Jump to content

Mwo Re-Imagined: Volume 1: Basics/direct Combat

Gameplay

15 replies to this topic

#1 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 11 August 2014 - 05:42 AM

For my own amusement, and the amusement of those who still read my posts, I am going to start a series of topics for the re-imagined MWO, using concepts of programming that PGI has already proven capable of.

Since people, including myself, do not like reading Walls of Text.. it will be broken up into separate subjects and kept as concise as possible:

For now, imagine that everything, except the artwork/models, movement, and the weapons' mechanics themselves has been wiped off the face of the gaming planet. And let us build MWO's mechanics from the ground up.

Basic concept: "This is not Call of Duty."
--------------------------------------------------------
For this volume: Basics and direct combat:
Armor: TT armor values. (Allowed to be increased by up to 20% of stock value, rounded to the nearest half-ton of armor.)

Weapons:
Increase all weapon Cooldowns by 50%.
(Increase Gauss and PPC cooldowns by an additional 50%)

Firing: "Progressive Bloom"
Firing one weapon has near perfect accuracy. (close to we have now- only noticeable deviation at 800m +)
Firing two weapons would create a small CoF. (Using the same kind of programming they used for Jumpjet shake, except with more locations)
Firing three weapons creates a larger "bloom."
And so on:
Bloom increased by blanket percentage according to movement(throttle%), heat(%), and stability (jumping y/n)

(Heat would be a huge overhaul and requires its own volume.)

------------------------------------------------

Further volumes will depend on the reaction I get from this one. I welcome non-emotional debate, but in the face of a lack of interest, I see no reason to continue with other volumes.


---------------------------
EDITED: According to first round discussions.

Edited by Livewyr, 11 August 2014 - 06:57 AM.


#2 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:18 AM

Koniving's armor rework is the best armor solution I've seen.

You keep double the armor points, but you cap each variant based on stock + x tons of armor. He suggests stock + 3t, but that number could easily change.

The reason for this is that many of the "best" variants are radically under-armored stock, which would make them glass cannons except that players can max their armor out and match the defensive performance of the mechs with much heavier stock armor while still having more and better hardpoints (and/or JJs).

Implementing this system would revitalize the defensively specialized variants by giving them a uniquely heavy armor load, while making it far easier to balance stronger variants, since they'll finally be having ot make the sacrifices in MWO that they do in TT (lower armor to fit those bigger/better weapons and those JJs).

As for double armor itself, I don't know of many people seriously complaining that it takes too long to kill stuff. Certainly it seems far more like time to kill is too low overall.

Regarding weapon cooldowns, your idea has a lot of merit as a new starting point. However, I'd be inclined to tweak things just a little, by keeping cooldowns on SRMs (not SSRMs) and Pulse weapons lower than their alternatives.

As for weapon bloom, it could work, but I prefer dynamic precision reduction based on 3 real-time factors: heat %, throttle %, and stability state. If you have good control over all three you should be rewarded with highly precise shots, but if you constantly fire at full speed while jumping and with your heat at 90% then you should have a hard time putting your shots exactly where you want them.

Of course, much of the DPR discussion can wait until heat and jumping and such become the topics of the day.

Edited by Levi Porphyrogenitus, 11 August 2014 - 06:19 AM.


#3 Sarlic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 4,519 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:24 AM

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 August 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Koniving's armor rework is the best armor solution I've seen.

You keep double the armor points, but you cap each variant based on stock + x tons of armor. He suggests stock + 3t, but that number could easily change.

The reason for this is that many of the "best" variants are radically under-armored stock, which would make them glass cannons except that players can max their armor out and match the defensive performance of the mechs with much heavier stock armor while still having more and better hardpoints (and/or JJs).

Implementing this system would revitalize the defensively specialized variants by giving them a uniquely heavy armor load, while making it far easier to balance stronger variants, since they'll finally be having ot make the sacrifices in MWO that they do in TT (lower armor to fit those bigger/better weapons and those JJs).

As for double armor itself, I don't know of many people seriously complaining that it takes too long to kill stuff. Certainly it seems far more like time to kill is too low overall.

Regarding weapon cooldowns, your idea has a lot of merit as a new starting point. However, I'd be inclined to tweak things just a little, by keeping cooldowns on SRMs (not SSRMs) and Pulse weapons lower than their alternatives.

As for weapon bloom, it could work, but I prefer dynamic precision reduction based on 3 real-time factors: heat %, throttle %, and stability state. If you have good control over all three you should be rewarded with highly precise shots, but if you constantly fire at full speed while jumping and with your heat at 90% then you should have a hard time putting your shots exactly where you want them.

Of course, much of the DPR discussion can wait until heat and jumping and such become the topics of the day.


Suggestions are only heard within the community. I feel communication from PGI is lacking. Even a small thing like 'We are looking into this idea' can make loads of people happy. I really hope they want to put some effort. But the main problem is that this game still has a huge list of assets to be solved / fixed. I am skeptical when it comes to idea's which eventually ever will reach the game. Such a shame. Loads of idea's are wasted, but they need to be heard despite the huge list of things which needs more attention.

Some ideas are really good. Like Konivings idea. I have favorited some other members as well.

Edited by Sarlic, 11 August 2014 - 06:25 AM.


#4 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:29 AM

View PostSarlic, on 11 August 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Suggestions are only heard within the community. I feel communication from PGI is lacking. Even a small thing like 'We are looking into this idea' can make loads of people happy. I really hope they want to put some effort. But the main problem is that this game still has a huge list of assets to be solved / fixed. I am skeptical when it comes to idea's which eventually ever will reach the game. Such a shame. Loads of idea's are wasted, but they need to be heard despite the huge list of things which needs more attention.

Some ideas are really good. Like Konivings idea. I have favorited some others as well.


I've definitely seen PGI implement forum ideas, though generally there seemed to be about a 6-month lag time.

For instance, I've been pushing PPC damage arcing for a long time, and now they have (a very anemic and not nearly far enough) version of it in the game with the cERPPC.

Likewise some of the AC balancing that went on a few months ago was pretty close to an AC rework suggestion from about a year ago regarding regularized dps (with each grade of AC gaining ~1 DPS over the one below it, though PGI's AC2 did not fit the pattern since it essentially matches the AC5).

Even the Awesome quirks, especially the heat- and cooldown-related ones, seem to mirror some popular forum suggestions that have been floating around for half a year or so.

I just wish that PGI had someone who'd be a bit more agressive about posting in Feature Suggestions and elsewhere when PGI has decided to look at an idea, or even if they have decided not to (it'd be nice to know that they've rejected something outright, since then you don't have to waste energy trying to promote it again).

#5 Sarlic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 4,519 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:40 AM

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 August 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:


I've definitely seen PGI implement forum ideas, though generally there seemed to be about a 6-month lag time.

For instance, I've been pushing PPC damage arcing for a long time, and now they have (a very anemic and not nearly far enough) version of it in the game with the cERPPC.

Likewise some of the AC balancing that went on a few months ago was pretty close to an AC rework suggestion from about a year ago regarding regularized dps (with each grade of AC gaining ~1 DPS over the one below it, though PGI's AC2 did not fit the pattern since it essentially matches the AC5).

Even the Awesome quirks, especially the heat- and cooldown-related ones, seem to mirror some popular forum suggestions that have been floating around for half a year or so.

I just wish that PGI had someone who'd be a bit more agressive about posting in Feature Suggestions and elsewhere when PGI has decided to look at an idea, or even if they have decided not to (it'd be nice to know that they've rejected something outright, since then you don't have to waste energy trying to promote it again).

I have seen ideas implented as well. Small things. I am talking about the bigger things. Perhaps it's open due the amount of work, money, resources or engine restrictions. Guess we will never found out untill one opens up.

I agree on the Feature Suggestions section. Like i said, a small thing like 'Great idea' or 'We will look into this' or 'I have added to my favs' more info on this later' would help alot which ideas are getting watched and perhaps (re)considered.

I laughed about your comment 6 month lag time.

#6 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:46 AM

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 August 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Koniving's armor rework is the best armor solution I've seen.

You keep double the armor points, but you cap each variant based on stock + x tons of armor. He suggests stock + 3t, but that number could easily change.

The reason for this is that many of the "best" variants are radically under-armored stock, which would make them glass cannons except that players can max their armor out and match the defensive performance of the mechs with much heavier stock armor while still having more and better hardpoints (and/or JJs).

Implementing this system would revitalize the defensively specialized variants by giving them a uniquely heavy armor load, while making it far easier to balance stronger variants, since they'll finally be having ot make the sacrifices in MWO that they do in TT (lower armor to fit those bigger/better weapons and those JJs).


I once did a thread on that too.

I am absolutely cool with going back to that idea. (I had forgotten by this point)

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 August 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

As for double armor itself, I don't know of many people seriously complaining that it takes too long to kill stuff. Certainly it seems far more like time to kill is too low overall.


Currently, the Double armor, is doubled as I understand it, due to the Perfect convergence and high rate of fire. If you did away with perfect convergence and decreased the RoF.. double armor would take all day at 100 meters!

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 August 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Regarding weapon cooldowns, your idea has a lot of merit as a new starting point. However, I'd be inclined to tweak things just a little, by keeping cooldowns on SRMs (not SSRMs) and Pulse weapons lower than their alternatives.


Indeed, tweaking would be necessary, although I think they currently have them tweaked pretty closely.

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 August 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

As for weapon bloom, it could work, but I prefer dynamic precision reduction based on 3 real-time factors: heat %, throttle %, and stability state. If you have good control over all three you should be rewarded with highly precise shots, but if you constantly fire at full speed while jumping and with your heat at 90% then you should have a hard time putting your shots exactly where you want them.

Of course, much of the DPR discussion can wait until heat and jumping and such become the topics of the day.


I see no reason that those cannot be a factor as well. (As a matter of fact, something very close to that was going into the Heat portion I mentioned.)

What I want to avoid is someone having perfect, or near perfect convergence, even if they are sitting still under the best conditions. (That would promote camping. I know, because I would sit back about 600 meters with ERPPCs and Gauss Rifles and blast away while sitting still.. and I do not think I would be the only one.)

Edited by Livewyr, 11 August 2014 - 07:00 AM.


#7 CDLord HHGD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,190 posts
  • Location"You're not comp if you're not stock."

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:48 AM

Were I to win the lottery...... You're hired.

I'll save MWO before resurrecting WAR....

#8 Agent of Change

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,119 posts
  • LocationBetween Now and Oblivion

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:01 AM

Love the overall concept Livewyr and I look forward to your future installments, However I feel that CoF is both disempowering and too radioactive to work with. I don't think it would be "game ruining" but i do have a counter suggestion along your same thinking.

Envision that every weapon mount has a default alignment, forward facing and roughly towards the center aiming point from it's mount location on the mech. Given the technology only so much "automatic convergence" can be attained. So like in your example it would be based on how much you fired. But when you surpassed the "convergence limit" the additional weapons wouldn't CoF, each weapon would go to it's own specific point that never changes arranged around the reticle.

This would allow for greater skill considerations than CoF, would create distinct patterns and affect how people build their mechs for how they want their shots distributed, and most of all keep the "alpha strike as a close to mid range beast while removing mid to long range PPFLD that is causing so many issues.

#9 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:07 AM

View PostAgent of Change, on 11 August 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Love the overall concept Livewyr and I look forward to your future installments, However I feel that CoF is both disempowering and too radioactive to work with. I don't think it would be "game ruining" but i do have a counter suggestion along your same thinking.

Envision that every weapon mount has a default alignment, forward facing and roughly towards the center aiming point from it's mount location on the mech. Given the technology only so much "automatic convergence" can be attained. So like in your example it would be based on how much you fired. But when you surpassed the "convergence limit" the additional weapons wouldn't CoF, each weapon would go to it's own specific point that never changes arranged around the reticle.

This would allow for greater skill considerations than CoF, would create distinct patterns and affect how people build their mechs for how they want their shots distributed, and most of all keep the "alpha strike as a close to mid range beast while removing mid to long range PPFLD that is causing so many issues.


This is an intriguing concept: can you go further in depth?

#10 Agent of Change

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,119 posts
  • LocationBetween Now and Oblivion

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:10 AM

View PostLivewyr, on 11 August 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:


This is an intriguing concept: can you go further in depth?



When i have a moment i'll try to diagram it

#11 Lefty Lucy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 3,924 posts
  • LocationFree Tikonov Republic

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:13 AM

Doubled armor is also to keep 1-shot kills to a minimum.

I think any system that limits armor will simply produce a different set of "best" mechs, and might even limit mech variety rather than increasing it. For example the Timberwolf, already considered to be among the best (if not THE best) heavy mechs comes stock with near-max armor, whereas the Summoner isn't even close, so it would reduce even further the number of Summoners you see on the field.

Not a good plan.

#12 Squally160

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 295 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:13 AM

Pre-designated convergence ranges on all non-arm mounted weapons. So at drop you pick 500m or whatever it may be. At that specific range its pinpoint, otherwise it will be spread more based on distance from your range.

#13 wwiiogre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • LocationNorth Idaho

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:24 AM

Great forum topic Livewyr. I also have seen PGI implement many, many forum ideas. The lag time is around 6 months to a year depending on what they were working on. And we have to admit, perhaps they had the idea already and had decided to try other things first. We cannot fool ourselves and think that PGI doesn't have good minds as well working their.

To me, the game is to much pinpoint accuracy to fast. Cone of Fire or CoF is a great idea. I think having affected by both heat scale, movment speed and number of weapons fired at the same time over stock mech config. Meaning a mech that still has the same number of weapons as the stock mech is not affected by CoF for alpha. Also alpha would not affect LRM's or streaks.

But to me, PGI missed the boat on convergence when moving over cruising speed. In table top you got a minus to hit for moving at normal speed. You got a bigger minus to hit when moving faster than normal speed. To me this is where CoF would work or even a reduction in recycle times instead of convergence or CoF.

As for heat, we really do need the Heat penalties from tabletop in the game. Remember in BT, heat not only made it harder to hit, it also seriously slowed down your mech speed as well as messing with your to hit chance.

Combine all of these and you have a better tougher game that is more simulation of BT than it is Call of Duty. Which is where we are at this moment. We are more glorified arcade shooter than a simulation of Battle Tech. PGI has made a beautiful game, But, they have sacrificed on the altar of mediocrity to make it simpler for new players rather than making it a true sim of Battle Tech.

I will give them credit for bringing heat levels to weapons back near table top. But the biggest issue with current convergence is the fact that most maps are postage stamps. PGI even went so far as to move capture zones in conquest to make them closer on the largest maps making it easier for meta Hvy/Assault to own even the largest maps by camping the middle of the map.

But good ideas so far keep them coming.

chris

#14 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 11 August 2014 - 08:23 AM

View PostLefty Lucy, on 11 August 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Doubled armor is also to keep 1-shot kills to a minimum.

I think any system that limits armor will simply produce a different set of "best" mechs, and might even limit mech variety rather than increasing it. For example the Timberwolf, already considered to be among the best (if not THE best) heavy mechs comes stock with near-max armor, whereas the Summoner isn't even close, so it would reduce even further the number of Summoners you see on the field.

Not a good plan.

1: The TBR is already better than the summoner. (Face it, Clan Wolf just builds better mechs than Jade Falcon :))
2: We must examine why it is that mechs like the Summoner (and Victor) come with less armor.

Example: The Summoner versus Timber Wolf- I can think of 2 reasons:
1: The TBR has 5 tons on the SMN
2: The Prime summoner has 5 Jumpjets, whereas the prime TBR has none.

So, how can we deal with this issue, while keeping Omni construction rules?
1st idea that comes to mind is locking the Jumpjets to the Omnipod. (The summoner has no choice but to have JJs because the prime variant has JJs. I think JJs should be locked to the omnipods on the mechs that do not have them on the prime. (TBR, KFX, etc..)

2nd idea: Give the SMN variants quirks for their loadouts. (Example: the Summoner prime has a primarily long range loadout, which in addition to the Jumpjets, leaves less room for armor.)
So, preliminary idea is to give the Summoner bonuses to its primary loadout.. faster LRM lock.. faster RoF for LBX autocannons, decreased heat from energy, etc.. Any number of things to encourage it to use the long range it was apparently designed for. Individual quirks as long as all Omnipods are of the same variant.

Could do something similar to the other omnis as well, including some negatives- Example: A TBR Prime, that switches a torso or two with the TBR-S would receive increased heat from Jumpjets. It already receives a negative in Torso twist, but as we can see, that is probably not enough. I do not want to heavily nerf clans, but I would like to encourage using uniform omnipods, beyond a pitiful 2.5% XP increase.

For Beasts like the TBR-S, perhaps we could slightly increase the RoF for SRMs...


----------------------------------------------------
Actually: Full Stop-

Just had an idea to play around with: Hardpoint sizes- but NOT overly restrictive like making them only able to fit said weapons or smaller.

Perhaps instead:
Weapons of sizes different from the original would receive some sort of penalty.
Example: A TBR-S mounts 4xSRM6, meaning to Mount LRMs on there, the LRMs would receive either a [sic] heat penalty or perhaps a RoF penalty. Basically, anything other than SRMs or SSRMs would receive a slight penalty, and using the original weapon would result in a slight buff to the weapons in place.

Summary->
Example 2:
Original Weapon: Machine Gun.
Loading a small Autocannon would be a 5% decrease in RoF.
Loading a large Autocannon/Gauss would be a 10% decrease in RoF.
Using the original: Machine Gun would receive a 5% increase in RoF.

Example 3:
Original Weapon: Medium Laser.
Small laser would be a 10% less heat
Medium Laser: 5% less heat.
Medium Pulse Laser: No change.
(ER) Large Laser: 5% more heat
PPC: 10% more heat.

This just came to me, exactly, as I was typing- so it is akin to a writer jotting down an inspiration:

What do you think? Can something like this work? Is it a possible basis for something better?

Edited by Livewyr, 11 August 2014 - 08:24 AM.


#15 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 11 August 2014 - 08:54 AM

Homeless bills solution to pin point aiming is still the best; a CoF of this variety is terrible and promotes static camping orientated play (because of the movement penalties you propose) and that's bad for game play.

Doubling weapon reloads is a good idea; adding half to ppc and gauss is bad; I understand the hate but given the small maps the extensive reload time would put them on the shelf.

What I would like to see is someone come up with a decent solution for 3 issues.

Heatscale; Pulse Lasers; Clan XL engines

#16 Agent of Change

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,119 posts
  • LocationBetween Now and Oblivion

Posted 11 August 2014 - 09:54 AM

View PostDV McKenna, on 11 August 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Homeless bills solution to pin point aiming is still the best; a CoF of this variety is terrible and promotes static camping orientated play (because of the movement penalties you propose) and that's bad for game play.

Doubling weapon reloads is a good idea; adding half to ppc and gauss is bad; I understand the hate but given the small maps the extensive reload time would put them on the shelf.

What I would like to see is someone come up with a decent solution for 3 issues.

Heatscale; Pulse Lasers; Clan XL engines



Here's my quick stabs at those: (keep in mind these are sketches at best)

Heat scale - some thought on this has me thinking a simplified version of the TT approach with effects players can "feel"/see. My approach would work with both a "fixed heat system" (low max fast cycle) and the current system. Basically you have 4 stages of heat effects my percentages are arbitrary for demonstration purposes:
  • Stage 1: 0 heat to 60% heat capacity - everything nominal - no game effect
  • Stage 2: 61% to 80% heat capacity - Mech running hot extra focus on venting heat - 10-15% reduction in top speed, rate of acceleration, turn speed, twist speed and arm speed.
  • Stage 3: 81% to 100% Heat capacity - Critically hot systems affected - All stage 2 effects plus HUD malfunction effects (hud flickers, reticle jumps around, static bursts)
  • Stage 4: 100%+ heat capacity - Mech shutdown + internals damage based on how much over the limit you pushed. (if shutdown overridden, internal damage is increased and suffers all the effects of stage 2 and 3.)
Pulse lasers: Functionally make them work something like a laser machine gun work only different, hear me out. to determine how this works look at say a IS large laser.
  • Determine the LL's damage and heat generation over a period of say 10 seconds (it can fire three times including recycle between the first two in that time giving us 27 damage and 21 heat),
  • Then increase the damage by 10-20% and increase the heat cost similarly as well (testing would be needed to get the numbers right, based on the example we'd be roughly here 30 damage 24 Heat).
  • Now take that number divide it by 20 so you now would have 20 pulses in that 10 second period with each pulse doing 1/20th the damage of the 10 second total we worked out earlier (this would be roughly 1.5 Damage and 1.2 heat per pulse).
  • When you fire our New LPL it will pulse an alternating quarter second burst with a quarter second recycle non stop until you stop firing or overheat, again the quarter second interval is just off the top of my head. (with our earlier numbers this becomes 3 DPS with 2.4 HPS for example )
This approach would make pulse lasers fast cycling rapid consistent damage as opposed to the "long beam lasers" and provides for a different sort of energy play style.


Clan XL: honestly of all the stuff dealing with clans their XL's are something so iconic and specific that i have no problem with how they are now and don't think there is a problem there to be fixed.

Edited by Agent of Change, 11 August 2014 - 09:55 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users