258 replies to this topic

[Foxfire]

PPC damage spread was just the old days. They fixed that ages ago.

[wolf74]

Repeat of what I have said in many other Posts

(Dev's can skip over due to the fact this will be it 5th posting)
Manual Controlled Convergence:
Con’s:

• Harder for New Player (unless they have played a GOOD WW2 Tank sim than it will be a cake walk for them).

Pro’s:

• This will give Pin Point damage for those who wait for the right range for the shot or can make the Corrections on the fly.
  
• High odds of spreading the damage around the targets.
  
• Gives Classic Battletech Targeting Computer* a reason to be in the game
  
• Give Pulse Lasers a better reason to be used over Normal Lasers

Things I would give the players if Manual Convergence is put in:

• +-5m auto Correction. (AKA if you target is within 5m of you Convergence point it will hit pin point).
  
• CBT Target Computers* upgrades the +-5m auto-correction to +-15m.
  
• Pulse Laser (Does not stack with Targeting Computers) get a +-25m auto-Correction
  
• Add a Column to the score page:
  
  • If using the current targeting system listed the player as a Rookie Pilot
    
  • If using the Manual Controlled Targeting listed the player as a Mechwarrior
• Add a boost to the C-Bills for Damage done if the player is playing using the Manual Controlled system (Can only be changed in the MechLab and not in a Match)
  
• Also a Meta-score boost could also be given for being in manual convergence.

Advance Use of Weapon Groups:
First off thank you all for the good feedback on my idea (In other threads that is). I was thinking of a simple one point convergence system at first. But feedback given to me made me think that as a player you could setup Fire group with pre-set ranges. The default keys would be for all Convergence points to move together. But have it where you could (did not say have too) setup the weapon groups for different ranges could also work. In other words as the players get better they could start doing something like the below if they took the time

AKA
Group 1 (Your best weapons the Main group you use & change the ranges all the time on)
Group 2 You have the weapons you want to fire at about 400m setup here
Group 3 You have setup for 270m Range
Group 4 You have setup when you can see the white of the enemy pilots eyes (aka Point blank hugging range)
Group 5&6 You setup for sniping at 800m but you only use it every now an than so you put it on two group so you can key ether key


*The I.S. Targeting Computer are normally not in game until 3058 but for game play reasons & New Player support I think most CBT player will over look the Date to help the Game along.

Edited by wolf74, 08 March 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[East Indy]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

Simply put, powergaming is a consequence of imperfect game balance.

Power-gaming is more like an oxidizing agent of game design.

Every game with wide customization has weaknesses that will be leveraged throughout its lifetime.

It has nothing to do with success — Wizards of the Coast has banned dozens of cards, some soon after printing.

With any complexity, rock-paper-scissors is an abstract ideal, but it's the task of developers to keep up with power-gamers and either make them "restless" — unable to find a clear advantage, like I wrote above — or at least only marginally more effective. But by definition, the cycles never end.

[Davers]

wolf74, on 08 March 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

• [color=#CCCCCC]+-5m auto Correcti[/color]on. (AKA if you target is within 5m of you Convergence point it will hit pin point).
  
• CBT Target Computers* upgrades the +-5m auto-correction to +-15m.
  
• Pulse Laser (Does not stack with Targeting Computers) get a +-25m auto-Correction
  
• Add a Column to the score page:
  
  • If using the current targeting system listed the player as a Rookie Pilot
    
  • If using the Manual Controlled Targeting listed the player as a Mechwarrior
• Add a boost to the C-Bills for Damage done if the player is playing using the Manual Controlled system (Can only be changed in the MechLab and not in a Match)
  
• Also a Meta-score boost could also be given for being in manual convergence.

How does adding 'auto aim' make things better?

wolf74, on 08 March 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

• Give Pulse Lasers a better reason to be used over Normal Lasers

How does this make Pulse lasers better?

[Abivard]

If direct damage is kept in this game, It can not completely outperform all other damage types in all situations.

Unfortunately this is the present case, group firing similar PPDD weapon or a single one firing that hits it's target will not change that that damage is FULLY done on that one section of armor, always with out fail.

Boating simply accelerates the process at which a player using one may core you.

If you have a selection of damage types and it is considered a 'No-brainer' which is best to pick for any situation, then there is a problem.

I want to let the reader know that I do not 'hate' any weapon, I enjoy using them all. I do use AC's, and PPC's, I can and do hit with them. So I know from both killing and being killed with them what a problem there is with them in their present state, especially in relation to the other damage types.

Lower the damage they do per shot!

Changing speed, ghost heat, manual convergence settings, cones of fire etc.... many very intricate, elaborate and very often counter-intuitive solutions that really treat only a few of the symptoms and never the cause.

POP-tarts use DD, fine, make them pop 15 times instead of 10 times to kill that enemy mech. Lowering the damage per shot does more than some of you are thinking, with out really hurting anything else.
Except of course those who are presently unfairly Profiting from an unintentional feature of MWO.

[wolf74]

Davers what you are currently failing to understand is in game right now ALL direct fire weapons have a "auto-aim" as you put it of +-2,500m. Manual convergence is where you the player pick at what range that laser in the left arm cross the Targeting redical.
How does this make Pulse Laser better. In manual convergence I was being nice and for game play having the system auto correct for being up to 5m off the target range from you. Pulse Laser would have a build in +-25m correction to the range for the convergence.



Edit
In other words I am not giving auto-aim. I'm taking it away!

Edited by wolf74, 08 March 2014 - 06:10 PM.

[DocBach]

The problem isn't single weapons doing pinpoint damage, its that you can link them together and do pinpoint damage to the same location with stacked weapons. Lasers got a DOT to counter that effect, PPC's have massive heat and minimum range.

AC's have low heat, high rate of fire and 3x range decay. A slight cone of fire representing recoil, or something like a lock on time for multiple weapons to reach convergence with a reticle that showed how well they've converged would be my solution, but apparently cryengine can't handle that (though we had convergence times in early beta, just without indication on how well you've converged causing wacky shots).

[wolf74]

I would call the LB-10x & SRM a CoF weapons currently. Now the engine may not like true CoF that could be true due to the fact when you fire two LB-10x you only see 10 pellets vs 20 you should see which be both gun are using the same number for pellet location flight paths.



Note both LB-10x need to be same location to see the above 10 vs 20 effect.

Edited by wolf74, 08 March 2014 - 07:01 PM.

[DocBach]

I don't mean turn it into a cloud of shots like SRM's or LB-Xs, more like random deviations ballistic weapons have like recoil and external ballistics - slight deviation from point of aim/point of impact.

[Dudeman3k]

what really grinds my gears are when people honestly believe and say "TT can't be translated into a FPS, DUH!"....

no... it can.... heres how, even WITH pin-point convergence still in existence.

If TT rules imply every shot takes place in a 10 second window, you make sure each weapon does it's TT value damage in 10 seconds. Heres an example

AC20 = 20 damage. Cooldown = 10 seconds. Ammo per ton = 4 (like TT)

AC10 = 5 damage. Cooldown = 5 seconds. ammo per ton = 16 (x2 ammo, because it shoots twice in 10 seconds)

AC5 = 2.5 damage. Cooldown = 5 seconds. ammo per ton = 40 (x2 ammo, because it shoots twice in 10 seconds)

Gauss = 15 damage. Cooldown = 10 seconds. Ammo per ton = 8 (like TT)

Large Laser = 3.33 damage (shoots 3 times in 10seconds), 3.33 heat (shoots 3 times in 10seconds) Burn time = 1sec, meaning 7 seconds to fire within the 10 second window. = 8 damage / 8 heat in 10 seconds (like TT)

There IS a way to make this work, as balance stands.... however... PGI has had it wrong from the get go... and they can't fix this now... would be a coding NIGHTMARE!!... but had this been exercised from the start... armor would not have had to be doubled for TTK sake.

[Dudeman3k]

essentially... you calculate every weapon to be with a 10 second round.... so If you want a weapon to fire more than once in 10 seconds, you must take away damage, in turn, reduce heat, multiply ammo = exact weapon TT properties in 10seconds of fire.

an AC5 in MWO shoots 6.6 times in 10 seconds... in other words, does 30 damage in ONE round... thats not right. it should do 5 damage in 10 seconds... if it shoots 5 times in 10 seconds each AC round should only do 1 damage per shot, and ammo be multiplied by 5 in turn to compensate for ROF. On papaer that would translate to TT standard.

Edited by Dudeman3k, 08 March 2014 - 07:45 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

essentially... you calculate every weapon to be with a 10 second round.

while that would certainly fix a lot of problems (namely heat) it still doesnt fix the problem of being able to aim all your weapons into one location. you would still need double armor for that.

[Jaguar Prime]

I suggest people record a match with ppc's and AC's fired in Alphas. Then play back the match at half speed and watch where the projectiles land when fired from 350m+ on a moving target.

I don't see a problem with pinpoint damage. I think a lot of the issues with pinpoint damage is some folks feel they die to quickly. Since this isn't a respawn game and you can't just jump back in, a lot are players don't like it. You make a mistake, you die. Instead of learning from the mistake and moving on to the next match, They would rather have the game changed to be more forgiving of them making mistakes.

Some matches I die first, Some I don't die at all. When I look back on the matches I die early, It's because "I" made a mistake. I either put myself in a bad position by being overly aggressive or not being aware of whats going on around me. It had nothing to do with front loaded pinpoint weapons.

In my opinion, This game would lose a lot of it's flavor if I couldn't hit the the panel I was aiming for. Killing pinpoint damage would close the gap between good pilots and bad pilots which i don't think is good. This isn't a single player game where you can turn the difficulty down. Whats next, nerfing the ability to focus a target by a more than 2 mechs?

[lsp]

Not a problem, and I'm so sick of people whining about it. Not everyone wants to run around with multi colored lazors, and time to kill is just fine. Learn how to torso twist and use the terrian, instead of just charging in and face huging people.

[Lykaon]

Abivard, on 07 March 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

Indeed, even a single weapon mount is also a problem, when multi mounts are present it compounds the situation further true, but There is no "punishment", that is hyperbole. The case could then be made that by taking any weapon besides the AC.PPC is a punishment! ergo Missile mounts are a punishment...silly sounding now, yes?

Here is an example where nerfing one weapon system is punishing to a tactical use of a weapon.

I have a Wolverine 7K that I quite enjoy using.It's loadout is not what I would define as an "offender" design.

1 ER-PPC,1 Medium Laser,3 SSRM2s BAP,300XL engine and 5 JJS.

By general strategy when using this mech is keep my distance for the first part of an engagment using the ER-PPC cover and speed to minimize my exposure to incoming fire.

SO if the ER-PPC (an offending weapon) was nerfed to the point where it's damage became exceptable when used in builds that exploit the front loaded damage aspect of the PPC mechanics the single ER-PPC would have a reduced effectivness in dealing damage as well.

Now with the nerfed ER-PPC it becomes undesireable to manuver and fire the ER-PPC for it's low damage does not validate this tactical choice. Hanging back to soften a target up by plinking away with 5 points a hit is just not worth the time and risk of doing it.

So,you may say "take an ER-Large Laser instead of the ER-PPC." The tactical use of a timed beam requires longer exposure times to incoming enemy fire.The medium weight class lacks the armor value to make this a good idea.Standing in the open firing a weapon that is literaly a laser pointer picking out your current possition is not the brightest of idea if your mech is essentially 40 armor pointa shy of an exposed XL engine.

This forced weapon swap has punished the player who chose to use the strategies and tactics I mentioned.You have by nerfing a single weapon also removed the effective build/strategic options available that perform effectivley.

I would soon abandon this mech chassis for one that can survive the enforced play enviorment brought on by nerfing weapon damage in favor over adjusting game mechanics to repair a damaged relationship between mechanics.

There are far reaching effects to focusing on weapon damage alone rather than focusing on game mechanics that do not function well together.

Also,without taking time to evaluate the idea with some solid numbers I am questioning if it would actually change the choices made in mech builds.

If an AC5 only did 2.5 damage would taking 3 of them still be a better choice over swapping to non front loading weapons?That is still nearly 8 points of damage every second to one spot at extremely long ranges with low heat costs.This still sounds pretty good over a pair of ER-Lrg Lasers.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I know lots of people have said this...

... but a weapon balancing scheme that doesn't s**t on Light Mechs, while least impacting Assault Mechs' ability to remain Combat-Viable would be to make all large-bore Autocannons burst fire (i.e. a range of 3-6 shot bursts that then have to "cool down" for a certain amount of time, like a Bofors 40mm cannon that fires from 6-shot clips), and make the PPCs a duration-of-fire weapon that fires a single 0.25 second burst of ~10 projectiles that do 1 dmg and 1 heat each.

That would make "pinpoint damage" a concern only for very slow-moving targets.. and slow-moving targets deserve to be shredded by accurate fire.

[Lykaon]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2014 - 11:06 PM, said:

Even one of these weapons is doing too much damage. Example for an AC10, it's supposed to do 10 damage over 10 seconds. It fires for 10 damage every 2.5 seconds, so 40 damage in a TT turn, or a AC20 equivalent with TT because of doubled armor. An AC20 was feared in TT, yet our AC10 is one of the least used ballistics.

For comparison, our AC20 is actually a AC70, since it fires a full 3 times, then a half recycle. Not the 40 damage it should be doing (doubled armor, doubled damage for equivalent)
But decreasing damage would be a pretty easy fix. A simple fix for FLD but keeping the same DPS would just be to cut the damage and heat in half, and double the ammo and refire. Same damage, but spread out in smaller FLD chunks. Of course I would prefer a rework of the system, but the above is a very simple thing to implement.

Using a comparative time scale of 10 seconds of a table top game turn where a "ten second turn" could take the players an hour to complete is not a ligitamate equivilent to ten actual seconds that regardless of player action or inaction will take place independent of their input.

MWo is not a turn based game with ten seconds on the clock every time it's your turn to act.MWO is a real time shooter so the comparative value of time is not a one for one equation.

The issue is not so much how much damage is applied in how much time it's more akin to how much damage is applied with a more efficent mechanic than overall damage applied.

Firing 10 damage that will always apply 100% of it's damage potential to a singular point on the target is so much more effective than firing 10 damage towards a target and then having a number of factors cause that damage to be reduced or dispersed over an entire target area.

One trigger pull and 100% of that damage hits the target in the RT

or

One trigger pull and 20% hits where you aimed initially,Target moves 20% misses entirely,reaquired target 20% hits a new location,Slide the beam to the initial target area 10% to adjacent location,10% more to another location then 20% back on target,target moves again remaining damage is lost.

The comparative mechanics is the problem not a timetable.

Edited by Lykaon, 09 March 2014 - 01:20 AM.

[Lykaon]

Prosperity Park, on 09 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

I know lots of people have said this...

... but a weapon balancing scheme that doesn't s**t on Light Mechs, while least impacting Assault Mechs' ability to remain Combat-Viable would be to make all large-bore Autocannons burst fire (i.e. a range of 3-6 shot bursts that then have to "cool down" for a certain amount of time, like a Bofors 40mm cannon that fires from 6-shot clips), and make the PPCs a duration-of-fire weapon that fires a single 0.25 second burst of ~10 projectiles that do 1 dmg and 1 heat each.

That would make "pinpoint damage" a concern only for very slow-moving targets.. and slow-moving targets deserve to be shredded by accurate fire.

I only see one downside to this plan of action and I'm still undecided on if it's worth the loss.

By effectivley making all non missile weapon systems use a mechanic that encourages dispersed damage and hitscan firing mechanics we have sacrificed the tactical use of snap fire.

When all of these weapons all essentially function like lasers the tactical use of these weapons will not differ much at all.

But like I said I'm on the fence about this being a situation where living with the mechanics change is better than living with a mechanics failure or seeking alternative solutions that preserve weapon mechanics diversity.

[Abivard]

Lykaon, on 09 March 2014 - 01:08 AM, said:

Here is an example where nerfing one weapon system is punishing to a tactical use of a weapon.

I have a Wolverine 7K that I quite enjoy using.It's loadout is not what I would define as an "offender" design.

1 ER-PPC,1 Medium Laser,3 SSRM2s BAP,300XL engine and 5 JJS.

By general strategy when using this mech is keep my distance for the first part of an engagment using the ER-PPC cover and speed to minimize my exposure to incoming fire.

SO if the ER-PPC (an offending weapon) was nerfed to the point where it's damage became exceptable when used in builds that exploit the front loaded damage aspect of the PPC mechanics the single ER-PPC would have a reduced effectivness in dealing damage as well.

Now with the nerfed ER-PPC it becomes undesireable to manuver and fire the ER-PPC for it's low damage does not validate this tactical choice. Hanging back to soften a target up by plinking away with 5 points a hit is just not worth the time and risk of doing it.

So,you may say "take an ER-Large Laser instead of the ER-PPC." The tactical use of a timed beam requires longer exposure times to incoming enemy fire.The medium weight class lacks the armor value to make this a good idea.Standing in the open firing a weapon that is literaly a laser pointer picking out your current possition is not the brightest of idea if your mech is essentially 40 armor pointa shy of an exposed XL engine.

This forced weapon swap has punished the player who chose to use the strategies and tactics I mentioned.You have by nerfing a single weapon also removed the effective build/strategic options available that perform effectivley.

I would soon abandon this mech chassis for one that can survive the enforced play enviorment brought on by nerfing weapon damage in favor over adjusting game mechanics to repair a damaged relationship between mechanics.

There are far reaching effects to focusing on weapon damage alone rather than focusing on game mechanics that do not function well together.

Also,without taking time to evaluate the idea with some solid numbers I am questioning if it would actually change the choices made in mech builds.

If an AC5 only did 2.5 damage would taking 3 of them still be a better choice over swapping to non front loading weapons?That is still nearly 8 points of damage every second to one spot at extremely long ranges with low heat costs.This still sounds pretty good over a pair of ER-Lrg Lasers.

I did not recommend halving damage. Why are you implying I did?

If your ERPPC did 8 damage instead of 10 you would abandon it and the mech it was on?
I doubt that, even if the damage was halved like you imply I truly doubt many would simply up and dump DD weapons for DoT's or Missiles.... But you did end your post with the statement that even if it was halved, you would still take it over lasers. Which rather invalidates your earlier points.

Edited by Abivard, 09 March 2014 - 05:56 AM.

[Snowcrow]

Personally I just think they should increase the heat on all ballistics. You want pin-point convergence? Fine, then you have to deal with a lot of heat.
Dual ppc is fine because it produces a lot of heat. The problem arises when they combine ppc's with ballistics, but the reason they can do that is because of their incredibly low heat! If ballistics were much hotter, then it wouldn't be optimal to combine them. Then ballistics wouldn't be so much better than lasers and srms, and mechs with only laser and missle hardpoints would be viable.

Edited by Snowcrow, 09 March 2014 - 06:16 AM.