Is there something particular about the engine I may have missed aside from the load of calculating so many more weapon trajectories?

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

Convergence is pretty much as it's gonna be thanks to the engine MWO uses. Really, the fixes have to come from the weapon side unless you do go with a cone-of-fire solution- and yes, movement based at that- but that means people get twitchy about randomshotWarriorOnline.

Hey, don't be mad at me

In all seriouslness, can you expand on why wepaons are the trigger / lever? You seem to imply its the only option and I didn't realise that?

[Khobai]

Im against cone of fire personally. Not being able to control where your weapons hit removes a lot of the decision making from the game. We should be able to target specific locations on mechs like arms/legs/side torsos/etc...

IMO what needs to change is how weapons distribute damage. Make PPCs do non-random splash damage. And make autocannons do burst fire. You still have complete control over where your weapons hit, but the amount of damage you can do all at once is reduced considerably. No more 30-40 point alphas.

[Madw0lf]

Khobai, on 19 February 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Im against cone of fire personally. Not being able to control where your weapons hit removes a lot of the decision making from the game. We should be able to target specific locations on mechs like arms/legs/side torsos/etc...

IMO what needs to change is how weapons distribute damage. Make PPCs do non-random splash damage. And make autocannons do burst fire. You still have complete control over where your weapons hit, but the amount of damage you can do all at once is reduced considerably. No more 30-40 point alphas.

Both of these methods give you the ability to have a high degree of accuracy with where your shots will hit, if youre patient. I am personally wholy against the idea of burst fire ACs from a physical and gameplay perspective. I also dont believe that nerfing individual weapons continuously like this is going to be good in the long run.

Not saying youre wrong, just stating why I disagree

[wanderer]

Basically, MWO seems to have serious trouble with multi-convergence tracking- to the point where before, you had guns literally firing at 90 degree angles to the 'Mech or in rare cases, backwards or starting the weapon track INSIDE your own 'Mech.

Nothing like swinging around to fire your 3xSRM 6 rack and having it blow up your own torso, or nailing the guy at a right angle to your target with your PPCs when you've got the real target lined up in your crosshairs. Thus the "everything hits the same point" convergence we have today.

The sane fixes to our problem are making weapons perform in a way that doesn't put all the damage in one place if the target is moving (at least)- that is, spread. Lasers do. Missiles do even if the target isn't moving. The only weapon types that don't are AC's and PPC's. If we can't reliably build a convergence system that doesn't pinpoint, then weapons need to fire in a manner that normal gameplay spreads damage instead.

Three guesses why the meta focuses on AC/PPC combos as it is- they deliver the best results given no tweaks to compensate for a pinpoint-all-to-one convergence system.

Quote

I am personally wholy against the idea of burst fire ACs from a physical and gameplay perspective. I also dont believe that nerfing individual weapons continuously like this is going to be good in the long run.

AC's as they are were put in thinking that we'd have a better convergence system- that is, even guns on opposite arms wouldn't nail the same point when fired, but have some natural spread. They really haven't changed their damage model since closed beta.

We didn't know back then that we'd be stuck with the system we have now, where everything goes straight to the crosshair without fail. Thus, it's not a nerf- it's the only option to fix what, thanks to the engine being as it is, the problem that lets such weapons outperform what they should.

Edited by wanderer, 19 February 2014 - 07:27 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Both of these methods give you the ability to have a high degree of accuracy with where your shots will hit

Thats the whole point. The point isnt to remove precision damage from the game. Just limit it enough so that it no longer dominates the game.

And burst fire is how autocannons have always fired in the lore. They always fired bursts of 3-10 shots. So it makes sense to emulate that. There are other ways to differentiate autocannons from other weapons: ammo types for example.

[Madw0lf]

wanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

Basically, MWO seems to have serious trouble with multi-convergence tracking- to the point where before, you had guns literally firing at 90 degree angles to the 'Mech or in rare cases, backwards or starting the weapon track INSIDE your own 'Mech.

Nothing like swinging around to fire your 3xSRM 6 rack and having it blow up your own torso, or nailing the guy at a right angle to your target with your PPCs when you've got the real target lined up in your crosshairs. Thus the "everything hits the same point" convergence we have today.

The sane fixes to our problem are making weapons perform in a way that doesn't put all the damage in one place if the target is moving (at least)- that is, spread. Lasers do. Missiles do even if the target isn't moving. The only weapon types that don't are AC's and PPC's. If we can't reliably build a convergence system that doesn't pinpoint, then weapons need to fire in a manner that normal gameplay spreads damage instead.

Three guesses why the meta focuses on AC/PPC combos as it is- they deliver the best results given no tweaks to compensate for a pinpoint-all-to-one convergence system.

I think a lot of those problems likely came from actually tracking the individual weapons, which my system would not do. THink of what I outlined above as working the same way as the LBX, with each weapon fired being an individual pellet.

Khobai, on 19 February 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

Thats the whole point. The point isnt to remove precision damage from the game. Just limit it enough so that it no longer dominates the game.

And burst fire is how autocannons have always fired in the lore. They always fired bursts of 3-10 shots. So it makes sense to emulate that. There are other ways to differentiate autocannons from other weapons: ammo types for example.

If done right they still wouldnt remove it, you just wouldnt be able to fire from the hip at 80 kph and headshot someone anymore.

They may burst fire in lore, but that doesnt make physical sense to me. And if were going by lore (as in the fluff, I believe they acted pinpoint in TT itself yes?) then weapons fire should be spread all over the mech, pinpoint targetting should be a rarity which take skill and patience.

[Craig Steele]

Khobai, on 19 February 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

And burst fire is how autocannons have always fired in the lore. They always fired bursts of 3-10 shots. So it makes sense to emulate that. There are other ways to differentiate autocannons from other weapons: ammo types for example.

Yes and no.

Up until Dark Age rule books canon was not specific in identifying how AC's physically interacted although it HINTED at burst fire. I can understand why many see AC's as a one shell(like a tank cannon) weapon.

Similarly canon was silent on Gauss rifles being a single round or burst fire (there are conflicting stances) and I have yet to see an absolute definitive confirmation.

Some novels portray Gauss as a single shot weapon, but some rule books hint at a small shell and large magazine feed implying rapid fire weapons.

I get why people can have different views.

[wanderer]

Quote

I think a lot of those problems likely came from actually tracking the individual weapons, which my system would not do. THink of what I outlined above as working the same way as the LBX, with each weapon fired being an individual pellet.

Honestly, it'd work better- though looking at HSR for SRMs and even LB-X pellets, I'm worried about the kludgy system even handling THAT.

Quote

They may burst fire in lore, but that doesnt make physical sense to me. And if were going by lore (as in the fluff, I believe they acted pinpoint in TT itself yes?) then weapons fire should be spread all over the mech, pinpoint targetting should be a rarity which take skill and patience.

The only reason AC damage for /2-20 doesn't spread is simple- they didn't want you to have to roll dozens of hit locations per turn,AND each of those big ol' guns hit random locations anyway. The most times you'd roll for a single weapon is 6, for the SRM-6...and that was assuming you hit with all 6 missiles.

At higher fire rates or using cluster ammo, no AC is an all-or-nothing- they first roll to see if it's a hit, then how MUCH of the burst hit, then each part of the burst hits a random location on the target. And even a normal AC fired at a stationary target in TT would...you guessed it, hit a random location each time.

Battlemech damage doesn't work without distributing damage in some form across the 'Mech- if the engine can't handle it, then weapons cannot deal instant, frontloaded damage to a single location without breaking the damage system entirely.

[Prezimonto]

Madw0lf, on 19 February 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

This is all just a rough "sketch" if you will, but a place to start. Comments, questions, suggestions, flames?

I like the second approach a lot, as it encourages targeting to achieve best accuracy.

One thing that I'd like to see preserved is that single fired weapons should still go directly to the target. This keeps a method of doing exact damage, but rewards folks you can accurately hit the same location over and over.

I also like the idea of modifiers to accuracy on the move (as long as you can tweak it on a per-mech basis so lights and mediums aren't totally screwed).

Edited by Prezimonto, 19 February 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

Up until Dark Age rule books canon was not specific in identifying how AC's physically interacted although it HINTED at burst fire. I can understand why many see AC's as a one shell(like a tank cannon) weapon.

Similarly canon was silent on Gauss rifles being a single round or burst fire (there are conflicting stances) and I have yet to see an absolute definitive confirmation

Tech Readout defines AC's as burst fire and Gauss as single-shot. There are gauss-style weapons (like the AP Gauss and HAG) that DO fire bursts of flechettes/multiple smaller projectiles instead, but the weapon MWO's is modeled after fires a single large shot per "round" with a Gauss Rifle. There IS a weapon called the Silver Bullet Gauss that fires a cluster round, but it's only resemblance is both fire a magnetically propelled round at the target. Unlike LB-X's,a Gauss can't swap ammo types.

[Fut]

Khobai, on 19 February 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Im against cone of fire personally. Not being able to control where your weapons hit removes a lot of the decision making from the game. We should be able to target specific locations on mechs like arms/legs/side torsos/etc...

You'll still be able to to target Mech's in specific locations with CoF - you just might miss if you're cruising at full speed and tossing off Alpha's like there's no tomorrow. It's not as if people are suggesting that the "Cone" part expands to encompass the entire structure of your target, it's more like opening it up so the shot you thought was heading for the CT hits a Side Torso instead.

A properly implemented CoF would do wonders for this game. I'm not saying it's the only option to "fix" things, but it's definitely one that would work.

[StonedDead]

There are many examples from lore to show that ACs were burst fire weapons. I'm not going to quote them, but the second to last (I think, the one after they go to Caledonia and Carlyle gets PPC'd) GDL book has a pretty good explanation of ACs in it in which it details how the AC system works. Loading a cassette into the weapon and firing the cassette on trigger pull. There are also many examples of them talking about walking the AC fire across a mech from large bore ACs, only possible through a cassette. The GDL book explains how they can fire the whole cassette or set it to fire rounds as they only pull the trigger. There are more examples of this, but the GDL one sticks in my head. They also point out that different manufacturers do this differently and that even ACs of the same type will function completely differently.

That being said, the weapons in BT were never supposed to be this accurate. Even very skilled pilots missed regularly. I do hope something is done about this and the ideas coming out are very good. I don't know if we need burstfire ACs or some kind of cone of fire mechanic but they sound like they would be worth trying out. It might hurt some of the better pilots, it will hurt some of the more novice pilots, but it will make the game feel right. It would be one step closer to feeling like piloting a battlemech out of one of the novels.