181 replies to this topic

[Jaeger Gonzo]

The Boz, on 14 November 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

Russ said that, since the quirk patch, average match time has dropped by 15 seconds, and implied that it's not that big of a deal... I disagree, because if you take a look at how much time you spend in the game actually shooting or taking shots, 15 seconds is a HUGE drop.

This 15s statement is clearly wrong and come out from just watching serv stats. The true interpretation is that players just hide-camp longer as they are more afraid of contact with the enemy, but when fight actually starts is a shorter water then ever.

[Glythe]

cdlord, on 13 November 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

I can't disagree more..... TTK should be increased so people aren't missing pieces of their mechs before they can even react. IMO, alpha striking should not exist in a FPS-esq game. Single or chain-fire at most.

I have to agree with this. MWO should be a slow tactical game where you fight with lumbering robots that don't die with one single hit (alpha strike). If you want to play a fast twitch style FPS please go play one of those games instead.

[CDLord HHGD]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 November 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

Its also a lack of communication and knowledge of actual formations to use.


Alphas can exist in this kind of game, the damage just needs to be less pin point. I can alpha with my AC20, 3 Md Lasers and 4 SRM6s and the damage is not pin point deadly. Same should happen to firing 4-6 of ANY weapons.
...
...
Except Lasers. Laser accurate is a thing after all.

I know we fall on opposite sides of this issue JM and I respect your opinion and play style. I do think damage spread (as was in TT) can be a good compromise. How to accomplish that considering the hate CoF got, I do not know.

Oh, and when you reference laser accuracy, I just imagine riding a bike with a laser pointer....

[QuantumButler]

cdlord, on 14 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

I know we fall on opposite sides of this issue JM and I respect your opinion and play style. I do think damage spread (as was in TT) can be a good compromise. How to accomplish that considering the hate CoF got, I do not know.

Oh, and when you reference laser accuracy, I just imagine riding a bike with a laser pointer....

Hey here is an idea

Turn off instant weapon convergence, make convergence only a thing on arm mounted weapons, so the location of the weapon on your mech would determine where it hit on the target, making it far harder to pinpoint hit desired locations repeatedly, and making torso mounted weapons much harder to accurately aim when your giant multi ton war machine is in motion.

This would add value to arm mounted weapons, where the arm actuators could compensate for the rocking and trundling of your battlemech so firing while moving would be much more accurate with arm based guns.

It would make the game feel more "realistic" too.

Edited by QuantumButler, 14 November 2014 - 10:39 AM.

[Bluttrunken]

You raise some good points but the impact of the Quirks on TTK had a negative influence on the game, imho. I'd be ok with a flat 10% damage decrease for all mechs.

[CDLord HHGD]

QuantumButler, on 14 November 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Hey here is an idea

Turn off instant weapon convergence, make convergence only a thing on arm mounted weapons, so the location of the weapon on your mech would determine where it hit on the target, making it far harder to pinpoint hit desired locations repeatedly, and making torso mounted weapons much harder to accurately aim when your giant multi ton war machine is in motion.

This would add value to arm mounted weapons, where the arm actuators could compensate for the rocking and trundling of your battlemech so firing while moving would be much more accurate with arm based guns.

It would make the game feel more "realistic" too.

Something like this?



Only the locations with equipped weapons would show on your HUD and there's a difference between high and low mounted weapons on the side torsos, an Atlas would not have the high reticle for the AC20. Arms would move independently of the center, but would always maintain the same distance relative to each other.

This would add A LOT of complexity, but I think I'd like it.

Edited by cdlord, 14 November 2014 - 10:52 AM.

[Feetwet]

cdlord, on 14 November 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Something like this?



Only the locations with equipped weapons would show on your HUD and there's a difference between high and low mounted weapons on the side torsos, an Atlas would not have the high reticle for the AC20. Arms would move independently of the center, but would always maintain the same distance relative to each other.

This would add A LOT of complexity, but I think I'd like it.

Another option if you don't like CoF and since PGI is probably not going to rework the target sight and convergence, is to increase the amount of sway and movement in the targeting sight. This would satisfy the people who don't like randomness(i.e. my shots should go where the sight is) and provide a bit of randomness to hit location(unless you are really good). I would think the only time the sight wouldn't move is while standing still receiving zero return fire.

S

[Danghen Woolf]

lartfor, on 13 November 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

You're right, dice rolling is.

All hail the Bell-curve.

The time to kill in Battletech can be very long, or very short depending on several factors. The largest one of these is of course the die roll. There is a reason that modifiers are in place for attacker and target movement.

Attacker walked: +1
Attacker ran: +2
Attacker Jumped: +3

Target moved x hexes: +1 - +6...

The mech moving is just like holding a rifle and walking a normal pace.. the muzzle will bounce with each step, now do this and run ans try to keep the weapon on target... now run while the target is running. I think one wat to improve the TTK is to add "bounce" to the weapons based on speed. This would not only add more of a simulator feel but also create a method to spread damage and move away from FLPPD.

As far as upping or lowering the TTK I think that it would be better to have real critical damage, critical damage to the head = chance to instakill via cockpit hit. Critical damage to ammo = 100% ammo explosion. I think having the balance of movement accuracy will increase TTK while real criticals will lower it.

As far as stagnant gameplay... The new rewards system are a step in the right direction, there are some flaws but I think they will get worked out. What we currently have is three flavors of team death match. Two of which have "objectives" designed to funnel a team towards one point or spread a team out across many points. What happens is that each team will just group into the "deathball" this is not so much because there is no better way to play but to improve the likelyhood that out of 12 mechs you do not get picked out and killed. As someone mentioned before focus fire is the best way to gain numerical superiority over the other team quickly. Just like in TT, pick a target or two that can be hurt the most by the most mechs and try to drop it, sometimes you drop it in one or two hits (come on double 6s) and some times in two turns. Spreading damage out across several mechs is a good way to ensure survivability. The issue is really that there are no real reasons not to be in the "deathball" if you are a scout or even a light lance and you break off from the pack you can get targetted by the whole other team because they grouped themselves together. With the inherent C3 that each mech has being spotted by one mech gives all 12 the ability to hurt you. I think removing that aspect would go a long way to stopping the "deathball" mentality. If I could reliably scout with a light lance and find another lance or even a couple of assault mechs with no support I should be able to hurt them without LRMs raining down on my head. If they are in my ECM bubble, they should not be able to talk to their buddies and call for help. And if I hit that ammo crit with my flamer I should see popcorn for days, everytime.

Just my $0.02.

GLHF

[EvilCow]

cdlord, on 14 November 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Something like this?



Only the locations with equipped weapons would show on your HUD and there's a difference between high and low mounted weapons on the side torsos, an Atlas would not have the high reticle for the AC20. Arms would move independently of the center, but would always maintain the same distance relative to each other.

This would add A LOT of complexity, but I think I'd like it.

I would make fixed convergence for torso mounted weapons (settable in mechlab or even during game but not automatically), arm weapons would work with automatic convergence like now.

[CDLord HHGD]

EvilCow, on 14 November 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

I would make fixed convergence for torso mounted weapons (settable in mechlab or even during game but not automatically), arm weapons would work with automatic convergence like now.

Oh yeah, lots of different ways to do it. Plenty of people know believe there's an issue, some day we'll find an equitable solution....

Edited by cdlord, 14 November 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 November 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

Competent opponents don't get confused though. In high-level organized play, many skirmish matches are basically a stale mate because one side gets into a good defensive position, and the other side realizes that no matter what they do, no matter what kind of tricky maneuvers they want to try, the enemy is going to respond competently.

But one could then argue that the attacker is simply doing it wrong. If any position is "unassailable" it can then be held by even relatively "incompetent" players, given they have the weapons needed.

[Prezimonto]

Kiiyor, on 13 November 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

This is an excellent point - though I would like to point out that hiding damaged locations against someone wielding their Vorpal Sword of PPFLD+5 is often an exercise in futility, as any decent enemy worth their salt will just wait for you to re-expose the damaged component. It's not like you can do any appreciable damage while you're playing the 'can't hurt me if they can't see me' game anyways. Against someone with lasers or SRM's, it's a far more viable tactic.

I think that more emphasis needs to be placed on internal damage.

On the battlefield, as we speak, pilots are fighting knowing that stripped armour from a location usually means that the next hit is the one that seals the deal. Now, If I lose the armour from any location (especially in a 'Sphere mech) I start to play ludicrously cautiously. If i'm in a medium or light, i'll even petulantly charge to my death, especially if the big hit is at the start of the match. Team player.

I'd like to see far more emphasis on critical hits and slowly degrading internal structure. Damaged arm actuators locking an arm in place, damaged foot actuators giving a mech an appreciable limp making it hard to fire while moving, damaged weapons producing extra heat or with reduced ranges, damaged gauss having triple the charge up time, damaged engines reducing speed, damaged gyros increasing the effect of impulse dramatically, damaged electronic slots making the HUD flicker or lengthening lock on time...

To this end, I think that rather than increasing armour, we should double or triple internal structure, and look at making internal hits a larger part of the game, rather than counting down seconds until death. We could even quirk mechs that are purportedly tanky, like the Atlas, to increase the damage resitstance of their internal components, so they are more likely to be in the fight until the bitter end.

I actually posted a while back on an idea for using armor differently than just bonus HP.

If we treated armor as a form of degradable damage reduction that starts out great and slowed gets holes punched in it (leading to no damage reduction on some shots). I think the TTK would go up, and you'd often lose a limb due to crits and internal damage before totally losing all armor in a location.

I realize this isn't "battletech", but I think it would be a decent way to help increase TTK and to negate the effects of PPFLD.

Armor ratings become about conveying the ability to bounce shots on a location.
As an example (all numbers are mutable):

Every selection of 25 armor conveys a 90% chance to bounce up to 5 damage, so 100 armor can bounce 20 damage rounds (good chance that 100+ armor will bounce even AC20 shots to start).

If a round of greater damage hits an area with armor that does cover it, it punches a hole, the armor rating on the location is decreased by the amount that it can bounce, and the rest passes through to internals.

So a 25 armor location takes an AC10 hit. 5 damage is done to the armor and 5 damage is done to the internals. The location now has an armor rating of 20 and it has a 72% change to bounce 5 damage, and a 99% chance to bounce about 4 damage.

Say a difference 25 armor location takes a series of MG hits. Most bounce, but one out of 100 is going to go through to internals, and decrease the armor in the location by 0.2... this lowers the bounce rate slighty to 98% for ac5's, ect. ect. ect.

Small, crit seeking weapons slight MG's would be useful for degrading armor so smaller damage weapons don't bounce. Flamers and energy weapons could also have a softening affect, they might be limited to same overall damage rates, but the heat may decrease %damage reduction on the location for a while... so that 100 armor atlas center torso might still be able to bounce AC20 rounds, but if it's soaked up a pile of medium lasers (doing little to no damage) but turning the area cherry red, it might now be vulnerable at 50% to a 20 point round, or 75% for a 10 point round.... and each time a round peirces it also then degrades the armor and does internal damage.

This type of system would then force each individual piece of damage to calculated against the armor, making pin point damage much less deadly.

Additionally, internal structure could be decreased, also making crit seeking weapons more useful when they do penetrate.

Edited by Prezimonto, 14 November 2014 - 01:24 PM.

[LordMelvin]

Weapon sway is easy. It's already in the game. Just hit F4 and you'll see.

I know, I know. Third person is a pox on humanity and anyone who uses it will die early and alone in a shallow grave. But bear with me. Hop into third person and walk around. Note how the reticule bounces.

Now implement that in first person and BAM! Not more pinpoint shots on the run.

Locking the arms to the torso would force them into this. Unlocking them would let the actuators compensate.

[Telmasa]

QuantumButler, on 14 November 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Hey here is an idea
Turn off instant weapon convergence, make convergence only a thing on arm mounted weapons, so the location of the weapon on your mech would determine where it hit on the target, making it far harder to pinpoint hit desired locations repeatedly, and making torso mounted weapons much harder to accurately aim when your giant multi ton war machine is in motion.
This would add value to arm mounted weapons, where the arm actuators could compensate for the rocking and trundling of your battlemech so firing while moving would be much more accurate with arm based guns.

It would make the game feel more "realistic" too.

I like this, if only because it would mean the Jager > K2 for ballistic-boating (ugh).

Prezimonto, on 14 November 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I actually posted a while back on an idea for using armor differently than just bonus HP.
If we treated armor as a form of degradable damage reduction that starts out great and slowed gets holes punched in it (leading to no damage reduction on some shots). I think the TTK would go up, and you'd often lose a limb due to crits and internal damage before totally losing all armor in a location.
I realize this isn't "battletech", but I think it would be a decent way to help increase TTK and to negate the effects of PPFLD.
Armor ratings become about conveying the ability to bounce shots on a location.
As an example (all numbers are mutable):
Every selection of 25 armor conveys a 90% chance to bounce up to 5 damage, so 100 armor can bounce 20 damage rounds (good chance that 100+ armor will bounce even AC20 shots to start).
If a round of greater damage hits an area with armor that does cover it, it punches a hole, the armor rating on the location is decreased by the amount that it can bounce, and the rest passes through to internals.
So a 25 armor location takes an AC10 hit. 5 damage is done to the armor and 5 damage is done to the internals. The location now has an armor rating of 20 and it has a 72% change to bounce 5 damage, and a 99% chance to bounce about 4 damage.
Say a difference 25 armor location takes a series of MG hits. Most bounce, but one out of 100 is going to go through to internals, and decrease the armor in the location by 0.2... this lowers the bounce rate slighty to 98% for ac5's, ect. ect. ect.
Small, crit seeking weapons slight MG's would be useful for degrading armor so smaller damage weapons don't bounce. Flamers and energy weapons could also have a softening affect, they might be limited to same overall damage rates, but the heat may decrease %damage reduction on the location for a while... so that 100 armor atlas center torso might still be able to bounce AC20 rounds, but if it's soaked up a pile of medium lasers (doing little to no damage) but turning the area cherry red, it might now be vulnerable at 50% to a 20 point round, or 75% for a 10 point round.... and each time a round peirces it also then degrades the armor and does internal damage.
This type of system would then force each individual piece of damage to calculated against the armor, making pin point damage much less deadly.
Additionally, internal structure could be decreased, also making crit seeking weapons more useful when they do penetrate.

So mixing MWO into World of Tanks-with-legs?

No thank you.

Edited by Telmasa, 14 November 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Telmasa, on 14 November 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

I like this, if only because it would mean the Jager > K2 for ballistic-boating (ugh).



So mixing MWO into World of Tanks-with-legs?

No thank you.

The difference would be angling wouldn't matter, and having a mixed loadout would give you the ability to overcome armor.

LRM's would also likely directly degrade armor more effectively than other weapon types. The whole idea actually gives a much more direct rock/paper/scissors mechanic to over coming armor, and solves the ppfld issues the game currently has.

Big guns = damage to armor + internals
medium guns = usually damage to armor and some shots going through to internals
small guns = high internal damage and sand paper effect to armor (degrading armor but not piercing)

Big energy = damage to armor and short term degrades/debuffs armor to location and some internal damage
medium energy = damage to armor and armor debuff
small energy = high internal damage and armor debuff

LRMs/SRMs = high direct armor damage, much lower damage to internals

so AC's, depending on size are good for can opening and/or sandpaper
lasers, all around weapon and provides synergy with other weapons
missiles are anti-armor...

Instant reason to prefer mixed loadouts, fix to ppfld, increase ttk, increase tactics on the battlefield mixed with greater want to understand mech loadout, instant reason to want high level/more acurate sensors and enemy information...

There's tons of good reasons to want this. At no point am I suggesting a pure WoT style power creep... and I did, up front, suggest that ALL numbers could be tweaked at need to whatever.

[Koniving]

EvilCow, on 13 November 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

Wrong approach.

This has been akin to what is going on across the board, for every issue addressed. At least in my opinion. I've been face palming since the first decisions of giving 80% free ammo (edit: during the days of the first repair and rearm). To use a percentage is to give an exploit! And exploit it they did. LRM apocalypse. Spend less than 80% of your ammo, get a free ticket to cash city.

"What's that, 1,800 missiles is less than 80% of what you're carrying? Here, have a reload on us." ~ PGI.

Edited by Koniving, 14 November 2014 - 02:49 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

TTK is fine in this game.

If I had it my way, I'd make it even shorter. I think players should pay a heavy price for their mistakes...increasing TTK rewards sloppy tactics and recklessness.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bhael Fire, on 14 November 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

TTK is fine in this game.

If I had it my way, I'd make it even shorter. I think players should pay a heavy price for their mistakes...increasing TTK rewards tactics that aren't deathballs.

Fixed that for you.

[Bhael Fire]

WM Quicksilver, on 14 November 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

Fixed that for you.

Seriously? Increasing TTK will only make deathball tactics even MORE prolific as teams will rely more on focused fire to take down enemies.

[Aiden Skye]

Lily from animove, on 13 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

actually kinda now, the ttk is often extremely short, with the right mechs, like a SCR you can appear shoot disappear and you can very easily kill mechs in 3 strikes. And as long as you are not in a fatlas or Nova returnfire is rare.
Then you have those lights with the new quirkks being able to core and kill heavis withing a few seconds, while in return you need like 30+ secods to kill a light if he isn't standing still. The games issue is the way how some chassis are kinda immortal while others pop like they are made of paper.

True. I run the nova a lot. Its a fun mech, but it cannot take a hit. Upon receiving damage it breaks down into it's basic elements.

TTK has been getting a bit too short. I recall in a match last night I went from Full health to Cored yellow on my Catapult with 71 points of CT armor in 1 volley of SRM's from a SRM stormcrow. If that was right or left torso it would have been a 1 shot kill on a heavy mech.

But as Lily said, some chasis just seem to take a hell of a lot more of a beating than others...