337 replies to this topic

[Tombstoner]

I came across this thread http://mwomercs.com/...t-rng-nonsense/ i thinks its worth another look.

Notice the topics start date....

Edited by Tombstoner, 22 September 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[kapusta11]

Tombstoner, on 22 September 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

I came across this thread http://mwomercs.com/...t-rng-nonsense/ i thinks its worth another look.

Notice the topics start date....

So what are you going to do with Banshees that have all their weapons located in torso, or cbills Victors with their arms?

Edited by kapusta11, 22 September 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[Zen Idiot]

lets say a light mech has 1 armor, a med 2, heavies get 3 and assaults get 4.
they double the armor values so; 2, 4, 6, 8.
they did this already. you want them to do it again. so; lights have 4, meds 8, hvys 12, assaults 16.
notice how the armor disparity grows. a difference of 3 becomes a difference of 12.

it would only make lights and meds much weaker comparatively.

bad idea.

Edited by ZenIdiot, 22 September 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Scyther]

I agree that at this point, mechs just drop too fast in certain situations.

I do have the times when I am essentially the only guy firing at a circling light, or a heavy that pops around a corner at me, and I feel like "OMG how may shots does it take to kill this guy?". Pretty sure that MOST of those situation are due to poor hit registration on fast lights and spreading damage from my weapons (LL and ML and some SRM being very common in my builds). (Plus of course the fact that I haven't the hero genes to peg all my shots in one place.)

By far the MAJORITY of battles however are over quick enough - with LRMs coming in, pinpoint multi-hit damage, and focus fire - that maneuvering, taking cover, torso twisting, things like that simply are not significant factors.

They *are* important factors to be sure, and the better the player (and team), the more important they become.

I am not sure that double armor/HP is the answer, although more might be part of it. Damage per volley, rate of fire, heat buildup and pinpoint damage all are part of this.

If they wanted to make one single, across the board change to address this, I would say - make weapons do about 2/3 of the damage per volley they do now. This would give more reaction/response time without major balance changes.

Other than that, broad tweaking of armor/HP up 20%, damage down 20%, a few RoF adjustments (all these weapons are already firing faster than TT original), torso weapons not having the pinpoint aim etc, would also work, but has the potential to create balance issues.

From my point of view, as a non-expert in battle performance, mechs die too fast to give a satisfying battle experience in most cases.

For comparison, if I am in combat in World of Tanks or Star Trek Online, while I 'sometimes' die very fast, in most cases I feel I had a good, controllable battle where I had opportunities to use maneuver, take cover, change position, relocate, fire off special abilities, engage multiple enemies - all the while being pushed to my limit of clicking, map checking, enemy targeting etc.

In MWO I get that feeling in less than half the battles, the others are just meet 2-3 mechs, boom boom boom CT gone game over. (Sometimes just 1 mech is enough for that)

[Tombstoner]

kapusta11, on 22 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

So what are you going to do with Banshees that have all their weapons located in torso, or cbills Victors with their arms?

nothing they hit what they hit.

[Sjorpha]

Alex Gorsky, on 20 September 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

If you consider mech are destroyed too quickly, just lower dps of weapon, having increased cooldown.

Increasing cooldowns would favor alpha focused builds and spike damage even more, the result would just be longer times behind cover between each peek.

If the goal is less focus on spike damage you should do the opposite, shorter cooldowns and less damage per shot so you'd have to expose yourself often to maintain your DPS. The clan UAC and longer duration beams is a good example of this. IMO pulse lasers for example could be a more machine gun type weapon, with high DPS but only as long as you keep firing.

Personally though I'm quite ok with the current weapon balance and overall armour level, I'd like to see if better balanced teams and new mech quirks help before upping armor. And even then I don't think a blanket 2x armor is the way to go.

[Wolfways]

I'll never understand those who don't want any random factors in a combat game. There are random factors in every aspect of life. Isn't taking those factors into account part of a persons skill?
A leader who creates a battle plan without considering random factors is a bad strategist. A marksman who doesn't consider random factors, like wind, is a bad marksman.
You think random dips and lumps in the terrain while you're running around don't affect your ability to aim well? Randomness is already a part of the game as it should be imo.

I see many ideas being brought up with varying degrees of complexity. Just remember that the more complicated something is the less likely it is to be added to the game. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Edited by Wolfways, 22 September 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[Magna Canus]

Tombstoner, on 22 September 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Not if the COF is dynamic and basd on the firing mechs speed. stationary mech should get high levels of precision the is modified by the weapon type... lasers should be the game most accurat weapons folowed by gaus and the rest.

I think this is exactly what he is talking about. When brawling you are up close and personal and moving at slower speeds which reduces the effects of a CoF. CoF has a greater effect the further you are away and the faster you are going, ergo, brawling > range = street fighter instead of a combat sim.

[Magna Canus]

Tombstoner, on 22 September 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

I came across this thread http://mwomercs.com/...t-rng-nonsense/ i thinks its worth another look.

Notice the topics start date....

If all of your weapons were 100% static this would fit. In the case of energy weapons and to a point AC's you can flexible lines of feed allowing you the few CM movement to allow convergance. The most rudamentary form of this would be to have the front end of your wepon in a sphere shaped mount with the "barrel" coming out of the "pupil" while the other end is locked on the rim of a circular gear that can rotate 360 deg, giving you, depending on the amount of play you have in the system, several degrees of play in any direction, up/down/left/right.

The article is nice, but leaves out some very basic engineering concepts.

[Andross Deverow]

Ecliptor, on 19 September 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

i miss 8v8 but i enjoy 12v12. i would like it to be random drops where some maps are 4v4 some 8v8 and some 12v12. might even be cool for cw to allow 4v4 for smaller merc corps that want to be able to play as well

Most of the maps save for 2 are too small for 12v12 IMHO. PGI needs to make some larger maps to accomodate 12 mechs. Just my 2 cents but maybe certain maps should be 8v8 or 4v4.

Regards

[Tombstoner]

What i like about the article is your basically aiming each section not each weapon and shows a COF that covers just the torso section, not a huge WOT short barrel moving at full speed trying to snipe.

[The Very Old German Wolf]

Simple answer NO!

[Tombstoner]

Magnakanus, on 22 September 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

I think this is exactly what he is talking about. When brawling you are up close and personal and moving at slower speeds which reduces the effects of a CoF. CoF has a greater effect the further you are away and the faster you are going, ergo, brawling > range = street fighter instead of a combat sim.

But the size of the COF was never suggested as being the size of a WOT COF. It would be sufficient to cover the CT,RT/LT of a mech at some distance that needs to be determined. Yes brawling ranges at full speed mean large COF but the range is so short that you simply cant miss. yes that is brawling. kinda what we have now.

[Xanquil]

About 2m/diameter at max weapon range would probably do it. Reduced by mech sills, weapon type. Increased by movement, and heat.

[Karazyr]

kesuga7, on 19 September 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

yes plz

make MECHS take longer to kill

though would it benefit heavier mechs more?

i would suggest buffing lights a small amount of armor, mediums a large amount (considering they are meant to be the mainstay mech) give heavys a medium-large boost depending on the mech and the assaults give them a small boost

[Corwin Maxwell]

Doubling armor again..is not the solution to spike damage, pin point accuracy, etc. What would solve this is a simple cone of fire effect on ballistic weapons, and pulse lasers. Also increaseing of the cone size with heat build up. As it is now every mech in this game has the equivalent targeting of a clan targeting computer per the table top rules, and lore. Instead of having the old beat up crappy target solution computers in the lore of the game. Don't know how hard or difficult it would be to program this in on a patch or hotfix, every other shooter game out there has some form of a cone of fire effect on there weapons. And personally i think the Clan targeting computers should then remove the cone of fire on ballistic and pulse laser weapons, making it more akin to lore. So that said i hope Russ, Paul, a crew really thnk this over before they look into doubling armor and internals again.

[Johnny Z]

TTk is a bit low.

Main reason. I think mechs like the Dire Wolf and Atlas should be able to take more of a beating for character and game play sake. But do not improve their armor only. All the mechs should have a slight armor increase.

Also I suggest IS ahving slightly more armor over all would help them be balanced against clan tech.

[Jonny Taco]

Andross Deverow, on 22 September 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

Most of the maps save for 2 are too small for 12v12 IMHO. PGI needs to make some larger maps to accomodate 12 mechs. Just my 2 cents but maybe certain maps should be 8v8 or 4v4.

Regards

I still don't even understand why everything was pushed into 12v12 with the current map assets...

The vast majority of maps were designed around 8v8 and even then many of them were far too small... Furthermore, frame rates took a big hit AND the mm potentially has to work harder to match 12 people compared to 8... I've never understood the move to a 12v12 game mode, especially w/o any possibility of 8v8.

If it were up to me, 12v12 would only happen on maybe two maps... The rest would certainly be 8v8. This is not only good for actual game play, as certain maps clearly cannot handle the number of players on them but also would add some much needed variation in terms of drop conditions... Hell, I'd even advocate 4v4 on some of the maps (river shity).

Edited by lartfor, 25 September 2014 - 04:03 AM.