404 replies to this topic

[Haji1096]

Deathsani, on 23 February 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

The purpose of this topic was not to rehash old conversations. I am on the fence about burst fire, and if I were to agree with it they should have different variations based on platform. Namely, the bigger you are the fewer shots your weapons are broken into.

Hopefully we can get their attention and receive a response.

Maybe a cool mechanic for the a DoT AC/20 would be, if you land all your projectiles on the same hitbox your enemy gets knocked down ?

[Joseph Mallan]

Haji1096, on 10 March 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

Maybe a cool mechanic for the a DoT AC/20 would be, if you land all your projectiles on the same hitbox your enemy gets knocked down ?

Any damage over 20 is a chance to score a knock down on TT... Just saying the rule already exists.

[wanderer]

With the higher ROF and extra armor, I'd put that number at 40, rather than 20. Remember, a knockdown is about as bad as a shutdown as far as it goes- an immobile target being fired on is getting pasted fatally.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 10 March 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

With the higher ROF and extra armor, I'd put that number at 40, rather than 20. Remember, a knockdown is about as bad as a shutdown as far as it goes- an immobile target being fired on is getting pasted fatally.

I can roll with that logic!

[Tombstoner]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 March 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I still love our giant 15 page threads that never get acknowledged. It's awesome.

I suspect that it does get acknowledged internally.
Please see NARC thread response.
However they are still way to silent for there own good.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 March 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

I can roll with that logic!

The issue with knock down due to incoming fire is how to simulate a piloting skill roll. Without that the NRG people are right to criticize. it would also be way to powerful to exist for reasons you stated. I however see this as an opportunity to create a mech pilot skill tree. one solution for the piloting roll is a pop up mini game slaved to your wsda keys . keep the mech in the center during the fall down situation and you stand. the mech skill tree would just give you bonuses to the window and strength of the wsda response to stay upright. later you can add reduced COF modifiers. Not everything in this game needs to be a pure skill mechanic.

A mech pilot skill tree also gives you more uses for xp and reason for premium time. Over load the player with quality of life options and chances are they will hand over some cash. Skill concept one reduced COF for auto cannons by 10%. level 5 would be 50% ultimately at level 10 its back to what we have now. 100% reduced.

Hey PGI reversed its stance on 3pv..... i can hope for a correctly implemented and scientifically based accuracy/precision system of modifiers and bonuses vs the shallow magical based system we have now.

[Joseph Mallan]

After 35 days straight of work, I can't hold a thought long enough to have a train of thought. But a base percentage that increases or decreases according to our Elo/Win/loss??? We can start with that and build into a better system!

[Varent]

wanderer, on 10 March 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

With the higher ROF and extra armor, I'd put that number at 40, rather than 20. Remember, a knockdown is about as bad as a shutdown as far as it goes- an immobile target being fired on is getting pasted fatally.

from a simulation point of view.... awesome.....from a purely be point of view.....fun....from a shooting gamerspoint of view....iI think I would stop playing.... mobility is life in a death sentence and especially at higher elo. I think a knockdown based off damage is a little op.

[Trauglodyte]

Topic 1: Burst Fire - I like the idea of different mechanics based on manufacturers. Until then, can we (the community in this conversation) agree of implimenting a tube size impact on ACs? MGs/Gauss/AC2 (2), AC5 (5), AC10 (10), AC20 (20).

Topic 2: Knock Downs - ELO being used as a piloting skill makes sense. The issue might be that people get knock down locked but that happened in TT too.

Joseph Mallan, on 10 March 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

After 35 days straight of work, I can't hold a thought long enough to have a train of thought. But a base percentage that increases or decreases according to our Elo/Win/loss??? We can start with that and build into a better system!

What the HELL are you doing for 35 straight days?

Edited by Trauglodyte, 10 March 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 10 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

Topic 1: Burst Fire - I like the idea of different mechanics based on manufacturers. Until then, can we (the community in this conversation) agree of implimenting a tube size impact on ACs? MGs/Gauss/AC2 (2), AC5 (5), AC10 (10), AC20 (20).

Topic 2: Knock Downs - ELO being used as a piloting skill makes sense. The issue might be that people get knock down locked but that happened in TT too.



What the HELL are you doing for 35 straight days?

RE Balancing Crankshafts that failed at a plant so we don't have to start from scratch... We reached a number of cranks that I was reminded how long I've been married(since 1,988), and how old my daughter has become (23 year old young lady 1,991 )... We started at #1 and I finished 2,003 Yesterday... On the bright side I made 6 weeks pay in 4 weeks!

[Zordicron]

I was thinking about the different manufacturers idea being floated. I have come to the conclusion the dev team may not go this route. They have, rather then make more individual weapons, put the idea of "tradeoffs" into their module system. The differences in range, heat, etc- they will get expressed in which module a player wants to equip for his weapon systems.

Further, if they combine the two ideas( the individual new weapons with the modules) it could turn into a tricky wicket, as players could "stack" module mini buffs onto the variety weapons. This isnt really a negative, but it does make balancing things like heat and range and recharge time a good bit more tricky.

PRO: more variety, more options, more ability to tweak your ride out just how you want it.
CON: more options, more ability to tweak your ride possibly to the point of imbalance

I know there isnt much difference between those two. And I would actually enjoy seeing both items in play, however I also fully understand how it could turn into a nightmare for Paul and crew. Say we take an AC20, the current version, single slug etc. We give it an increase of 1 second in cooldown compared to the multishot variety as a balance point(to offset the pinpoint dmg aspect of it compared to dmg spreading other versions) and find it works nicely in conjunction with the other new weapon variety. Now player A puts a cooldown module on and negates the balance tweak we just added. OR, takes a variety that has a reduced cooldown, and reduces it further.

Again, I actually like all the variety and options the system would open. And of course, it could all be evened out. but it feels, in my gut, that it is a really big ball of wax to chew for a dev team and game that historically takes a substantial time to balance what weapons we have, and doesnt really have a super solid testing program in place(it could be put into place, but so far it isnt so I take it at surface value for now). to check the rather large pile of variables a "combo" system of weapons and modules would produce.

This brings me back to the "tube" system again, as it provides substantially more control to the dev team in what chassis can do what when it comes to ballistics fire, and thus reduces testing and balancing time. While not as ideal as a well balanced weapon/module system, it is IMO more realistic a goal at this point in the development of MWO. It could be introduced with clan stuff, and retro fit onto IS stuff, avoiding a potential messy balancing act of clan UAC's.

[Khobai]

Quote

Any damage over 20 is a chance to score a knock down on TT... Just saying the rule already exists.

Getting knocked down purely because of RNG would be terrible though.

In MWO its possible to have a working gyroscope with a stability indicator. When your stability reaches 0 you should fall over. Taking damage should lower your stability. Gyro hits should lower stability. Using jumpjets should lower your stability. Going full speed should lower your stability. While standing still or moving slow should increase your stability. Not falling over should be more player skill than RNG.

[Zordicron]

Khobai, on 11 March 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

Getting knocked down purely because of RNG would be terrible though.

In MWO its possible to have a working gyroscope with a stability indicator. When your stability reaches 0 you should fall over. Taking damage should lower your stability. Gyro hits should lower stability. Using jumpjets should lower your stability. Going full speed should lower your stability. While standing still or moving slow should increase your stability. Not falling over should be more player skill than RNG.

That sounds good, but again is related to pinpoint dmg. Taking dmg affecting stability would favor dmg spikes over sustained DPS, so n00b tube AC40 jagers would not only get advantage in pinpoint alpha, they would also get advantage in overwhelming gyros. Make the threshold high enough to absorb that kind of alpha without a gauranteed knockdown means anything less is pointless.

I think the Knockdown mechanics are a good idea to put in..... once we can fix the whole getting killed to fast thing. One thing at a time.

[FactorlanP]

Khobai, on 11 March 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

Getting knocked down purely because of RNG would be terrible though.

In MWO its possible to have a working gyroscope with a stability indicator. When your stability reaches 0 you should fall over. Taking damage should lower your stability. Gyro hits should lower stability. Using jumpjets should lower your stability. Going full speed should lower your stability. While standing still or moving slow should increase your stability. Not falling over should be more player skill than RNG.

I would love a system like that.

Base stability could easily be a mech quirk, and improved stability as a pilot skill as well as improved gyros are other possible options for additional flavor.

[Varent]

Eldagore, on 11 March 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

I was thinking about the different manufacturers idea being floated. I have come to the conclusion the dev team may not go this route. They have, rather then make more individual weapons, put the idea of "tradeoffs" into their module system. The differences in range, heat, etc- they will get expressed in which module a player wants to equip for his weapon systems.

Further, if they combine the two ideas( the individual new weapons with the modules) it could turn into a tricky wicket, as players could "stack" module mini buffs onto the variety weapons. This isnt really a negative, but it does make balancing things like heat and range and recharge time a good bit more tricky.

PRO: more variety, more options, more ability to tweak your ride out just how you want it.
CON: more options, more ability to tweak your ride possibly to the point of imbalance

I know there isnt much difference between those two. And I would actually enjoy seeing both items in play, however I also fully understand how it could turn into a nightmare for Paul and crew. Say we take an AC20, the current version, single slug etc. We give it an increase of 1 second in cooldown compared to the multishot variety as a balance point(to offset the pinpoint dmg aspect of it compared to dmg spreading other versions) and find it works nicely in conjunction with the other new weapon variety. Now player A puts a cooldown module on and negates the balance tweak we just added. OR, takes a variety that has a reduced cooldown, and reduces it further.

Again, I actually like all the variety and options the system would open. And of course, it could all be evened out. but it feels, in my gut, that it is a really big ball of wax to chew for a dev team and game that historically takes a substantial time to balance what weapons we have, and doesnt really have a super solid testing program in place(it could be put into place, but so far it isnt so I take it at surface value for now). to check the rather large pile of variables a "combo" system of weapons and modules would produce.

This brings me back to the "tube" system again, as it provides substantially more control to the dev team in what chassis can do what when it comes to ballistics fire, and thus reduces testing and balancing time. While not as ideal as a well balanced weapon/module system, it is IMO more realistic a goal at this point in the development of MWO. It could be introduced with clan stuff, and retro fit onto IS stuff, avoiding a potential messy balancing act of clan UAC's.

At the moment all of the modules are only adding to range. Now wether or not they increase that or more. Honestly at this point if you have a module just to increase the bonus of one weapon system and don't want to take any of the other very very valuable modules... then im ok with that honestly. Module slots right now are pretty much at a premium. I don't use weapon changes for them at all atm.

[Khobai]

Quote

Module slots right now are pretty much at a premium.

you mean artillery slots are at a premium. if they would nerf artillery so it wasnt the best thing to go in a module slot maybe people could experiment with other modules.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 11 March 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

you mean artillery slots are at a premium. if they would nerf artillery so it wasnt the best thing to go in a module slot maybe people could experiment with other modules.

Advanced zoom, seismic sensor, uav, coolshot. I would take any of those before a module slot. If im lrming the increased lock time.

[Zordicron]

Varent, on 11 March 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

Advanced zoom, seismic sensor, uav, coolshot. I would take any of those before a module slot. If im lrming the increased lock time.

Very true, for now, but the dev team has said this was just the first wave of a fairly large system. I am sure they track the usage data, and will tweak things along the way. This module system was one of the core development team's babies as far as i know, so i doubt it will be left hanging like command console.

There are a lot of possibilities with the module stuff, I know I read one post somehwere recently where a player was under the assumption(could be all hogwash and hearsay) that the modules would go to rank 5. os while I find most of the range ones so minimal not to bother with the XP and IMO way too high c-bill cost, if they did go to rank 5, it might become pretty tempting.

There is also the thought that once they have released the basics of the weapon module system, the module slot system itself could get a once over, possibly leading to dedicated type slots. I might have read that from a dev post somewhere even, but i can not place it, it might have just been in a feedback thread.

Anyway, there is a lot of potential in this new module system for customization. And while at current face value it brings pretty much nothing to the discussion about the manufacturer based weapons, unlike my previous comment about test server, I feel the module system requires consideration in the design goal. If it is something Paul is set on, we WILL see it fleshed out, like ghost heat etc. One thing I will say for the dev team, once Paul etc shares some solid details about the scope of something, be it balance or tweak or new system, it gets put into the game- at least going back to about a year ago. I think anything from closed beta is pipe dreams and fluffy stuff now, though it may be on the back burner. It is part of why I have a bit of trust CW is coming, maybe late, but coming, as they have drummed out some details for at least the launch module.

Anyway, not to derail the thread about content stuff- I think the current state of module slots is going to be changed down the road once the groundwork for the actual modules is put in.

[Varent]

it probly will change yes, they have announced already its going to be a little different, so we will see.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 11 March 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

you mean artillery slots are at a premium. if they would nerf artillery so it wasnt the best thing to go in a module slot maybe people could experiment with other modules.

I haven't used a Module other than The two targeting ones and Zoom... I used Cap Accel for a bit but as I rarely make it to the enemy base...