212 replies to this topic

[Lugh]

I Zeratul I, on 12 August 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

#3rd option.

Decrease the firing rate of weapons.

They've done quite enough of that on the clan side. Mechs run so hot it's kinda scary.

The IS side could stand to slow down to that rate, so clans are fully superior again.

Oh wait, that isn't what you want is it... no Parity let IS reign supreme! Buff IS... *sigh* sorry I had it wrong again.

[Khobai]

Quote

A round in TT =10 seconds. which light in tt is lived after 12 rounds in focus fire? thats only two minutes

Yeah but even Atlases in MWO die in less than 10 seconds. Theyre not even surviving for the equivalent of one battletech round.

The combination of the long-range meta with pinpoint convergence has reduced TTK to almost nothing.

Edited by Khobai, 13 August 2015 - 06:25 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Aiming like a Tabletop Pilot

[Tombstoner]

Lykaon, on 13 August 2015 - 12:16 AM, said:

This is far from an ideal solution even if it is an effective one.

Why is it effective people may ask? Well it will work because it is the identical support mechanic used for the armor mechanics in use by MWo that are derived from table top Battletech armor mechanics.

Why is it a bad idea others may ask? Well any mechanic that alters the actual hit location from the precieved aimed at location is unpopular.Word of Tanks uses a cone of fire mechanic and that is frequently sited as a negative point of WoT.


This community in particular would dispise a RNG mechanic determining where they hit a target.

This mechanic cant alter the player made shot. if you hit the CT is will always hit the CT. Whats wrong with the game is how easy it is to hit the CT of an assault vs the TT 2d6 RNG. PGI Nerfed the effective amount of armor protection by altering hit frequencies during the port and wonders why TTK is too low... Altered hit frequencies dictate location specific co-factors as a simple stage one step in development or lift the location limit on armor.

This didn't happen because its a minimally viable product. The sad thing is it would go a long way to improve the game. Large alphas would be viable even needed in some cases instead of being simply overkill.

[Tombstoner]

vnlk65n, on 13 August 2015 - 01:08 AM, said:

Cool dude can't wait to get cockpit sniped because my arm was sticking out.

You clearly do not understand my post. This is not an idea that advocates using a 2d6 TT system. It converts the 2d6 TT system into a FPS system. meaning if the hit frequencies in game are = to a 2d6 RNG then the armor cofactor is 1. If the hit frequencies found in game show the CT hit being hit 50% more times relative to the 2d6 RND probability then the CT gets a cofactor of 1.5 meaning a 50% increasing in effective armor protection. in essence a quirk based on real targeting data gathered from the game or better yet a controlled environment.

Then you need lots of play testing to get the right feel. But stage one is the corect translation of TT rules into a FPS then game balance as needed.

[Lugh]

Tombstoner, on 13 August 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

You clearly do not understand my post. This is not an idea that advocates using a 2d6 TT system. It converts the 2d6 TT system into a FPS system. meaning if the hit frequencies in game are = to a 2d6 RNG then the armor cofactor is 1. If the hit frequencies found in game show the CT hit being hit 50% more times relative to the 2d6 RND probability then the CT gets a cofactor of 1.5 meaning a 50% increasing in effective armor protection. in essence a quirk based on real targeting data gathered from the game or better yet a controlled environment.

Then you need lots of play testing to get the right feel. But stage one is the corect translation of TT rules into a FPS then game balance as needed.

But as we have already seen time and time again, to PGI, MATH IS HARD. EVEN the simplest math like a 2.9% change to jam in 10 seconds turns out to be 25% chance to jam... *sigh*

[Tombstoner]

Lugh, on 13 August 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

But as we have already seen time and time again, to PGI, MATH IS HARD. EVEN the simplest math like a 2.9% change to jam in 10 seconds turns out to be 25% chance to jam... *sigh*

I can relate to issues of implementing something that seems simple. I cant bash them for that. However PGI took a short cut and decided to not implement armor cofactors. That's a management choice. Then add in the use of multi factor balance changes every beta build without a test server and development is basically just making stuff up as you go. This is a management issue.

[Lykaon]

Tombstoner, on 13 August 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

You clearly do not understand my post. This is not an idea that advocates using a 2d6 TT system. It converts the 2d6 TT system into a FPS system. meaning if the hit frequencies in game are = to a 2d6 RNG then the armor cofactor is 1. If the hit frequencies found in game show the CT hit being hit 50% more times relative to the 2d6 RND probability then the CT gets a cofactor of 1.5 meaning a 50% increasing in effective armor protection. in essence a quirk based on real targeting data gathered from the game or better yet a controlled environment.

Then you need lots of play testing to get the right feel. But stage one is the corect translation of TT rules into a FPS then game balance as needed.

If we are stuck with our current armor mechanics (and we are) then there are a few options to get the TTK exstended.

This cofactored armor value idea is pretty good if a bit fiddley with the numbers.Mainly on account of a lack of a "one size fit's all" simplicity.

Essentially the best method of Cofactored Armor is to dial in the specific armor values for specific body locations on specific chassis and even then that data can be corrupted by several factors including but not limited to engine size (faster is harder to hit) weapon build (how much "face time" is needed to deliver damage changes period of exposure to enemy counter fire) and of course pilot skill (a newer player may lack the piloting ability to spread damage away from critical body sections on their mechs)

Because of this newly added chassis would require guess work until proper data is accumulated to give the proper values so...

I would say PGI should just go with the guesstimate method for all chassis with an accross the board armor cofactor mechanic that is one size fits all even if this would create some mechs being outside the norm.In turn those special cases can be addressed specificly by altering the armor cofactors.

so let's say we look at some totaly made up numbers.

Say mech torso sections are hit three times more frequently than any other locations. the armor cofactor would then be 300% meaning a mech with 40 side torso armor and 60 center torso armor would have these values increased to 120 sides and 240 center.

So what happens next?

We all start legging targets instead of going for the torso.The next logical step is increase leg armor to match the frequency of legs being targeted. now we have torsos and legs buffed heads being difficult to hit for most mechs (exceptions for fat heads and slow moving mechs) being left to simple 2x TT armor values leaving arms as unmodified beyond our current level.

I now see a lot of right arms getting blown off to reduce enemy target firepower. So do we buff right arms now?

Option two is to increase current armor and structure values to improve ablative "hitpoint" performance while also creating a more robust critical hit mechanic.

I would suggest a big armor and structure buff across the board focusing mainly on torso sections and legs with less dramatic increases for arms (and maybe heads but probably not)

Then build a critical hit system that included all potential components in a mech's location being damaged.

Like...

Arm actuators when damaged reduce the agility of movement of the arm curser thus decreasing the response time and accuracy of arm mounted weapons.

Leg actuators when damaged reduce the speed cap and/or acceleration deceleration and turning agility of a damaged mech.

Gyro damage causing a mech to move with a staggered or shaky gait causing reticule shake similar to jumpjets do now.

Sensor damage causing the HUD to flicker and occationally static the minimap and HUD displays.

Engine damage progressivley increasing heat build from movement and reduced heat displacement from heatsinks. I would also suggest removing the 3 engine hit = dead carry over rule from TT. Just had accumulated engine damage being sufficently imparing.

Another potential feature would be to have critical damage threshholds for armor.

Since the goal is increase TTK and not neccissarily make mechs invunerable until they are actually killed I would also reccomend a through armor crit mechanic that progressivley improves the chances of damage occuring through armor as the armor becomes depleted.

100%-50% armor value = 0%
51%-25% armor value = 25% chance of "rolling" critical damage to internal components
24%-01% armor value = 50% chance of "rolling" critical damage
0% armor value - damaged internal structure 100% chance of "rolling" critical damage.

a potential side effect of a more robust critical mechanic coupled with improved armor and internal structure values is a shift in tactical thinking when fighting. Do you keep plugging the torso or do you take that arm off to kill the cannons mounted there? Do I leg the target to make an escape to finish it off latter with help. If I manage to cripple a mech is it worth the time to finish it when I have other more pressing objectives to accomplish.

I personaly feel that shifting the focus off of destroying mechs as the go to win condition and instead place more focus on primary objectives the game play will be improved.(this is also assuming we have more robust objectives beyond stand in a box for some amount of time) Even a skirmish becomes a tactical match rather than death ball and shoot repeat for best results!

[Almond Brown]

Tombstoner, on 13 August 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

I can relate to issues of implementing something that seems simple. I cant bash them for that. However PGI took a short cut and decided to not implement armor cofactors. That's a management choice. Then add in the use of multi factor balance changes every beta build without a test server and development is basically just making stuff up as you go. This is a management issue.

They Doubled Armor across the board. Your co-factor is = 2X. If the Math was done, then perhaps some Sections would actually need a armor reduction as that simple 2X co-factor is to high.

Who says PGI didn't do a co-factor conversion based on multiple factors and determined that 2X was the best result. You assume, and do so "negatively" about **** you simply can't know.

[Almond Brown]

Lykaon, on 13 August 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

stuff

I personally feel that shifting the focus off of destroying Mechs as the go to win condition and instead place more focus on primary objectives the game play will be improved.(this is also assuming we have more robust objectives beyond stand in a box for some amount of time) Even a skirmish becomes a tactical match rather than death ball and shoot repeat for best results!

I would agree 100% but despite having "objectives" we already see what happens with the new "Assault" mode. Players want to Kill Enemy Mechs and could give a rats arse about "objectives". Had a Match last night, Base under Attack. Watched 3 Mechs head back, thought great, we had their base under attack as well, with 2 red Doritos and 2 Blue one in that area. Guess what happened. Our defenders stayed out the Box while trying to defend, while theirs stayed in their box.

When asked why they stayed out of the box. "**** that, ain't getting killed for nobody!" So not even a Win is motivation enough for many. More "objectives" are simply just more **** to be "ignored' over the simple minded "kill everything" mentality so often seen on the Battlefields of MWO. Sad really.

Edited by Almond Brown, 13 August 2015 - 11:02 AM.

[M4rtyr]

Almond Brown, on 13 August 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

I would agree 100% but despite having "objectives" we already see what happens with the new "Assault" mode. Players want to Kill Enemy Mechs and could give a rats arse about "objectives". Had a Match last night, Base under Attack. Watched 3 Mechs head back, thought great, we had their base under attack as well, with 2 red Doritos and 2 Blue one in that area. Guess what happened. Our defenders stayed out the Box while trying to defend, while theirs stayed in their box.

When asked why they stayed out of the box. "**** that, ain't getting killed for nobody!" So not even a Win is motivation enough for many. More "objectives" are simply just more **** to be "ignored' over the simple minded "kill everything" mentality so often seen on the Battlefields of MWO. Sad really.

You know.. .if they actually had meaningful negatives to being destroyed then maybe people wouldn't be so willing to jump into combat, and I don't mean the c-bill charge for repairs, that was(is?) stupid and meaningless. It wouldn't really work with skirmishes, but with CW having persistant damage or needing to buy whole new components might make people more careful.

But that said, it would just be painful if they didn't balance things so better. Penalties like that are bad when you have a low TTK.

[Tombstoner]

Almond Brown, on 13 August 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

They Doubled Armor across the board. Your co-factor is = 2X. If the Math was done, then perhaps some Sections would actually need a armor reduction as that simple 2X co-factor is to high.

Who says PGI didn't do a co-factor conversion based on multiple factors and determined that 2X was the best result. You assume, and do so "negatively" about **** you simply can't know.

PGI either did it right or did it wrong.... I've been here a long time. i can tell you that 2x armor is the short lets not do the work balance solution that took place over a course of 2-4 weeks. I presumed PGI was building a model. that is what i would do as a scientist responsible for process optimization. Professionally in my opinion and from first hand experience with the results the got it wrong.

[Tombstoner]

Lykaon, on 13 August 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

If we are stuck with our current armor mechanics (and we are) then there are a few options to get the TTK exstended.

This cofactored armor value idea is pretty good if a bit fiddley with the numbers.Mainly on account of a lack of a "one size fit's all" simplicity.

Essentially the best method of Cofactored Armor is to dial in the specific armor values for specific body locations on specific chassis and even then that data can be corrupted by several factors including but not limited to engine size (faster is harder to hit) weapon build (how much "face time" is needed to deliver damage changes period of exposure to enemy counter fire) and of course pilot skill (a newer player may lack the piloting ability to spread damage away from critical body sections on their mechs)

Because of this newly added chassis would require guess work until proper data is accumulated to give the proper values so...

I would say PGI should just go with the guesstimate method for all chassis with an accross the board armor cofactor mechanic that is one size fits all even if this would create some mechs being outside the norm.In turn those special cases can be addressed specificly by altering the armor cofactors.

so let's say we look at some totaly made up numbers.

Say mech torso sections are hit three times more frequently than any other locations. the armor cofactor would then be 300% meaning a mech with 40 side torso armor and 60 center torso armor would have these values increased to 120 sides and 240 center.

So what happens next?

We all start legging targets instead of going for the torso.The next logical step is increase leg armor to match the frequency of legs being targeted. now we have torsos and legs buffed heads being difficult to hit for most mechs (exceptions for fat heads and slow moving mechs) being left to simple 2x TT armor values leaving arms as unmodified beyond our current level.

I now see a lot of right arms getting blown off to reduce enemy target firepower. So do we buff right arms now?

Option two is to increase current armor and structure values to improve ablative "hitpoint" performance while also creating a more robust critical hit mechanic.

I would suggest a big armor and structure buff across the board focusing mainly on torso sections and legs with less dramatic increases for arms (and maybe heads but probably not)

Then build a critical hit system that included all potential components in a mech's location being damaged.

Like...

Arm actuators when damaged reduce the agility of movement of the arm curser thus decreasing the response time and accuracy of arm mounted weapons.

Leg actuators when damaged reduce the speed cap and/or acceleration deceleration and turning agility of a damaged mech.

Gyro damage causing a mech to move with a staggered or shaky gait causing reticule shake similar to jumpjets do now.

Sensor damage causing the HUD to flicker and occationally static the minimap and HUD displays.

Engine damage progressivley increasing heat build from movement and reduced heat displacement from heatsinks. I would also suggest removing the 3 engine hit = dead carry over rule from TT. Just had accumulated engine damage being sufficently imparing.

Another potential feature would be to have critical damage threshholds for armor.

Since the goal is increase TTK and not neccissarily make mechs invunerable until they are actually killed I would also reccomend a through armor crit mechanic that progressivley improves the chances of damage occuring through armor as the armor becomes depleted.

100%-50% armor value = 0%
51%-25% armor value = 25% chance of "rolling" critical damage to internal components
24%-01% armor value = 50% chance of "rolling" critical damage
0% armor value - damaged internal structure 100% chance of "rolling" critical damage.

a potential side effect of a more robust critical mechanic coupled with improved armor and internal structure values is a shift in tactical thinking when fighting. Do you keep plugging the torso or do you take that arm off to kill the cannons mounted there? Do I leg the target to make an escape to finish it off latter with help. If I manage to cripple a mech is it worth the time to finish it when I have other more pressing objectives to accomplish.

I personaly feel that shifting the focus off of destroying mechs as the go to win condition and instead place more focus on primary objectives the game play will be improved.(this is also assuming we have more robust objectives beyond stand in a box for some amount of time) Even a skirmish becomes a tactical match rather than death ball and shoot repeat for best results!

Thank you for the effort. Yes it would take a modest amount of time to accumulate data, but its the only way to model the interaction between mech volume and speed. a property missing from TT.

As far as changing cofactors as a result of player behavior you dont. legging has always been an option, as is going for the arms. with huge alphas you simply go for the CT or red section for the kill. Huge alphas are paid for in tonnage armor has suffered a major nerf with perfect convergance and distorted mech sizes. All things a AAA developmet studio would take into account.

This is a first pass process that base lines mech durability something that's derived from the cost functions present in a tonnage based mech creation system used in TT and ported into MWO, but its not finished.

I realy like the idea of crit chance being a % of the remainaing armor level provided there is some tested cap. I thinik it would add some debth to the crisystems and let the flamer do direct damage to the internals. the down side it it involves a % chance to crit and people in theses here parts hate the RNG. even if it make the game better or give a weapon like the lbx new life.

Im not saying only use math and TT got it right. there does need to be a balancing based on how it feels but i think we can all agree that its easy to hit the CT of an Atlas or better yet an Awsome relative to that of a fire starter. Some mechs by virtture of the missing parts of the TT to FPS port have an unquantifed advantage thats clearly seen in game.

Mech geometry and size take a beatting with out the tools needed to fix things that TT didnt care about. The huge ears on The catapule is a good example.

The flip side to adding a cofactor is to simply rais the max armor allocarted to the location. What we have is a hold over from TT. i say lift and let thte player base optimise there armor more extensivly. yea we might see many more less armored legs and arms for a while butt thats player choce. Eventualy the min maxing will ossilate and stabelise.