1263 replies to this topic

[Alexandrix]

Just checking in,haven't read the last 20 pages or so.
So....a week and 53 pages ....still no word on the issue...?

[ReXspec]

Alexandrix, on 06 August 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Just checking in,haven't read the last 20 pages or so.
So....a week and 53 pages ....still no word on the issue...?

None whatsoever.

[Aim64C]

Sandpit, on 06 August 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

exactly

individual weapons aren't the issue. They've tried nerfing
buffing
changing
ghost heat
etc.
and none of it works because they refuse to accept the root cause of the issue because they're either too stubborn or too arrogant. Either way it will never get fixed until Paul and the others realize they were wrong.

Convergence is a bit of an issue - but it's also the effective range of the weapons versus the actual range of the weapons.

Most of the short range weapons have such limited ranges that they are more or less useless - even if we were to consider that their role was to be support for use against vehicles or infantry (that are not present in team solaris).

This means that the 'long range' of a Gauss Rifle is more in line with where most players feel comfortable engaging an enemy mech while other weapons require you to push uncomfortably close.

By shifting the range increments to allow mechs to fire much farther on the whole - you end up with weapons like the Gauss' range being more limited by the player's skill or the context of the engagement as opposed to it being an arbitrary programming limitation.

Setting up a bank of small lasers becomes a practical low-burden support weapon that can be called upon in times of need rather than being a "when the hell am I ever going to use that - pile on more ammo!"

Of course, this also means we use our brains when designing the missile weapons so that streaks have their natural role in things.

I also say it to be more inclusive of the other design ideas I've talked about.

Though it essentially describes a different game - it does describe something more like a battletech simulation/emulation as opposed to mindless solaris deathmatches with battletech artwork.

[IraqiWalker]

ReXspec, on 06 August 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

Ummm... I use my Dual PPC, Dual Gauss, 5x ER medium laser Dire Wolf all the time... I rarely ever do below six-hundred damage with it.

The problem is that his Awesome build can't actually perform an alpha strike. The actual mechanic of the high-risk alpha strike, is not allowed for builds like that. He can't actually alpha with 3 PPCs.

[ReXspec]

IraqiWalker, on 06 August 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

The problem is that his Awesome build can't actually perform an alpha strike. The actual mechanic of the high-risk alpha strike, is not allowed for builds like that. He can't actually alpha with 3 PPCs.

Neither can a stock Warhawk, but a classic Warhawk was never meant to fire ALL of it's PPC's at once. It was meant to fire them in succession, or put both PPC's on both arms on separate firing groups.

The reason why this is is not just because of the tremendous heat build-up, but because of the combined recoil of all four of the PPC's firing, in addition to the MASSIVE energy draw of that alpha strike was overwhelming to the pilot and his/her 'mech.

So, pilots were forced to fire them in some sort of succession, and supplement them with other weapons to act as a "rest" firing group for their 'mech while their 'mech coolled down, and use a targeting computer to decrease the time it took for the PPCs to re-converge on a target.

That is the entire purpose of the Clan LRM-10 and targeting computer on a Masakari: To pummel an enemy while the 'mech cools down, and re-converge it's PPCs for another devastating left and right hook.

I'm all for adding some sort of dynamics to crosshair behavior, slowing convergence, and adding some sort of Energy Draw system like Homeless Bill's system, but that Energy Draw system SHOULD NOT be in the form of a weapons lock. Nor should it be in the form of slowing down the projectiles of a goddamn lightning cannon.

A weapons lock is awkward, stupid, and non-conducive to pilot creativity. So is slowing down the projectiles of a lightning cannon by half.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 August 2014 - 10:02 PM.

[p4r4g0n]

@ Paul Inouye

On further reflection regarding the proposals outlined, I would like to ask what exactly is prompting this. You have in the past stated (in a NGNG podcast IIRC) that an pin-point, front loaded single salvo of 35 damage was "acceptable" (can't recall the exact words). This was presumably based on a dual IS PPC, single IS Gauss alpha.

With the introduction of the clan weaponry, the 2 Clan PPC (30 damage), single clan Gauss (10 damage) combination results in a total of 40 damage but it is no worse than a dual IS AC20 boomjager build and is further mitigated by 10 damage being splashed rather than pinpoint.

However, the dual Clan PPC, dual Clan Gauss Dire Wolf build delivers 50 damage (inclusive of 10 splash damage) and this begs the question as to whether the proposals set out are intended to counter this specific build or other builds that deliver pin-point, front loaded damage greater than 35?

If this is the case, would it not be better to align the Clan PPC & Gauss firing mechanic with other Clan weapons so that they shoot 2 or more projectiles similar to the Clan ACs?

In addition, replacing the ghost heat system with the "energy draw" suggestion posted here by others seems like something that should be considered since :-

• it can be applied in an intuitive manner to to all weapons (in retrospect, heat scaling seems to be an inadequate constraint due to its limited impact on ballistics);
  
• it does not impose such severe penalties for the uninitiated i.e not being able to fire a weapon is much preferred compared to shutting down from overheating;
  
• it can be set at different levels for IS and Clan mechs to account for better technology = better energy efficiency; and
  
• it would appear to be a lot simpler to refine the numbers to deal with current and future combinations of weapons rather than constantly having to develop new game mechanics to restrict specific weapon combinations.

Alternatively, how about doing away with the ability of torso mounted weapons to converge on a single point altogether i.e. torso weapons do NOT swivel, they are fixed in position. I suspect this will result in similar difficulties as slowing convergence but I thought I'd just throw it out there.

Edit: Had a brain fart and got the damage numbers for Gauss wrong but after listening to NGNG podcast #117, it does seem like the proposed changes are mainly targeted towards to the Dire Wolf build. Hence, underlying comment still holds true i.e. fix the specific problem and not create another game mechanic.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 07 August 2014 - 04:11 AM.

[MasterBLB]

I've found my older post where there is a bit about current "issue" regarding gausses and ppcs:
http://mwomercs.com/...pon-adjustments
that is the way to do it - gauss + ppc will still be viable weapon configuration during long range supporting,but in sustained fight it'll be significantly less effective,as it should be.

[ReXspec]

Aim64C, on 06 August 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

Though it essentially describes a different game - it does describe something more like a battletech simulation/emulation as opposed to mindless solaris deathmatches with battletech artwork.

"Solaris Deathmatch"

I wouldn't even dignify MWO with that title.

With the way aiming, convergence, and the weapons/balance reworks that have been implemented, this game is so far removed from Mechwarrior or Battletech, it may as well be a different game.

What we're trying to identify here is whether P.G.I. have their own vision for this game, or whether the forums actually have a use in providing feedback.

I think a TON of excellent suggestions have been given, but all those suggestions are for naught if we don't get a single peep out of P.G.I.

That stated, I'll stick with a previous statement of mine, and consider all this feedback completely useless until Paul, Niko, or someone else answers a single phrase:

Can we get feedback on this thread or the proposal within it? Or at least a vague statement from Niko or a P.G.I employee?

Paging Paul Inouye or Nikolai Lubkiewicz. PLEASE pick up the white courtesy phone. At least make us FEEL like we're valued customers.

[Reno Blade]

Solis Obscuri, on 06 August 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

It will with one very specific weapons combination.

However, if PPC velocities decrease, I just see them stacking with autocannons again.

Even if they don't, I see a lot more people going dual-Gauss if that gives them better damage than 1 Gauss + 1 PPC.

And of course there remains the dual AC/20 elephant-in-the-room.

It's less "fixing" the high-alpha dominance than just shuffling it around a little. For the fourth time in a year.

Yea it only fixes the strongest build, but that should be enough "for now" until they have enough time to do a big revamp.
The mechanic is already done, just a switch to activate it.

The 1Gauss/2PPC combo does 21 heat and the 2AC5/2PPC does 22 heat for the IS which is less than the 23 of a AC40 Jeager, a lot more range and especially: a lot more accuracy and ammo.

The Clans have very nice balanced ballistics with their UACs using burst and the Gauss for sniping, but the Gauss together with two cERPPCs delivers the BEST punch for clans.
Who uses cUAC10s other than the odd 4UAC10 Direwolf or 2UAC10 Timberwolf who like to brawl?
Do you see people using UAC20s? Too much heat and too much spread.
Take a Gauss and some PPC or laser and you will be highly accurate, even with the charge.
(ofc brawling in a slow direwolf is not easy)

p4r4g0n, on 06 August 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

@ Paul Inouye

On further reflection regarding the proposals outlined, I would like to ask what exactly is prompting this. You have in the past stated (in a NGNG podcast IIRC) that an pin-point, front loaded single salvo of 35 damage was "acceptable" (can't recall the exact words). This was presumably based on a dual IS PPC, single IS Gauss alpha.

With the introduction of the clan weaponry, the 2 Clan PPC (30 damage), single clan Gauss (10 damage) combination results in a total of 40 damage but it is no worse than a dual IS AC20 boomjager build and is further mitigated by 10 damage being splashed rather than pinpoint.

However, the dual Clan PPC, dual Clan Gauss Dire Wolf build delivers 50 damage (inclusive of 10 splash damage) and this begs the question as to whether the proposals set out are intended to counter this specific build or other builds that deliver pin-point, front loaded damage greater than 35?

...

Gauss has 15 damage.
So you do 45 with CGAUSS/2CERPPC, not just 40
and 60 damage with 2CGAUSS/2cERPPC not 50,
and you can even use 3CERPPC with 2Gauss for a whooping 65 pp FLD.

[Aggressor666]

A particle-beam weapon is a weaponized version of this technology. It accelerates charged particles(in most cases electrons, positrons, protons, or ionized atoms, but very advanced versions can use other particles) to near-light speed and then shoots them at a target. These particles have tremendous kinetic energy which they impart to matter in the target’s surface, inducing near-instantaneous and catastrophic superheating.


just fyi...

Edited by Aggressor666, 07 August 2014 - 02:26 AM.

[Willothius]

FupDup, on 29 July 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Heck no to the silly weapon cap. Firing that many guns at the same time wouldn't be an issue if they didn't all converge onto a single spot instantly...

..the problem is multiple weapons combining to create "superweapons" that dump a lot of damage into a single pixel.

^^This. No more instant pinpoint convergence, and no more steady aiming after releasing the JJ button.Don't band-aid it, just make some actually useful new game mechanics:

-Weapon convergence.
-JJ shake when dropping.

[Jungle Rhino]

I been playing quite a lot of tabletop BT lately and thinking about the conversion from the turn based game to MWO which is essentially a real time simulation. There are some pretty core game concepts, the vast majority of which PGI have transferred across quite faithfully but there are few things that are missing notably:

Shooting accuracy is a function of a number of things including target speed, range, concealment - all of which are represented reasonably well in MWO. The thing missing is an accuracy penalty for the shooting target moving. In TT stationary mechs have no penalty, walking mechs +1, running mechs +2, jumping mechs +3.

This is a very important concept because it forces you to trade accuracy for mobility. MWO desperately needs a dynamic weapon cone of fire mechanic that brings this trade off to prevent front load damage ruling. If you limit accuracy on the move you increase the amount of exposure time a high FLD build needs to get accurate shots away. No more ridge-tarting or corner shooting with high precision. You can still use these tactics of course but If you want to rock back and forwards out of cover without waiting for your guns to settle you won't be shooting as accurately.

It just seems to make such an enormous amount of sense and I really can't understand why Paul hasn't gone down this route. Or if he has why was it abandoned? The direction that PGI are heading I am very concerned that the 'simulation' is going to be whittled away by all these abstract concepts such as ghost heat that are not intuitive and quite frankly confusing especially for new players.

[Karyu]

Would it not be much simpler to get rid of the charge mechanic on Gauss and simply totally lock out the ability to fire anything else at the same time with perhaps a .5 second lockout after firing? Then in turn apply the same concept to PPC's, but instead of 1 PPC, if you fire 2 or more (or limit it to 2 max) you have the same lock out. The concept is just as easily justified with the "heavy power draw" explanation. Hell if you wanted to really get interesting, S/M/H mech generators could only be able to handle the draw of firing 1 Gauss, while assaults could handle firing two simultaneously. Again, easily applied to PPC's as well.

[bundy]

How about PGI you stop this Bulls$#%t train once and for all the problem since closed beta has and always will be your weapon convergence, So enough already you flogged the dead horse of ghost heat, firing delays etc.
Adjust the aiming system all weapons converging on 1 point in space in milliseconds is a weapon engineers wet dream and just isnt practical for a mech stomping along.

[wanderer]

...because they can't get the engine to stop doing wonderful things like firing your PPC's converging at 30m when you're shooting at something 600m away, all from having a 170kph light flash in front of your crosshairs for .2 seconds. Used to be fun during beta- you could make someone whiff just by zipping by with a Jenner as they lined up to shoot your buddy further out, and suddenly the enemy gunner got a case of cross-eyed derp.

The solution cannot be convergence, ergo it must be making the weapons deliver damage in such a manner that they either naturally scatter damage, do so as the target/firer moves, or are seriously limited (ie Gauss).

[ReXspec]

wanderer, on 07 August 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

...because they can't get the engine to stop doing wonderful things like firing your PPC's converging at 30m when you're shooting at something 600m away, all from having a 170kph light flash in front of your crosshairs for .2 seconds. Used to be fun during beta- you could make someone whiff just by zipping by with a Jenner as they lined up to shoot your buddy further out, and suddenly the enemy gunner got a case of cross-eyed derp.

The solution cannot be convergence, ergo it must be making the weapons deliver damage in such a manner that they either naturally scatter damage, do so as the target/firer moves, or are seriously limited (ie Gauss).

Fixing convergence can be a MAJOR part of it, if they have the weapons converge to the distance of your currently painted target. That was actually one of the many brilliant functions of a 'mechs internal targeting systems: You could slave the weapon systems convergence on your crosshair's target, or slave weapons convergence on a target painted by your 'mech's sensors.

And personally, I don't buy the excuse that "P.G.I. can't do it because of engine limitations." In doing my own development projects in the Cryengine (nothing major or revolutionary--just some ballistics and targeting experiments with the engine itself) I've found that incorporating something like a dual-mode targeting system is actually VERY possible with the Cryengine. Alternate crosshair behavior (such as crosshair "bob" from movement) already exists via third-person view. Not to mention, there is a basic framework coding for crosshair "jump" from recoil as well.

Coupled with this re-work to convergence, these systems would offer some of the best alternatives to the systems that we have now.

The systems and mechanics are ALL there, it's just up to P.G.I. to implement them, and fine-tune them.

...

God help us...

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 04:34 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Jungle Rhino, on 07 August 2014 - 03:02 AM, said:

I been playing quite a lot of tabletop BT lately and thinking about the conversion from the turn based game to MWO which is essentially a real time simulation. There are some pretty core game concepts, the vast majority of which PGI have transferred across quite faithfully but there are few things that are missing notably:

Shooting accuracy is a function of a number of things including target speed, range, concealment - all of which are represented reasonably well in MWO. The thing missing is an accuracy penalty for the shooting target moving. In TT stationary mechs have no penalty, walking mechs +1, running mechs +2, jumping mechs +3.

This is a very important concept because it forces you to trade accuracy for mobility. MWO desperately needs a dynamic weapon cone of fire mechanic that brings this trade off to prevent front load damage ruling. If you limit accuracy on the move you increase the amount of exposure time a high FLD build needs to get accurate shots away. No more ridge-tarting or corner shooting with high precision. You can still use these tactics of course but If you want to rock back and forwards out of cover without waiting for your guns to settle you won't be shooting as accurately.

It just seems to make such an enormous amount of sense and I really can't understand why Paul hasn't gone down this route. Or if he has why was it abandoned? The direction that PGI are heading I am very concerned that the 'simulation' is going to be whittled away by all these abstract concepts such as ghost heat that are not intuitive and quite frankly confusing especially for new players.

While we can shoot reasonably well while running, it depends a lot on how and where we run.
It's easy to peek around a building, humping a hill or standing in the back, but it's harder (at least for fast mechs) to shoot while bee-lining or circling, moving over/around bumps and hills or rocks and rivers (canyon).
The whole thing here is that it's a LOT harder to keep a 1+second beam on target than to line up your crosshair for a split second and let that one PPC, AC or Gauss fire and THEN put your concentration back to moving in uneven terrain.

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 04:08 AM, said:

Fixing convergence can be a MAJOR part of it, if they have the weapons converge to the distance of your currently painted target. That was actually one of the many brilliant functions of a 'mechs internal targeting systems: You could slave the weapon systems convergence on your crosshair's target, or slave weapons convergence on a target painted by your 'mech's sensors.

And personally, I don't buy the excuse that "P.G.I. can't do it because of engine limitations." In doing my own development projects in the Cryengine (nothing major or revolutionary--just some ballistics and targeting experiments with the engine itself) I've found that incorporating something like a dual-mode targeting system is actually VERY possible with the Cryengine. Alternate crosshair behavior (such as crosshair "bob" from movement) already exists via third-person view. Not to mention, there is a basic framework coding for crosshair "jump" from recoil as well.

Coupled with this re-work to convergence, these systems would offer some of the best alternatives to the systems that we have now.

The systems and mechanics are ALL there, it's just up to P.G.I. to implement them, and fine-tune them.

...

God help us...

What would we gain if the convergence would converge at the range of your target?
All shots beeing pinpoint accurate for this target if you don't get closer/further away would not change anything, would it?

[ReXspec]

Reno Blade, on 07 August 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

What would we gain if the convergence would converge at the range of your target?
All shots beeing pinpoint accurate for this target if you don't get closer/further away would not change anything, would it?

Well, for one, if the crosshair was dynamic and moved according to recoil, sustained fire or movement, the shots wouldn't be pinpoint.

Furthermore, if the weapons converged strictly at the range of a locked target, it would prevent other targets from disrupting the convergence of the weapon systems, such as a light 'mech stepping in front of your desired target for .2 seconds, and throwing off the shots entirely.

Wanderer mentioned that such a thing would happen all the time in earlier versions of the game, and it's true. A dual-locking convergence system would mitigate this problem, if not eliminate it entirely, and would allow pilots to simply focus on compensating for their dynamic crosshair's behavior (if a dynamic crosshair was implemented).

Plus, you have to remember, that bigger weapon systems would give more recoil, thus throwing off the convergence to a greater degree, and would probably have slower convergence speed in the first place. Which means, that pilots would have to take more time in aiming at their target with large, high-energy-draw weapon systems. A dual-locking convergence system would simply make controlling the slowed convergence of the weapon systems less of a chore.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 06:21 AM.

[PocketAces]

Yup, the convergence will always be an issue.

My idea is this:
The weapons only converge at maximum range, under max range they will hit different parts of the mech, over max range and they cross. Which would make SL and SPL a little more effective because being at close range you can get the pinpoint more effectively than if you used ML.-like this picture.

Edited by PocketAces, 07 August 2014 - 06:45 AM.

[Koniving]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 29 July 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors!

Please let us know which of Paul's ideas to balance PPC+Gauss you would prefer to see in-game!

Simpler solution that'll eliminate all of the loop holes in ghost heat as well as the need for ghost heat on anything beyond ACs...and even then it probably wouldn't be necessary.

30 threshold. Reduction of percentages of cool run and heat containment.

Koniving, on 07 August 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

So long as your engine is above 250 and until you reach 18 DHS, we actually have better than 2.0 heat efficiency with every DHS in our mechs thanks to the mech skill tree.

Tabletop: 16 DHS.
3.2/sec cooling
30 threshold

MWO: 16 DHS 250 engine elites.
Cooling Rate : 3.27 heat/sec
Heat Threshold : 70.08

Tabletop: 17 DHS.
3.4/sec cooling
30 threshold.

MWO 17 DHS 250 engine elites.

Cooling Rate : 3.43 heat/sec
Heat Threshold : 71.75999999999999

Gotta hit 18 to get a negative amount.

That threshold is why we can fire so much.
With that 17 DHS 250 engine and elites on MWO a 2 ER PPC + Gauss mech can...

Spoiler

2 ER PPCs + Gauss.


Cooling Rate : 3.43 heat/sec
Heat Threshold : 71.75999999999999
0 seconds. Macro queued.
0.75 seconds. Fired. +31 heat. (43.2% heat.)
4.75 seconds. 17.28 heat. Macro queued.
5.5 seconds. Fired. + 31 heat.
5.75 seconds. 44.85 heat.
9.5 seconds. Macro queued.
9.75 seconds. 31.13 heat.
10.25 seconds. Fired. +31 heat.
10.75 seconds. 58.7 heat. (81.8% heat)

That's 3 firings in a row, non-stop, and no overheat. It'll make a 4th firing before it shuts down.
With that 17 DHS and 30 threshold (note: no rising threshold means we can have 2.0 DHS no matter how many heatsinks we have or what engine. This makes LIGHTS and mediums who cannot equip 250 engines significantly more VIABLE).

Spoiler

30 threshold,
3.4/sec cooling.
0 seconds. Macro queued.
0.75 seconds. 31 heat fired. OVERHEAT! 103.33%
Welp, that's all she wrote.
1.75 seconds. 27.6 heat. 92%. Got a wait ahead of you.
2.75 seconds. 24.2 heat.
3.75 seconds. 20.8 heat.
4.75 seconds. 17.4 heat. STILL NOT SAFE.
5.75 seconds. 14 heat. (In tabletop this is when an overheated mech can boot back up.
6.75 seconds. 10.6 heat.
7.75 seconds. 7.2 heat.
8.75 seconds. 3.8 heat.
9.75 seconds. 0.4 heat. (STILL NOT SAFE!)
10 seconds. Macro queued.

We just removed the problem entirely. Simple. Easy.
That's literally one shot per ten seconds, a glass cannon. Can't even jump and do it without practically killing yourself. Problem solved. Not only that but unlike ghost heat, it'll cover ALL weapon systems within the same rules with no "getting around it" loopholes that ghost heat provides.


With that 17 DHS and 30 threshold (note: no rising threshold means we can have 2.0 DHS no matter how many heatsinks we have or what engine). Note, we're going to apply MWO skill tree to this as well.
17 DHS = 30 threshold, 3.4/sec cooling.
+ 20% threshold. + 15% cooling.
36 threshold. 3.91/sec cooling.

Spoiler

2 ER PPCs + Gauss.
Cooling 3.91/sec.
0 seconds. Macro queued.
0.75 seconds. Fired. +31 heat. (86.11% heat)
4.75 seconds. 15.36 heat. Macro queued.
5.5 seconds. Fired. + 31 heat.
5.75 seconds. 42.45 heat. Shutdown.
9.5 seconds. Macro queued.
9.75 seconds. 26.81 heat.
10.25 seconds. Fired. +31 heat.
10.75 seconds. 53.9 heat. Shutdown.

This time we squeezed out three shots but shutdown twice. Telling us how overpowered the skill tree system is.
The MWO heat sim for fun.
http://keikun17.gith...heat_simulator/

Edited by Koniving, 07 August 2014 - 06:50 AM.