41 replies to this topic

[Tombstoner]

A fps game has different needs then its TT version. One of the design pillars PGI started with was player controlled convergence. Basically the longer you waited the more accurate your shot. That system worked but had from what i remember one fatal flaw. if you shoot at something at long range and your convergent point was half way to the target it would be possible for all your shot to criss cross at the center and diverge forming an x completely missing your target. Not acceptable so PGI broke convergence, i presume by setting convergent rate exceptionally high and left things alone:presumably someday to return and fix.

You can see remnant of this when you crest a ridge and fire lasers at something near infinity.

Right after convergence rates where set to near instant, creating the pin point accuracy of today. The community started pleaded for some sort of damage distribution system. shots became much easier to place. basically the same as it is today.

Now the game has the ability to select where damage is place. this is very difrent then TT and like i said the needs of TT and a FPS are different. however the mech design rules are the same as TT. Things die way too fast.

what i see as a solution is to assign an armor co factor for each mech that is based on the relative size of the mech and by size i mean volume relative to the smallest mech in the game. That way the TT build rules for armor stay unchanged but the game compensates for mech size/art work in a way that TT ignores. TT could care less but a skill based FPS game needs to take into account target size and how it interacts with speed. creating the base difficulty to shoot. since top speed is covered by tonnage allocation it doesn't need to be adjusted but mech size must be compensated for in the FPS.

For example the commando has x volume and is assigned a co-factor of one. the atlas is 5x that volume of the commando then the atlas armor needs to be 5 times stronger to compensate for how much easier it is to hit. If during testing the armor boost is too much then scale it to 2.5x until you have a fun level.

The next level of this is to assign co factors to each section. letting PGI adjust durability of the CT independent of the overall surface area. This way we dont get medium mechs almost the same size as assaults and arm sections receiving steroid injections while the CT is deflated. this will let the artes have free rain to create wonderful looking mech id be willing to hand over money for not some photo shopped version that's distorted for game balance,

By doing this you will flat out increase time to kill as mech tonnage increases relative to how much easier it is to hit. all the while leaving light ttk the same and preserving the original cool looking art work.

[Sarlic]

My Atlas could use some more love!

[Tombstoner]

Sarlic, on 29 May 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

My Atlas could use some more love!

i agree. for its overall size and slow speed its vastly under armored.

[Khobai]

Most assaults are also way too maneuverable. Id be okay with a turning speed nerf in exchange for inherent damage reduction. Although I personally think that should be handled by giving each weight class or mech its own unique skill tree.

Edited by Khobai, 29 May 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Khobai, on 29 May 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Most assaults are also way too maneuverable. Id be okay with a turning speed nerf in exchange for inherent damage reduction. Although I personally think that should be handled by giving each weight class or mech its own unique skill tree.

I've seen this claim a lot and based purely on my experiences in assaults I'm just not seeing it. The Victor with an XL may be a possible exception but I haven't touched them since before their nerf.

I've heard somewhere that there was some math done on the subject, does anyone have a link to that?

[Tombstoner]

Khobai, on 29 May 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Most assaults are also way too maneuverable. Id be okay with a turning speed nerf in exchange for inherent damage reduction. Although I personally think that should be handled by giving each weight class or mech its own unique skill tree.

That would need lots of development time and how unique can skill trees be. I can see them for roll warfare. they would look and function much like wow's point tree.

Maneuverability is completely arbitrary and is set by PGI. but is also derived from engine size and that's partially paid for in tonnage. What I'm after is an improved translation of TT to FPS. they have diferent needs and i outlined one that would directly improve TTK based on a relative difficulty to land a shot.

Edited by Tombstoner, 29 May 2014 - 11:23 AM.

[topgun505]

Consider a turn in TT was 10 seconds.

But the recycle rates of weapons is considerably faster than that in MWO. Most large weapons can get off 2 to 3 volleys in that time frame and some of the smaller ones can get in anywhere from 2 to TEN volleys or so in that time frame.

PGI doubling the armor really only brings the armor value of mechs back up to 'normal' when you factor in theses recycle rates.

So, that in mind, you could feasibly make the argument that armor could stand to be increased.

But really that's just putting a bandaid on the real problem which is the instantaneous pinpoint convergence system we have for FLD.

[Artgathan]

Rouken, on 29 May 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

I've seen this claim a lot and based purely on my experiences in assaults I'm just not seeing it. The Victor with an XL may be a possible exception but I haven't touched them since before their nerf.

I've heard somewhere that there was some math done on the subject, does anyone have a link to that?

This is what you're looking for: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

The analysis you're looking for is on page 5, about halfway down (I think some of it appears in the OP as well but I'm not sure).

Basically, any assault mech can turn fast enough to track any other mech in the game as long as they're >25m apart.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Khobai, on 29 May 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Most assaults are also way too maneuverable. Id be okay with a turning speed nerf in exchange for inherent damage reduction. Although I personally think that should be handled by giving each weight class or mech its own unique skill tree.

By most assaults do you mean Victors, Highlanders, and to a lesser extent Battlemasters? I wouldn't say Stalkers, Atlases, Banshees, or even Awesomes being "too manuverable".

Edited by Sigilum Sanctum, 29 May 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[Sug]

I like this idea as some mechs definitely need some special tweaks do to bad hitboxes (dragon) or being too large in general (Quickdraw)

[Lostdragon]

I like the idea behind this, but the implementation you suggest sounds like Ghost Armor. I would prefer to see a more simple and intuitive change instead of more opaque mechanics.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

There was a thread, here, that had a similar line of thinking.

The idea is doable, but I would consider separating the Front and Back Torso sections first so that they are independent.

I would then consider having Front Side Torsos be able to mount up to the current shared cap, with the Rear Section being at half that value (or even less). Then the CT would be able to mount the current shared cap for the front and half for the rear.

For example,

Spoiler

with the Atlas:
84 Front Side Torsos
42 Read Side Torsos
124 Front Center Torso
62 Rear Center Torso

Jenner
32 Front Side Torsos
16 Read Side Torsos
44 Front Center Torso
22 Rear Center Torso

With each section independent of each other then there could be considerations for unique geometry like the Hunchback's Hunch and so on.

The question would next be, should armor per ton be tweaked or not?

Edited by Praetor Knight, 29 May 2014 - 01:12 PM.

[Tombstoner]

topgun505, on 29 May 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

Consider a turn in TT was 10 seconds.

But the recycle rates of weapons is considerably faster than that in MWO. Most large weapons can get off 2 to 3 volleys in that time frame and some of the smaller ones can get in anywhere from 2 to TEN volleys or so in that time frame.

PGI doubling the armor really only brings the armor value of mechs back up to 'normal' when you factor in theses recycle rates.

So, that in mind, you could feasibly make the argument that armor could stand to be increased.

But really that's just putting a bandaid on the real problem which is the instantaneous pinpoint convergence system we have for FLD.

I agree its a bandaid but one that helps complete and adjust the TT port into a FPS for reason i think are very valid. Large targets have been inadvertently nerved. Simply adding more armor Nerfes the small weapons but when its based on mech size medium lasers have normal function against lights and all weapons should be Nerfed against the largest best armored mech in the game. it should take a lot of fire power to take one down. as it is 2 heavy's in 8-12 seconds and you done.

Instant pin point damage i think would be lessened in it severity but one could argue that it would become more important.
the best way to drop and atlas with 500 armor on the ct would be a head shot.

[Tombstoner]

Lostdragon, on 29 May 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

I like the idea behind this, but the implementation you suggest sounds like Ghost Armor. I would prefer to see a more simple and intuitive change instead of more opaque mechanics.

It is something that would exist under the hood so to speak but it wouldn't really be that hard to comprehend. all you need is a little note in the mech id section mentioning 1x or 5x armor protection. just place it right next to total armor level in the mech lab. over all the bigger you are the better protected you become. fairly intuitive i think.
later if its done it would be added on the section itself.

[Tombstoner]

Praetor Knight, on 29 May 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

The question would next be, should armor per ton be tweaked or not?

If you tweek armor per ton you adjust survivability across the board. this is a bad thing because speed interacts with armor.
lights would be disproportionally buffed. then to make maters worse small weapons become next to use less and reenforces the massive pin point FLD alpha.

I think nerfing all weapons used against assault class mech is a reasonable course of action. again it doesn't have to be a flat 1-1 correlation with volume difference. An atlas with 500 Ct armor would change things considerably. it also makes 2x ac-20 combos needed... yes needed to quickly drop something with that much armor.

Beside the rear armor is what you go for on an atlas anyway. its just now you can leave some armor there for a change instead of stripping it for an extra second of survival from incoming front damage.

Correcting armor for mech size simply adjusts things based on shot difficulty created by and arbitrary decision, art work. Things the player has no control over.

Most important of all is that it helps complete the translation of TT to a FPS. In a FPS size matters, in TT all mechs where relatively the same height such that it didn't matter for determining a to hit modifier.

[Silentium]

topgun505, on 29 May 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

Consider a turn in TT was 10 seconds.

But the recycle rates of weapons is considerably faster than that in MWO. Most large weapons can get off 2 to 3 volleys in that time frame and some of the smaller ones can get in anywhere from 2 to TEN volleys or so in that time frame.

PGI doubling the armor really only brings the armor value of mechs back up to 'normal' when you factor in theses recycle rates.

So, that in mind, you could feasibly make the argument that armor could stand to be increased.

But really that's just putting a bandaid on the real problem which is the instantaneous pinpoint convergence system we have for FLD.

I just wanted to expand on this a little, since the weapon cycle times are what I think broke the stock mech layouts and heat system. I know why the weapons fire faster, and I'm 100% on board with it, but I feel like the execution was not what it could have been.

I think that what should have happened is that the heat and damage values should have been reduced as the firing rate increased, or just adjusted completely out of line with TT and more in line with previous MW titles. Increasing the firing rate without changing anything else really threw everything out of whack, and exacerbated existing balance issues that existed within the source material.

Who knows? firing more times for less damage might have also alleviated the pinpoint damage issues you mention, as it takes considerably more skill to land shots in the same place time and time again; it is possible, but the barrier to entry is higher.

[Lostdragon]

Tombstoner, on 30 May 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

It is something that would exist under the hood so to speak but it wouldn't really be that hard to comprehend. all you need is a little note in the mech id section mentioning 1x or 5x armor protection. just place it right next to total armor level in the mech lab. over all the bigger you are the better protected you become. fairly intuitive i think.
later if its done it would be added on the section itself.

When you started talking about assigning cofactors per sector it got complicated. Assigning cofactors at all is more complicated than it needs to be, in my opinion. Also, Commandos get 1 shot already. I don't personally think the Atlas needs to be stronger vs. the Commando. An Atlas pilot who makes a mistake and winds up in front of 4-5 enemy players by himself is going to die quickly, but it will not be in one shot.

I think TTK needs to go up across the board, maybe like 20-30%. Rather than doing something that makes the rich (assaults and heavies) richer, why not do something to benefit everyone across the board like either increase the effectiveness of armor or cut the damage of weapons across the board? I would really like to see PGI try things like that on the test server.

[Tombstoner]

Lostdragon, on 30 May 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:

When you started talking about assigning cofactors per sector it got complicated. Assigning cofactors at all is more complicated than it needs to be, in my opinion. Also, Commandos get 1 shot already. I don't personally think the Atlas needs to be stronger vs. the Commando. An Atlas pilot who makes a mistake and winds up in front of 4-5 enemy players by himself is going to die quickly, but it will not be in one shot.

I think TTK needs to go up across the board, maybe like 20-30%. Rather than doing something that makes the rich (assaults and heavies) richer, why not do something to benefit everyone across the board like either increase the effectiveness of armor or cut the damage of weapons across the board? I would really like to see PGI try things like that on the test server.

Increasing armor for all and decreasing damage for all are basically the same thing but have inherent issue.
Armor interacts with mech speed and size. fast vs slow is hard to hit vs easy to hit. same for small vs. large. so small fast targets are hard to hit, lasers have short time on target doing little damage and can soak what damage that lands making FLD a must for killing everything fast.

The atlas being so huge it's easy to hit with lasers at all ranges. Adjusting for mech size is something that was left of of the port from TT to FPS. I will conceded the concept of a cofactor is a bit alien to people who dont use the term, but it would be under the hood and new players would understand that for this mech each point of armor is worth 5x normal protection.... easily understood as good.

Fundamentally all i'm suggesting is something that allows PGI to tune mechs without distorting the size of the mech arms, legs, torso sections that take into account how size effect survival and TTK, it doesn't effect weapon balance at all.

As it is a single atlas facing off against 3 heavies is a joke. with adjusted armor levels i think it becomes a fair fight.

[Mechteric]

Double armor is sufficient, the problem with making all mechs have more armor is that is further cements the requirement to have large alpha strike damage. All you'd be hurting is light and medium mechs, which I cannot approve of.

[3rdworld]

If PPCs had splash as suggested to and by PGI like a year ago, we wouldn't have all these issues with Ballistics that we suddenly miraculously have.

Really we are complaining about a 30 damage alpha, and instead at looking at the weapon system that does 2/3 of the damage with less weight and no explosive components, we are worried about the 10 damage portion.

Is convergence an issue with lasers? Hell no. Is convergence an issue with SRMs? Nope. Leave pinpoint to ballistics, they are heavy enough to basically prevent any boating without severe consequences, make PPCs do a 5/5 direct splash, which would nerf their effectiveness against smaller mechs, and leave direct damage as Ballistic weapons shtick.