Jump to content

Alpha Strike Is The Problem

Metagame

231 replies to this topic

#101 Weeny Machine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,014 posts
  • LocationAiming for the flat top (B. Murray)

Posted 06 April 2015 - 05:40 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 06 April 2015 - 04:29 AM, said:

I've been Alpha striking since the 80s... I don't think it is something new to MW:O...

I have Stone Rhinos in My TT games that throw 75 point Alphas against 1/2 the armor we have, and nobody complains! Heck it won a Best Assault Mech design challenge on Heavy Metal Pro! IT CAN FIRE 75/75/60 all game long. Noboby complains! Here every player with Skillz whines cause someone hit them with 30 damage!

http://www.heavymetalpro.com/forums/images/smilies/angelsad.gif
1. Real men play 3025 TT - not this crap ;)
2. TT has one game-changing difference: your shots' hit locations are rolled. There is no instant convergence like in MWO
3. Another difference is that shots will miss thanks to terrain and movement modifiers if you aren't playing with super über duper mega pilots
4. Did I mention that real men play 3025? :) :) :)

Edited by Bush Hopper, 06 April 2015 - 05:41 AM.


#102 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 06 April 2015 - 05:43 AM

There is something to be said about 3025 games. And I have a full folder full of 3025 Mechs able to Alpha strike. ;)

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 April 2015 - 05:44 AM.


#103 CDLord HHGD

    Member

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

Posted 06 April 2015 - 06:55 AM

Hey guys, thanks for carrying on this discussion constructively. Lots of good ideas and points coming out of it which is what I had hoped for. :)

#104 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 06 April 2015 - 07:03 AM

View PostTarogato, on 05 April 2015 - 03:57 AM, said:

I'm all for convergence. It used to be in the game and they took it out people didn't like it I suppose... and now people want it back? Where exactly do we stand, anymore?

My ideal vision of how convergence would work in this game is that convergence is automatic with a manual option. New player, can't handle manual mode? Use auto convergence - it'll work 90% of the time. But you might not have great accuracy against moving targets, especially ones moving against a distant background. An advanced player could set manual convergence - a freely adjustable setting between, say, 50m and 1,500m. It could be bound to the scroll wheel, or use two keybinds for step up and step down. Manual convergence sets a 100m window. If you set the distance at 500m, then your weapons will only converge between 450 and 550m for a total of only 100m variance. Heck, you can even have another setting if you really wanted to set the size of the manual convergence window. Then we're really started to get closer to a simulation demanding skill rather than a pinpoint alpha twitch shooter.

That's all complicated though. I would be happy if they simply brought the old delayed convergence back and tweaked it to a reasonable delay, not as strong as an affect as it was in CB.


The old delayed convergence was removed because of issues with the CryEngine, HSR, or something else server side (I can no longer remember which one exactly). It wasn't due to any player demands.

#105 Sir Wulfrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 872 posts
  • LocationIn a warship, over your planet :-)

Posted 06 April 2015 - 07:05 AM

View PostTarogato, on 05 April 2015 - 03:57 AM, said:

I'm all for convergence. It used to be in the game and they took it out people didn't like it I suppose... and now people want it back? Where exactly do we stand, anymore?

My ideal vision of how convergence would work in this game is that convergence is automatic with a manual option. New player, can't handle manual mode? Use auto convergence - it'll work 90% of the time. But you might not have great accuracy against moving targets, especially ones moving against a distant background. An advanced player could set manual convergence - a freely adjustable setting between, say, 50m and 1,500m. It could be bound to the scroll wheel, or use two keybinds for step up and step down. Manual convergence sets a 100m window. If you set the distance at 500m, then your weapons will only converge between 450 and 550m for a total of only 100m variance. Heck, you can even have another setting if you really wanted to set the size of the manual convergence window. Then we're really started to get closer to a simulation demanding skill rather than a pinpoint alpha twitch shooter.

That's all complicated though. I would be happy if they simply brought the old delayed convergence back and tweaked it to a reasonable delay, not as strong as an affect as it was in CB.


I didn't read this properly the first time. Excellent suggestion. I'd hesitate to make auto-setting 90% effective though, perhaps 75% would be a better compromise: it would mostly work for beginners and would also serve to encourage them to learn the 'advanced' manual system to get the best from their mechs.

#106 ZhaLinth

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 22 posts

Posted 06 April 2015 - 07:12 AM

Problem is not the high pinpoint/alpha damage but the sheer amount of it.
Even with the 3x3x3x3 you have 6 of those monsters roaming the battlefield, it's ridiculous. But hey because of the release valves it's even worse, I had a 1x2x4x5 PUG match yesterday, as a medium you either close in for a brawl and are reduced to confetti within half a minute or you play the peekaboo game.

Hard locking the matches to 3x6x2x1 is the only solution I can come up with.

#107 Zerstorer Stallin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 683 posts

Posted 06 April 2015 - 07:54 AM

Convergence is part of the problem, pin point is part of the problem. If mechs couldn't be stripped of a small laser and replaced with a ERLL then we wouldn't have the insanity of 6 LL stalkers, 8 SPL firestartes, or the oldie but goodies, Splat Cat, Dual guass Cats, Small Laser Hunchie, the 6 PPC Stalker ( irony here cause now we have the LL version) the 3 ERPPC Thunderbolt, and all the clan guys caring SMPL with srms, or LRMS. You can NEVER have a balanced battletech game (TT or PC) with a mech lab that isn't regulated to some fashion. Also this allows the Devs to (gasp) balance mech easily instead of the terrible Ghost heat, and quirk system they have now. Get a clue FFS

#108 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 06 April 2015 - 08:51 AM

View PostJetfire, on 04 April 2015 - 05:50 AM, said:

If only PGI had the coding muscles to pack convergeance, hitreg and collisions into an elegant and efficient set of netcode...

Ultimately the solution to TTK, Alphastrikes and GH is a real heat penalty scale.

Example:
0-20% heat - no effect
20-40% heat - 5% speed reduction
40-50% heat - 5% all CD increase
50-60% heat - 10% speed reduction
60-70% heat - 10% all CD increase
80-90% heat - 30% speed reduction and CD increase
90-95% heat - 10% chance to do 0.5 DPS to random internals
95-100% heat - 30% chance to do 1 DPS to random internals
100+% - 2 DPS to all locations internals, random components in each location, automated shutdown

Now this is just an example, not the ultimate balanced version, but you could add this as well as warnings from Betty and markings on the heat scale and now keeping your heat managed is a clear task with real consequences, not just overheat shutdown. 90-95% is not the redzone but not auto shutdown so you have to decide if you want to redline it or run at a safe level.


This is a good solution, but i think it needs to go hand in hand with the death of ghost heat and a return of the ~30 point heatscale. In addition to that I think the heatsink system needs to get dynamically reworked for all the mechs. With different unique behaviors based on Single or Double Heatsinks. And even a mild difference between Clan Double Heatsinks and their Innersphere counterparts.

What I'd suggest is that the heatsinks dynamically adjust the heatscale, as well as having the varying dispersion rates for heat. To simplify this all chassis would start with 10 points on the heatscale. From there the number of total mounted heatsinks and the type of heatsink would dynamically effect your dispersion rates and cap for the heatscale. Using a penalty system for running high end heat like the one Jetfire presented would be ideal as the counter-balance system to the way this suggestion works to keep people going for more heat-neutral designs.

Inner Sphere Single Heat Sinks
Heatscale Cap increase by 1 point
Dispersion Rate of 0.12 heat per second

Inner Sphere Double Heat Sink
Heatscale Cap increase by .75 points
Dispersion rate of 0.24 heat per second

Clan Single Heat Sink
Heatscale cap increased by 2
Dispersion Rate of 0.13 heat per second

Clan Double Heat Sink
Heatscale cap increased by 1.5
Dispersion Rate of 0.35 heat per second

Now, I'll use the Awesome 8Q as the example
Stock Loadout of 3 PPCs, 1 Small Laser
28 Standard Heat Sinks
Alphastrike heat build up of 32 Points of Heat.

Using that baseline of 10 points for every chasis as the starting point, then adding the 28 single heatsink boost. You'll end up with a total heatscale 38, with a 32 point alpha that'd put the heat at 84% from a single Alpha Strike. This doesn't include heat build up from movement or from the environment at all. Using heat scale penalties you'd also incur internal damage, and I'd add a few more high risk things like critical destruction (random heatsink blowing up in this case)

With that and having the dispersion rate of 0.12 for 28 heatsinks you get a heat reduction of 3.36 heat per second. Making it so if you did fire that alpha strike you'd need to disengage and cool off for 9.5 seconds to get your heat back down to 0 to do another alpha strike again - If that was your goal.

As for the Clan side, lets take the Masakari Prime as an example
20 Clan Double Heatsinks
4 ERPPCs and LRM10
Alphastrike heat build up of 64

Using the 10 point baseline, adding in the 20 heatsinks at a rating of 1.5 cap increase that'd make the total heatscale 40. Compared to the alpha strike of 64 that'd put the masakari Prime at being a total Alpha strike heatscale increase of 213% over the heat cap. Which goes off the scale and would incur multiple hits of internal damage if not critical outright destruction. (this already happens for the Nova Prime doing an alphastrike in the current system). This shows where this system might break unless you're firing the ERPPCs in Pairs and letting it cool down between shots.

As that goes you'll have 20 heatsinks cooling at a rate of 0.35 which equates to 7 heat per second. Firing two ERPPCs at once would equal 30 points of heat making, and that's 75% on the adjusted heatscale, it for 4.3 seconds of cooldown between shots of PPCs allowing for a strong sustained fire capability with a clan mech of this design.

The math isn't perfect for this sort of system, but it's a proof of how the system would work. Would need to take other consistent stock configs and run the numbers to see if it works out overall. I selected the example mechs as they were for being generally high heat mechs.

I think having a dynamic system and allowing the users to have visibility into how it works will allow people to customize more to their specific play style, making the determinations between going high-heat/high-risk burst damage or lending more toward sustained fire combat with added exposure in combat. With a heatscale system that applies penalties for remaining at high heat levels. The changes to the heatscale system with the penalties within would require added UI, namely earlier heat warnings starting with probably a yellow flashing light around 50% and the red flashing light starting at 75% as additional information that they're entering the danger zone for heat.

#109 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,612 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 06 April 2015 - 09:07 AM

View PostHotthedd, on 05 April 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

Weapons grouping is canon.
Firing weapons in a group simultaneously is canon.
Having those weapons hit the same section automatically is NOT canon.


They don't if you are moving, unless they are the same weapon type. PGI's solution for this was Ghost Heat. They mentioned they couldn't give each weapon mount it's own aim point and not lag the game by unacceptable amounts. Something like that.

But the reason all the weapons hit a random section in Table Top was to simulate the movement of the mech with a pair of dice. In PC MechWarrior that is translated into actual movement by you and the different speeds of the weapons and how well your opponent's aim was. If you are moving you get the random hit pattern from TT.

#110 topgun505

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,625 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationOhio

Posted 06 April 2015 - 09:21 AM

The alpha strike is not the main problem. It is simply a symptom.

The alpha is a problem because of the amount of customization you permit in the mech lab which permits min-maxing to the extent that you see currently.

If you introduced hard point size restrictions you would greatly reduce this. You would still see this problem pop up on a couple of specific mechs but you can simply negative quirk them or keep ghost heat to keep the outliers in check.

#111 Barantor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,592 posts
  • LocationLexington, KY USA

Posted 06 April 2015 - 09:23 AM

View PostLightfoot, on 06 April 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:


They don't if you are moving, unless they are the same weapon type. PGI's solution for this was Ghost Heat. They mentioned they couldn't give each weapon mount it's own aim point and not lag the game by unacceptable amounts. Something like that.

But the reason all the weapons hit a random section in Table Top was to simulate the movement of the mech with a pair of dice. In PC MechWarrior that is translated into actual movement by you and the different speeds of the weapons and how well your opponent's aim was. If you are moving you get the random hit pattern from TT.


Only problem is that we (even average pilots) are a lot better than most of the pilots in TT.

#112 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 06 April 2015 - 05:27 PM

View PostLightfoot, on 06 April 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:



They don't if you are moving, unless they are the same weapon type. PGI's solution for this was Ghost Heat. They mentioned they couldn't give each weapon mount it's own aim point and not lag the game by unacceptable amounts. Something like that.

But the reason all the weapons hit a random section in Table Top was to simulate the movement of the mech with a pair of dice. In PC MechWarrior that is translated into actual movement by you and the different speeds of the weapons and how well your opponent's aim was. If you are moving you get the random hit pattern from TT.

No you don't. In TT you could fire all the same weapon, and miss with some and those that hit would be "random" on the mech. Most people alpha (group fire) with one weapon type at a time.

#113 Sir Wulfrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 872 posts
  • LocationIn a warship, over your planet :-)

Posted 06 April 2015 - 05:36 PM

View PostMirkk Defwode, on 06 April 2015 - 08:51 AM, said:

Heat adjustment proposal.


That was a very well reasoned & thought out post, excellent contribution to the debate. I agree that a very significant part of the solution to the current issues in MWO would be a properly crafted heat scale with suitable dissipation values for heat sinks. Excellent proposal.

I'm starting to believe that a proposal like this, combined with dynamic cones of fire and sized weapon slots is probably The Answer to game balance.

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 06 April 2015 - 05:37 PM.


#114 dgr874

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 24 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 06 April 2015 - 05:50 PM

Instead of fixed convergence, why not just have multiple crosshairs in your HUD? Weapons in arms could float freely(and make them worthwhile to put them there) as they do now. but left torso weapons would have their own crosshair and the right torso weapons as well. You would have to make small adjustments to fire the different groups.

#115 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:12 AM

View PostHellen Wheels, on 06 April 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

This. Because of no hard point restrictions, we wound up with mathwarrior online. Sadly, it is too far gone now. PGI couldn't implement restrictions now even if they tried. Instead, we get hamstrung by PaulQuirkonomy, which makes no sense at all, and 5000+ Founders leave because of his brilliance. Only in a F2P could this happen. Pathetic.

Think: during CB, they had a captive audience of 5000+ ready and willing to plunk down 10$ a month to get what was promised. They could have had it all, instead, they went with BS minimal viable. Morons.
I dropped $15 a week!!! Why don't people give me the memos? :huh:

#116 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,032 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 07 April 2015 - 05:11 AM

View PostNight Thastus, on 04 April 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

There is a far easier solution, one that I and several others will repeat until it is goddamn implemented:
Follow the lore

1: Drop the heat cap (it's currently around 2 to 3 times higher than in lore)
2: Remove ghost heat entirelly
3: Add high penalties for running hot (ghost blips on radar, ammo cooking off and exploding, myomer and actuators slowing down/locking up/etc)

Bam. Entire problem solved like that. It's lore friendly, removes the need for invisible heat, and stops people from alpha-striking because doing so makes your life a nightmare in older games.

Good luck getting PGI to change their minds though. They're so stuck in their ways about ghost heat and the heat cap that they aren't going anywhere but backwards soon.


No, its not.

Take a hypothetical Warhawk with 30 DHS and 4 ERPPC (its not quite possible with our build systems, but easy numbers for the sake of arguement). In TT what would happen if that fired all 4 PPCs at once*** ? it would generate 60 heat, but then instantly sink 60 heat and be at ZERO heat. With a 30 heatcap in MWO, even with no ghost heat? youd shoot them all and go into shutdown for like 1 minute - that is NOT a replication of TT, at all. The closest i can get in a real time environment is.. what we have. Heat cap = 30+DHSx2.0 (well, 30+EngineDHSx2.0+ExternalDHSx1.4 but still)

***as part of a 10s turn, but for TT rules its all at once, since all weapons are fired at once with no movement during fire. A target cant move behind cover after being hit by the first PPC but before the 2nd. it IS all at once as far as gameplay is concerned.

A 30 point heatcap would just have me playing only dual Gauss and quad AC5 boats until i quit the game, which probably wouldn't take long.

Edit: some kind of penalties (accuracy, movement, ammo explosion chance, etc) for time spent at the top of the heatbar i would have no problem with. But the cap is where it should be if we want energy to keep competing with Ballistics

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 07 April 2015 - 05:14 AM.


#117 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 07 April 2015 - 05:15 AM

View PostWidowmaker1981, on 07 April 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

***as part of a 10s turn, but for TT rules its all at once, since all weapons are fired at once with no movement during fire. A target cant move behind cover after being hit by the first PPC but before the 2nd. it IS all at once as far as gameplay is concerned.

A 30 point heatcap would just have me playing only dual Gauss and quad AC5 boats until i quit the game, which probably wouldn't take long.
But if the length of that "turn" was modified to account for real time, a Turn would be about 5 seconds and venting would be around 3 seconds of that. Then heat effects could take effect after those 3 seconds.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 April 2015 - 05:16 AM.


#118 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,530 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 07 April 2015 - 05:19 AM

View PostHellen Wheels, on 06 April 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

Think: during CB, they had a captive audience...


What I think is that you don't quite know what a captive audience is.

#119 xImmortalx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 176 posts
  • LocationBucharest

Posted 07 April 2015 - 05:30 AM

I've been saying this since CB. The hardpoint problem was solved 15 years ago in MW4 with type and size restrictions on slots. We shouldn't be going through this again when someone found a workable solution over a decade ago.

#120 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 07 April 2015 - 05:34 AM

View PostxImmortalx, on 07 April 2015 - 05:30 AM, said:

I've been saying this since CB. The hardpoint problem was solved 15 years ago in MW4 with type and size restrictions on slots. We shouldn't be going through this again when someone found a workable solution over a decade ago.

Um I have a 92 point Alpha Using the HP for the intended Weapons... Just food for thought.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users