101 replies to this topic

[Mazzyplz]

it doesn't seem to be a problem for the people running gauss, i know it's not for me.

the hindrance of weight used up by ammo far outweighs having to do with heat management away almost completely.

running out? yea you can run out esp. if you have different types of ammo, but if you bring one or two then you will do insane dmg without managing heat and you can end the match shooting a small laser it will be a good match with lots of dmg and kills if you're good. it's still not fair to the players managing heat.


look at this build from koniving; it's a video he posted earlier in another thread;
how many ac20 rounds does that raven have?????

https://www.youtube....RXKRP4Czg#t=293

"until you run out??" seriously, this is a good comedy you're tryin out here (watch the vid)

Monkeystador, on 07 April 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

Stop discussion anything not related to this thread please. @MoonUnit@Mazzyplz

Thank you for the reference. IT is an interesting but totally different solution for the problem.

oh it's relevant.
this whole thread is assuming the problem is pinpoint but that's a mistake, the real problem is the lack of heat management on the meta mechs.

or is the triple ppc awesome pwning you daily?

[Monkeystador]

You are widening the relevancy to much. Directly related is different. Ammo doesnt matter here at all. Neather does heat management. This is about pinpoint aiming. Alternative solutions might be relevant but do not relate directly to the threads first post, which is clearly about chaning aim to solve the issue. Not any other ways.

Edited by Monkeystador, 07 April 2014 - 11:14 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

changing aim the way you are describing would not solve the issue. it would curb player skill so badly, people would flock to using auto aiming weapons like LRM and STREAK because the guidance systems would have a clear advantage in that case.

it would make the game more unforgiving with noobs, and make it extremely hard for anyone to actually make a critical shot when warranted.

all around a bad idea IMO and that's the discussion i'm taking part of here.
what do you want to delete my posts? you can't.

it's ok if you disagree but don't come here like you have moderator powers, lol

[Nightfire]

I think one of the best suggestions to this problem was a while back from someone digging around in the books in a thread in August last year.
Burst Fire!
That is, all weapons currently front load all of their damage into one hit. As an example, the MW:O AC/20 fires 1 slug that does 20 points of damage. In the BT books there are manufacturers that achieve this in differing ways. I like the imagery of only an Atlas being able to fire the current style of AC/20 and even then, needing to brace itself.

PPC's are less a hurled ball of plasma and more a streamed lightning gun. Something you would have to hold on target for a duration.

While Gauss Rifles never actually mention firing in bursts (though it does say it fires slugs, plural, this could be interpreted differently by different people) Rail Guns (Gauss Rifles in other games) are known for firing rapid bursts of slugs, even flechette style. (RIfts I'm looking at you!)



Essentially, by not front loading the damage from weapons you create a similar situation to lasers. Pin point precision if the target stands still and lets you shoot them but otherwise allowing a good pilot a chance to spread the damage. Different manufacturers can then create different variants akin in function to the difference between standard and pulse lasers.

Note that if we also had some sort of BV system, different variants could have differing BVs based on how well they front load their damage, how quickly they recycle, etc, allowing for some significant variation in the game.

Note: This isn't my idea but since the issue of pin point precision is being raised yet again (and I agree, this is an issue) then perhaps this is something that might get some traction now?

[Monkeystador]

Well this thread is not about generally new idea how to fix it. Its about aiming. And the following link to the post is a constructive suggestion for that matter.

Divine Retributions simple approach to tweak aiming

So i ask you all here:
My follow up on it.

[Lyoto Machida]

MoonUnitBeta, on 07 April 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

UNTIL YOU RUN OUT?
With more ammo, you run with less weapons, smaller engine, less armor, or what ever your set up may be. Ammo dependance affects a lot of things

Too bad ammo explosions aren't one of those things...

[Divine Retribution]

Rifts Online! Guess not, dang.....

Flechette would be the LBX in MWO, but burst fire isn't bad (and there are numerous posts supporting it around here). The problems I foresee are relying on PGI to determine the arbitrary number of rounds fired in a burst and burst duration (time between rounds in a burst). I think problems would also crop up if rotary autocannons ever made a debut. I think ammo counts would also need to be adjusted to the number of rounds fired in a burst as weapons could be destroyed mid-burst or a last burst could be split between two weapons (does that last AC/20 burst fire from one AC/20, or do both AC/20s fire half a burst)? Then of course an additional heat breakdown: each round in a burst should produce heat, similar to laser duration heat. I suppose target rocking would also need to be factored in, multiple smaller rounds cause less rocking over a longer duration.

With my rambling I seem to have thought of multiple problems related to burst fire...

[Nightfire]

Divine Retribution, on 07 April 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Rifts Online! Guess not, dang.....

It would be awesome, wouldn't it!

Quote

Flechette would be the LBX in MWO, but burst fire isn't bad (and there are numerous posts supporting it around here).

I'd agree if you see the flechettes fired in one spread blob, shotgun style, at the target rather than a quick stream of flechettes. They could still be in a narrow stream and have the same convergence as the current Gauss Rifle but need not be instant.

Quote

The problems I foresee are relying on PGI to determine the arbitrary number of rounds fired in a burst and burst duration (time between rounds in a burst).

As with anything, relying on PGI to implement anything with some reasonable thought seems dangerous to me but there is a formula you can work to that would make that work out well enough. In short, making sure the burst duration + reload and recycle time match the current equivalent, that the total heat generated matches the current equivalent, etc.

Quote

I think problems would also crop up if rotary autocannons ever made a debut.

Nah, just the same as the burst autocannons, remove the recycle time (adjust the burst to bring the damage into line at about x6) and add a weapon specific heat build up before it locks. Pretty much how HMGs are handled in most FPS games now. It's not that hard.

Quote

I think ammo counts would also need to be adjusted to the number of rounds fired in a burst as weapons could be destroyed mid-burst or a last burst could be split between two weapons (does that last AC/20 burst fire from one AC/20, or do both AC/20s fire half a burst)?

Over complicating things in my opinion. Each (as an example) AC/20 "round" could be thought of more as a cassette containing the actual number of slugs to be fired in the burst.. If a weapon is destroyed mid-firing cycle, the cassette is lost. This "fluff" allows more of the underlying code to stay as is.

Quote

Then of course an additional heat breakdown: each round in a burst should produce heat, similar to laser duration heat. I suppose target rocking would also need to be factored in, multiple smaller rounds cause less rocking over a longer duration.

I see these less as problems and more as distinguishing features between manufacturers. Slower burst firing weapons may not be favored among hit-and-run or sniper style players but DPS players might just love the slight extra heat bleed off this gives somewhat akin to chain firing.

Quote

With my rambling I seem to have thought of multiple problems related to burst fire...

I never said it was a perfect idea as was, I think it has very real legs though.

[Monkeystador]

Pro and Cons of a static weapon convergence point set to optimal range.

Divine Retribution, on 07 April 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:

I'd prefer that pinpoint damage be corrected by weapon range and ability to move horizontally. Torso weapons are fixed, so it's always strange that the impact hits the center of the reticle at whatever range you are aiming [...]

Monkeystador, on 07 April 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

+PinPoint alpha on long range starts disappears unless you fire the same weapon type from the same section (still not perfect convergence but pretty close) . Thus two ppcs from the same section still stack precisely on optimal range.
+Sniping with a single weapon is still possible but it is more difficult because you have to take the target range into account. To make it more player friendly maybe a different crosshair with a scale would help. Multi weapon snipping is still possible if fired from the same section.
+ Arm mounted weapons would become more usefull. Arm mounted weapons would be the choice for pin point over all range. But still needs convergence
+ Face hugging gameplay changes.

- Hitting on very close ranges with fixed weapons will be more difficult. Advanced crosshairs would be needed.
- Gameplay difficulty goes up.

Maybe: Mech usage becomes more diversified.

More pro/cons
+ Arms with horizontal actuators become useful again. The current meta prefers high arms, no elbows needed.
+ Balance effect: High alpha combinations through usage of arms (with horizontal actuator) will have high risk/reward . Mechs need to fully bring arms into LOS thus exposing themselfs much more.
+ Skillfull players can make most of the mechanic. Allows elite players to distinguish themselfs.

+easy to implement because only the aiming code needs to be touched.

Snipers would prefer narrow mechs with torso hardpoints.
Snapshooters who want pinpoint alpah can use mechs with arms.
Brawlers need to adapt to make use of weapons trained to long range ( like PPC , AC5 etc. ) in close range. Because they wont shoot excatly at the crosshair position. While close range weapons do not suffer much from that effect.
Facehugging would become a skill of its own, because parking a mech with the AC20 barrel right in front of a damaged zone would be the only way to direct fire in very close situations.

All this works in favour of generally spreading damage but still allowing pinpoint damage for a limited set of situations.

[Chemie]

splash damage. 50% where you aim and 50% in surrounding areas. Do for anything above 10 damage. Done.

[Joseph Mallan]

Monkeystador, on 07 April 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

We all know that getting hit by 35 damage alphas in one zone while peaking over a hill is anoying. Snapshooting like this doesnt do good for MWO iMHo
So just imagine giving each weapon a slight offset from the crosshair center. It is like any other game where you know the gun will raise on fire thus you have to aim lower.
So a single weapon like a gauss for example, has its offset a little down and to the left. A skilled player knows how to compensate.
Simple so far?
Next add more guns to that group. Suddenly there is no more perfect convergence. While the effect is barely noticeable on close range, it would be noticeable on long range. Damage spread will occur. Most pronounce on smaller targets.

How that offset is determined is another matter.

Note: ppc counts as ballistic.

Yes it is annoying. But seeing as we have double armor the 35 points of damage is just over the level of damage a TT Gauss can do to you if you are in LoS. I know Kho will argue the semantics of this, but 30 years of dealing with the equivalent level of damage leaves me unimpressed. I am used to ONE AC20 shell crippling Mechs under 50 tons. Here Ravens shrug off One!

I have no problem if we add a CoF but I also do find the fear of 35 point Alpha's a bit of Sky is falling mentality. I am used to Atlases falling in 30 seconds on TT (3 turns). It happens a bunch in 30 years of play.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 April 2014 - 05:27 AM.

[DaZur]

Mazzyplz, on 07 April 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

The real problem is the weapons are doing too much dmg... that's it.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this...

Welcome to MW:O pillow fight edition.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nightfire, on 07 April 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

Thank you for this!

[Ultimax]

Nightfire, on 07 April 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

Essentially, by not front loading the damage from weapons you create a similar situation to lasers.

So basically, turn everything into a laser which many players complain are weak.

Standard Lasers, how they are designed in this game, are some of the most weight and slot economical weapons in the game.

No one really addresses this, probably because they don't think about it.

PPCs, ACs, LPLs are all hogs of some sort. Weight, Slots, Heat, or Ammo, or a combination of all 4.


So if those resource hogs have to "function like lasers" - all of them need to be rebalanced to be more economical.

While it's not my ideal solution, I think players should really wait for 3/3/3/3 to arrive before they continue to herd-nerfs onto half the weapons in the game.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

I have no problem if we add a CoF but I also do find the fear of 35 point Alpha's a bit of Sky is falling mentality. I am used to Atlases falling in 30 seconds on TT (3 turns). It happens a bunch in 30 years of play.

It's likely because those 30s of in-game TT time take much longer to resolve for players in reality. From a perception standpoint it feels longer than 30s.

Now that they are no longer watching from the top of Olympus like Zeus in Clash of the Titans - short time spans feel even shorter in comparison.

Full Disclosure, I've never played MWO TT.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 08 April 2014 - 05:57 AM.

[Fut]

Mazzyplz, on 07 April 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

i could probably adapt, but really - i think it's too complex and unrealistic.

right now in real life, in fact probably since 1992 - we got a helicopter that can shoot it's vulcan cannon wherever the pilot aims...

http://science.howst...helicopter5.htm

"Each pilot can aim the sensors by simply moving his or her head!"

SO - if this technology is 22 years old now... then why would a walking war machine in the year 3050 need a joystick without convergence?!?!? makes no sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! esp. when you realize the tracking gear already exists in the long range missile systems.
if the missiles can track then why not the lasers converge? seems just TOO silly


imo it's best to nerf the AC by rate of fire and increase the heat so they add to the PPC's heat (but leave the ppc heat alone)
then maaybe double internal hitpoints for all mechs.

it would be simpler, fair and more realistic in a real world sense.

That's one weapon though.
Do we have any war machines around these days that can fire off 2 of those Vulcan Cannons (plus a bigger single barrel cannon or something) and have all the rounds hit the exact same postage-stamp sized area on the target? Nope.

That's what the main problem is. The ability to fire off multiple weapons, and have them all hit the exact same pixel on the target.

Mazzyplz, on 07 April 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

imo it's best to nerf the AC by rate of fire and increase the heat so they add to the PPC's heat (but leave the ppc heat alone)
.

So what happens if you're using ACs without PPCs?

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 08 April 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

It's likely because those 30s of in-game TT time take much longer to resolve for players in reality. From a perception standpoint it feels longer than 30s.

Now that they are no longer watching from the top of Olympus like Zeus in Clash of the Titans - short time spans feel even shorter in comparison.

Full Disclosure, I've never played MWO TT.

Yeah... I know. It was many a night after 6-8 hours of play we stop and realize... That was less than 2 minutes of Combat! But the cold hard truth is Using FASA physics thats what we just did. less than 2 minutes of fighting. Funny thing. If you take a stock mech. Hold down the trigger of an AC or LRM in MW:O... You run out of ammo right about the one minute mark... The estimated time a Mech would run its bins dry... Funny how that worked out!



MGs don't count! Those never ran out!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 April 2014 - 06:12 AM.

[Mcgral18]

DaZur, on 08 April 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this...

Welcome to MW:O pillow fight edition.

Well, lets try to math this morning:

AC2 does 2 damage over 10 seconds in TT. In MWO, it fires every .52 seconds. To simplify this, lets say twice a second. That means 20 times in 10 seconds (+1 at 0 seconds, -1 due to those extra miliseconds) So, instead of doing 2 damage, the AC2 is doing 40. Doubled armor makes it 20 damage by comparison. We have a 6 ton AC20.

AC10 fires 5 times, with a 2.5 second cooldown +1 at 0s. So, 50 damage /2 makes 25 damage, instead of 10.

AC20 fires 3 times and a half recycle. So, you could debate AC60 or AC70. I'll make it 60/2=30, up from 20. This one isn't too bad actually, only a 33% boost.

So, when we math with ballistics, we can see damage is indeed too high. Not gamebreakingly high, but more than doubled armor can handle. Not to mention the pinpoint instantaneous convergence means putting multiple FLD weapons together simply makes a bigger weapon, since they all hit the same location.

Edited by Mcgral18, 08 April 2014 - 06:41 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcgral18, on 08 April 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

Well, lets try to math this morning:

AC2 does 2 damage over 10 seconds in TT. In MWO, it fires every .52 seconds. To simplify this, lets say twice a second. That means 20 times in 10 seconds (+1 at 0 secons, -1 due to those extra miliseconds) So, instead of doing 2 damage, the AC2 is doing 40. Doubled armor makes it 20 damage by comparison. We have a 6 ton AC20.

AC10 fires 5 times, with a 2.5 second cooldown +1 at 0s. So, 50 damage /2 makes 25 damage, instead of 10.

AC20 fires 3 times and a half recycle. So, you could debate AC60 or AC70. I'll make it 60/2=30, up from 20. This one isn't too bad actually, only a 33% boost.

So, when we math with ballistics, we can see damage is indeed too high. Not gamebreakingly high, but more than doubled armor can handle. Not to mention the pinpoint instantaneous convergence means putting multiple FLD weapons together simply makes a bigger weapon, since they all hit the same location.

This is only cause:

1) 10 seconds is way way to much time for what a combat turn is.

&

2) PGI made all our ACs AC20s

ACs should have broke down something more like

In a single Salvo (every 4 seconds)

AC20 puts out 20 damage

AC10 Puts out 10

AC5 puts out 5

and the AC2 puts out 2.

Now the actual numbers Under an AC20 can be tinkered with, BUT an AC20 should be around twice as powerful as an AC10 and so on.

[Sable]

I have never understood the obsession some people have with inaccurate weapons. I understand large alpha strikes are an issue and people have tried to come up with different solutions to combat them but i wouldn't enjoy the game at all if i couldn't count on my weapons actually hitting. Its the same reason i didn't use LRMs for the longest time, they didn't travel fast enough to actually land on target in the past. Now LRMs have the speed to make it to the target and actually hit. If ballistics didn't fire where i was aiming i wouldn't use them either. I'd rather see them fire a burst of shells than not go where i'm pointing.

In other first person games i find the cone of fire circle around the reticle the most frustraiting experience where i have to poor 3/4 of my ammo out to kill one person. And if you think having a machine gun that has no cone of fire is too good try playing the old alien vs predator game as a colonial marine. Those fast moving aliens were much more difficult to hit than i would have anticipated for having a gun that shoots accurately in rapid succession. I actually found myself using a shotgun or flamethrower more than the machine gun in that game. I use this as an illustration as its the only game i remember ever having a machine gun without a cone of fire mechanic.

Edited by Sable, 08 April 2014 - 07:16 AM.

[Appogee]

I favour adding recoil. MW3 or 4 had it. At least it requires re-aiming after firing.