404 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

stjobe, on 23 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

There's two major issues with instant-damage weapons like the ACs and PPCs, and both of them are caused by its damage mechanic:

1. All damage to one location, always. There's no spread at all, which all other weapon types have. Combine this with out perfect convergence and you get a damage mechanic that breaks the armour system (and was a major contributor to why they had to double armour and IS). You cannot twist to spread the damage around; if you get hit you're going to take all damage to one location.

2. No need to face your enemy for more than an instant. For most of the other weapons you need to face your enemy for a prolonged period of time to do damage, whether it's for the beam duration of lasers or the lock-on time of SSRMs and LRMs, or even the continuous stream of MG bullets, you have to actively make a choice whether to attack or defend. Not so with ACs and PPCs; you just twist in and click, and then you're free to defend and maneuver for the rest of the cooldown.

These two issues combine to make ACs and PPCs simply too effective in both offensive capability and defensive. Not only can you attack more effectively with ACs and PPCs, you can defend more effectively as well.

It's all very well to want weapon types to be unique. That's a laudable goal, but you're doing it wrong if one weapon type's uniqueness makes it clearly superior to the other weapon systems - which is the case with ACs and PPCs.

The easiest and least disruptive on other game mechanics way of rectifying this situation is to make ACs and PPCs not instant-damage; and the preferred method is burst-fire, since that has a very solid grounding in BattleTech lore.

I actually don't even mind if the Gauss stayed as single shot... but the AC's ranged up and down in type in the lore between dps and single shot. I wouldn't mind if you had to invest in modules to upgrade specific AC's into closer to pin-point... maybe that Kali-yama upgrade shoots 2 10 point rounds space 0.2 seconds apart instead of 10/2 point rounds on the stock AC20 (over a 0.5 second).

The problem they've stated is that it's too many hit calculations for the server.... I think. But then aren't lasers hit-scan calculations? Wouldn't they have less calculations to do if pulse lasers actually pulsed?

[stjobe]

Prezimonto, on 24 February 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

The problem they've stated is that it's too many hit calculations for the server.... I think.

That can't really be true; Imagine a game of 12v12 Ember 'mechs; that's 40 projectiles plus 40 beam-ticks per second per 'mech. 1,920 impact points to keep track of per second.

If the game can't handle that, they might just as well pack up, shut down the servers, and call it a day.

[Trauglodyte]

The client only has issue with tracking multiple projectiles when it comes to the slow stuff (LB, SRMs, and LRMs). And those weapons are all pure projectile which means that the game is tracking the art and movement of what you just shot. Lasers and MGs, on the other hand, are pure hitscane which means there isn't anything, or much of anything, to really track with motion and art.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 24 February 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[Tesunie]

stjobe, on 23 February 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Not to my knowledge, no.


It wouldn't be that much of an extra burden considering that the systems are already able to handle 10 ticks per laser beam (with just about every 'mech mounting some lasers), 10 projectiles per second per MG (and these come in pairs and quads usually), and 2-20 missiles per missile launcher (which also come in bulk).

Adding 3-5 projectiles per AC shot wouldn't amount to much extra work.

Don't know if anyone has said this, but hit registration (at least for large swarms of missiles) seem to be bad. An SRM2 system seems to have little hit registration problems. An SRM6 though seems to have several missiles hit and "do nothing". I've also noticed this with larger LRM launchers (LRM20 namely, but others as well), but it's less noticeable with them because of how many missiles they are already shooting. When 5 missiles don't register out of 20, you tend not to notice it (as they only do 1,1 damage each). When 4 missiles do nothing out of 6, you notice it. Especially when each SRM does 2 damage each...

People have seen this with group fired SSRM2 systems (when placed in bulk) and have suggested to people to shoot the SSRM2s in chain fire to help with their registration. I too have noticed this, and chain fire my SSRMs to help them register hits. (I have no problems killing larger mechs with my SSRMs, but a light seems to be able to stand still and take them. Don't know why, just what I seem to notice.)

[StalaggtIKE]

Eldagore, on 23 February 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Here is what I have been rehashing time and again for a year:

Ballistics should work like missile tubes. You have a hard point, and then you have a "tube count" or in this case, calibre or some such. What it does:

makes each chassis, or variant even, customizable by the devs as to "how big" a gun they can carry in the hardpoints, without removing the ability to equip whatever you want.

most extreme example: LRM20 in a NARC tube. You can do it. It will fire one missile at a time. I liken this to AC20 in a MG mount. Not 20 "pellets", but maybe 10. SO in a MG mount:

AC2, one shot
AC5, two shots(round up dmg to 2.5 for the one oddball)
AC10 5 shots
AC20, 10 shots

With the additional time to fire affecting cooldown timer, like the LRM20 NARC tube.

Gauss remains, because cooldown is longer, it blows up, it weighs a ton, and charge up mechanic. Any of these could be easily adjusted(mostly charge time or cooldown though) if suddenly the gauss becomes OP to all other ballistic. Unlikely to me, as the tonnage is unfeasable to boat them.

Chassis examples

K2- well it WAS supposed to be MG mounts in side torsos. As it would be disruptive to players now to totally rehash it, it could simply have a max calibre of 10 added, so the AC20 would fire 2 shots. Or 5 maybe so an AC20 would fire 4 shots.

n00b tube AC40 jagers: max calibre 5 or 10, suddenly AC40 isnt pinpoint instakill.

YLW, max 20. It was designed that way, hence the actuator missing.

basically, you could set up each chassis to have max put on them so they dont break cannon to far, and also to avoid or restrict pinpoint dmg on mechs that can easily abuse it. It would also allow people to maintain freedom to loadout how they want, though certain things might be suboptimal, but if it is ok for missiles, its ok for ballistics IMO.

I also think they should drop the max range from 3x to 2x, but that should be after the above is put in to see the effect. Might be moot if it breaks up pinpoint dmg enough.

Brilliant.

[General Taskeen]

stjobe, on 23 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

There's two major issues with instant-damage weapons like the ACs and PPCs, and both of them are caused by its damage mechanic:

1. All damage to one location, always. There's no spread at all, which all other weapon types have. Combine this with out perfect convergence and you get a damage mechanic that breaks the armour system (and was a major contributor to why they had to double armour and IS). You cannot twist to spread the damage around; if you get hit you're going to take all damage to one location.

2. No need to face your enemy for more than an instant. For most of the other weapons you need to face your enemy for a prolonged period of time to do damage, whether it's for the beam duration of lasers or the lock-on time of SSRMs and LRMs, or even the continuous stream of MG bullets, you have to actively make a choice whether to attack or defend. Not so with ACs and PPCs; you just twist in and click, and then you're free to defend and maneuver for the rest of the cooldown.

These two issues combine to make ACs and PPCs simply too effective in both offensive capability and defensive. Not only can you attack more effectively with ACs and PPCs, you can defend more effectively as well.

It's all very well to want weapon types to be unique. That's a laudable goal, but you're doing it wrong if one weapon type's uniqueness makes it clearly superior to the other weapon systems - which is the case with ACs and PPCs.

The easiest and least disruptive on other game mechanics way of rectifying this situation is to make ACs and PPCs not instant-damage; and the preferred method is burst-fire, since that has a very solid grounding in BattleTech lore.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

Although PGI could easily keep "instant" damage weapons a "mechanic" it would however require all armor values and damage values to be re-adjusted. That is what MW:LL did, an example below:



That would be an Osiris armor diagram with TT armor levels+Internals X big numbers (140-160ish). The bigger the Mech (class) though, a larger factor is applied. The weapons do "times X TT amount" as well to factor in inflated armor levels, and both together make for battles lasting longer. MW:LL basically has all the similar weapon mechanics from MWO, but with inflated armor/weapon values.

Just doubling armor and slapping in some TT damage values doesn't work too well for a MW game. Even if people pretend the game is "balanced" - its core design is not and drags around in the dirt because of it. Seeing as MWO is trying to balance around incredibly way too short match game modes, "damage over time" needs to be changed in someway if current armor levels stay the same.

[Zordicron]

Matthew Ace, on 24 February 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

I like this a lot. I have the same idea but you beat me to it. You should consider starting a new topic.

I have, a few times over the last year. They get lost to the back pages after while. I post it in other threads most of the time now. Slow but sure, the idea of burst fire is catching on with the forumites.

I have to say I am not against a CoF mechanic totally either. However, that would require a recode of all aiming mechanics, more code for movement affecting it, etc. I also do not know how CoF would affect HSR code and hit detection which is already quite flakey. What I suggest spreads dmg out also(though not as elegantly) and is much more simple to code as it is hardpoint/spreadsheet numbers on the base of it, and then of course art and some code for the multi shot stuff for visuals. HSR code for it wouldnt be any different then chainfire multiple AC that we have now, and the aiming part of it wouldnt change.

However, I am no code writer. So take "easier" with a grain of salt, as obviously writing game code for this engine is in no way easy, as we have all seen.

[Lyoto Machida]

Eldagore, on 23 February 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Here is what I have been rehashing time and again for a year:

Ballistics should work like missile tubes. You have a hard point, and then you have a "tube count" or in this case, calibre or some such. What it does:

makes each chassis, or variant even, customizable by the devs as to "how big" a gun they can carry in the hardpoints, without removing the ability to equip whatever you want.

most extreme example: LRM20 in a NARC tube. You can do it. It will fire one missile at a time. I liken this to AC20 in a MG mount. Not 20 "pellets", but maybe 10. SO in a MG mount:

AC2, one shot
AC5, two shots(round up dmg to 2.5 for the one oddball)
AC10 5 shots
AC20, 10 shots

With the additional time to fire affecting cooldown timer, like the LRM20 NARC tube.

Gauss remains, because cooldown is longer, it blows up, it weighs a ton, and charge up mechanic. Any of these could be easily adjusted(mostly charge time or cooldown though) if suddenly the gauss becomes OP to all other ballistic. Unlikely to me, as the tonnage is unfeasable to boat them.

Chassis examples

K2- well it WAS supposed to be MG mounts in side torsos. As it would be disruptive to players now to totally rehash it, it could simply have a max calibre of 10 added, so the AC20 would fire 2 shots. Or 5 maybe so an AC20 would fire 4 shots.

n00b tube AC40 jagers: max calibre 5 or 10, suddenly AC40 isnt pinpoint instakill.

YLW, max 20. It was designed that way, hence the actuator missing.

basically, you could set up each chassis to have max put on them so they dont break cannon to far, and also to avoid or restrict pinpoint dmg on mechs that can easily abuse it. It would also allow people to maintain freedom to loadout how they want, though certain things might be suboptimal, but if it is ok for missiles, its ok for ballistics IMO.

I also think they should drop the max range from 3x to 2x, but that should be after the above is put in to see the effect. Might be moot if it breaks up pinpoint dmg enough.

Lol...the AC40 IS the noob tube of the this game.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Khobai, on 23 February 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

All the devs have said is that mechs die faster than theyd like and that theyve considered increasing internal structure. They've also vaguely referenced pilot modules that will increase mech survivability.

They havent said anything about autocannons doing burst fire or ppcs doing splash damage. Although I feel both of those options would raise the skill cap on pinpoint damage. PPCs in particular are easy mode and need to be changed.

Late to this, but Paul or someone Thomas maybe DID say they wanted PPC to splash. This was back when SRM's were first found to be broken.

They wanted them to do like 5 damage to the area struck then 5 in splash.

But due to Cryengine, they hadn't figured out how to pull it off.

[Deathsani]

Thanks for the response Carlyle, even if it is a huge bummer.

It is getting pretty frustrating how much they don't know about cryengine.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Deathsani, on 24 February 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Thanks for the response Carlyle, even if it is a huge bummer.

It is getting pretty frustrating how much they don't know about cryengine.

Yeah it's something about there being like 4 core weapons, and having to use those to create the weapons we have. I can't remember the whole thing or I'd dig it up.

Freaking archives here suck.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, the thing with splash is that they can't separate it into different damage components. It's either a solid shot of X damage OR it's X damage against every component hit by the splash which is why SRMs were so god awful way back when.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Trauglodyte, on 24 February 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

Well, the thing with splash is that they can't separate it into different damage components. It's either a solid shot of X damage OR it's X damage against every component hit by the splash which is why SRMs were so god awful way back when.

That is not true. And as it stands, I still believe that splash is set to 0 damage on SRM's.

But they did tweak multiple times.

The problem wasn't that they couldn't control splash damage variable. It was that it had the ability to spread across multiple hitboxes due to how complicated and small some of them were. So it would multiply the damage.

That's why it was only a major problem for predominantly light mechs...and very specifically it seems the commando took a beating.

But when you got up into the assaults, it wasn't nearly as prevalent.

Personally, I'd prefer to go back to that.

Sorry light pilots.

[Trauglodyte]

That's what I was saying, Nic. They've got splash for SRMs set at like 0.5cm or something like that because the area of effect is so small that even the random SRM that lands in that special spot for it to hit multiple locations that it won't be that huge of an impact. Back in beta, PPCs had the same splash area as SRMs but it was removed when they buffed the velocity. Anyway, they're only using one sort of splash and if they add it to PPCs, they've have to set the radius to be such a small area of effect that it might not matter. Otherwise, when you'd hit a torso on a Locust, for example, you'd end up doing 10 damage to each location affected. That is the part of splash that they haven't quite figured out yet.

[stjobe]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 24 February 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

That is not true. And as it stands, I still believe that splash is set to 0 damage on SRM's.

But they did tweak multiple times.

The problem wasn't that they couldn't control splash damage variable. It was that it had the ability to spread across multiple hitboxes due to how complicated and small some of them were. So it would multiply the damage.

That's why it was only a major problem for predominantly light mechs...and very specifically it seems the commando took a beating.

But when you got up into the assaults, it wasn't nearly as prevalent.

Personally, I'd prefer to go back to that.

Sorry light pilots.

Trauglodyte, on 24 February 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

That's what I was saying, Nic. They've got splash for SRMs set at like 0.5cm or something like that because the area of effect is so small that even the random SRM that lands in that special spot for it to hit multiple locations that it won't be that huge of an impact. Back in beta, PPCs had the same splash area as SRMs but it was removed when they buffed the velocity. Anyway, they're only using one sort of splash and if they add it to PPCs, they've have to set the radius to be such a small area of effect that it might not matter. Otherwise, when you'd hit a torso on a Locust, for example, you'd end up doing 10 damage to each location affected. That is the part of splash that they haven't quite figured out yet.

For reference:
Here's the post by Amaris the Usurper that started it all. Up to 19 damage per missile...
Here's Paul's response in the thread, acknowledging the issue (and quoting an average of 12.9 damage per missile).
Here's the hotfix notes, explaining what they did to alleviate the problem.

They've since shrunk the splash radius to 1 cm, but I can't find a reference for that at the moment.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Trauglodyte, on 24 February 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

That's what I was saying, Nic. They've got splash for SRMs set at like 0.5cm or something like that because the area of effect is so small that even the random SRM that lands in that special spot for it to hit multiple locations that it won't be that huge of an impact. Back in beta, PPCs had the same splash area as SRMs but it was removed when they buffed the velocity. Anyway, they're only using one sort of splash and if they add it to PPCs, they've have to set the radius to be such a small area of effect that it might not matter. Otherwise, when you'd hit a torso on a Locust, for example, you'd end up doing 10 damage to each location affected. That is the part of splash that they haven't quite figured out yet.

Yeah, honestly at the point where I don't care about the bug part of splash damage. It just doesn't effect enough of a population of mechs for me to think it's a terrible thing.

I would much rather go back to the days of overpowered SRM's, instead of the PPC/AC meta we have now.

It was way blown out of proportion at the time, all because Commandos hitboxes were the way they were.

[Mcgral18]

stjobe, on 24 February 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

For reference:
Here's the post by Amaris the Usurper that started it all. Up to 19 damage per missile...
Here's Paul's response in the thread, acknowledging the issue (and quoting an average of 12.9 damage per missile).
Here's the hotfix notes, explaining what they did to alleviate the problem.

They've since shrunk the splash radius to 1 cm, but I can't find a reference for that at the moment.

I could have sworn it was 5 CM, or .05M as they put it.

But I'm wondering if splash would help with hitreg, if they could design the splash to only damage one component.

[Deathlike]

Have you guys tried chainfiring SRMs? The results are a stark contrast in effectiveness over group firing them.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Deathlike, on 25 February 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Have you guys tried chainfiring SRMs? The results are a stark contrast in effectiveness over group firing them.

Yeah I do chain fire. It definitely helps.

But it's still frustrating when I get behind someone...I don't want to chain fire...I want to unload.

It's not right that a PPC/AC boat can put all their damage in one spot, while I'm busy chain firing just to get most of my hits to register.

[Joseph Mallan]

Deathlike, on 25 February 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Have you guys tried chainfiring SRMs? The results are a stark contrast in effectiveness over group firing them.

What a unique sounding language. It reads like English bu I on' quite understand his meaning.

Seriously, If I have multiple SRM I just Alpha the lot and let god sort it out.