212 replies to this topic

[Kushko]

While i dont think that increasing armor would be the way to go, i do believe that TTK is slightly too low and that weapons that specialize in structure damage and crit seeking are pointless (as a mech with an open structure loses that part far too fast for anything destroyed in that part to matter). As such a 1,5x multi on all structure hp would in my opinion do wonders for the game.

[Tarl Cabot]

The 10 sec is non-sense, as all mechwarrior games are loosely based on the Solaris game, not the BT.

And it is difficult to balance anything when most of the base rules (Solaris or BT) are not used. Flexible heat scale caps, bad things only happening when hitting max heat cap, no minor, negative things happening as the heat increases.

Think of it this way, the current setup is almost like the no-heat games on MSN Zone/etc, since most mechs can continue firing a few times (poor Nova exception) before maxing out.

With a heat scale closer to the rules (with negative modifiers for most things) alphas would not happen as often, there would need to be more fire control. Who would repeatedly fire a huge alpha that would change them from a speedy Gonzales to a tortoise for a few critical seconds?

[bad arcade kitty]

yet again, ttk is fine and increasing it, especially in a ******** way like adding armor/structure, would negatively affect the gameplay making it even more passive and deathball-y discouraging any fast and risky moves, also would buff ammo-less energy weapon as if it is not the best one already

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 03 August 2015 - 08:38 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Two factors made 'Mechs less "fragile" in Table Top in some cases. First, damage interval was over a period of 10 seconds (in which all the 'Mechs actions were performed), how many times a weapon fired in ten seconds was irrelevant, only that it did a fixed amount of damage a location(s) over a set time interval. Second: hits and damage location were decided on a per weapon basis based upon a dice role using tables and modifiers to skew probability based on actions performed and any previously accrued penalties or bonuses rather than pure pilot skill. Numbers are really chosen here for game balance and do not accurately reflect any sort of first person reality play, leaving PGI stuck between a rock and a hard place because of convergence for most weapons.
Doing full damage every shot (regardless of cycle time) and adjusting for balance means larger 'Mechs with their corresponding heavier weapons, become horrifyingly efficient killing machines laying waste to anything smaller that wanders into their sights for the briefest of moments. With the MWO set up any direct fire weapon being on target makes it likely all direct fire weapons will be on target. Even with the complexities of varying travel times 'Mechs are putting more hurt, with more precision down range than was ever possible in TT. In TT each shot had the same probability of missing and if they hit, the same probability of striking various hit locations, meaning landing all three on the same target let alone the same same location was a spectacular feat of devastation where as in MWO if one hits they all hit the same spot. Unsurprisingly, in stock play with TT armor values, Awesomes live up to their name. In this kind environment lighter 'Mechs are completely ineffective while heavier ones clean house. TT armor values cannot stand in that case.
The normalizing of damage (and ammo) for all weapons across a ten second period was PGI's other option. Unless weapons like the AC/20, PPC, and Gauss Rifle have ungodly cooldowns they lose their massive punch and their all or nothing nature makes missed shots far more costly and hits from multiple weapons more devastating. Again, those triple PPCs will all hit the exact same spot or miss based on pilot skill and not a dice roll (or rather up to six dice rolls). Here armor values can mirror the original stats, but weapon damage becomes less consistent with the original values due to scatter and missed or withheld shots. Depending on how it is done, the net result is the same or at least very similar.
Heat is its own can of worms. TT had the luxury of saying how many points of heat were generated and cooled over 10 seconds, ignoring spikes from weapons which may have fired multiple times to achieve their damage. MWO does not enjoy this shortcut and must track constant heat generation and dissipation.

The kicker in all of this is the armor values are not the key difference between TT and a video game where the player is the pilot in real time. No, that distinction belongs to convergence combined with direct player control. TTK is a factor of convergence and shot placement. High PP FLD alpha strikes are the most efficient way to minimize TTK. I have played too much World of Tanks to ever have a fondness for Cone of Fire so the return of delayed convergence would help. PGI's hurdle there is getting it in without hurting more important things like hit registration and performance.
More nebulous concepts like heat affecting targeting, causing ammo explosions, and slowing a 'Mech down or critical hits reducing mobility and stability is also more difficult to implement from a player experience standpoint in a real time game using a first person perspective.

Am I saying anything new here, probably not, but I do see this as a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for PGI.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 03 August 2015 - 08:52 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

i'm pretty sure that more than a lance of mechs firing at a single one could kill it in one turn in tt... mechs in mwo in that situation live usually longer than 10 seconds

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 03 August 2015 - 08:55 PM.

[Koniving]

Wintersdark, on 03 August 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

Koniving had a solution to this, some time back in the day.

I'm glad that someone remembers.

On a side note, I still have that and many other solutions. Though by now the overall designs I have if implemented as I have them written... would be to Mechwarrior akin to what Fallout 4 would be to Fallout 1.

Spoiler

My two big worries... is how consistent a procedural level generator for most non-base / city areas could be in such a way that doesn't feel unnatural... and how to handle conflicts in orders between spectating ('dead') players and command-able infantry or if I should even allow the dead to take control of them (in addition to those with Command Consoles).

There are other kinks to work out as well. Whether to allow vehicle customization. Handling a hitbox-based crit system, keeping Battletech's simple section-based armor application while allotting armor amounts to specific subsections (i.e. my leg armor might be 48, but the thigh might be 16, lower leg might be 16, but the foot may have 8 and upper/lower/hip actuators might only have 4 each. It 'may' be overkill but since I'm going for a simulator rather than a 'game'... I'm going for a high realism-to-lore experience.

"4 armor for my actuator?" Scary thought I know, but since I'm flooded with over 40 medium laser variants alone... weapon damage is based on the 10 second rule [any weapon will do its rated damage within a maximum of 10 seconds, and short of variant-specific quirks with their own drawbacks, no weapon will exceed its rated damage within 10 seconds). So if it is 5 damage in 10 seconds, then in 10 seconds it will have done 5 damage. How is the interesting part.

For example some might have a continuous beam, or fire in multiple shorter beams. The typical beam times are "0.1 to 1 second", though variants exist with low power outputs that have beam times which could last for up to two seconds before risking damage. These lower output models "do less immediate damage, but over time and controlled fire can rival the damages dealt by pulse lasers."


I am using this to represent my view of a typical or average laser fire.


Now picture a topical medium laser fires a 0.5 second beam on each trigger pull. It then has a 2.83(repeating) second recharge time before it can be fired again. Effectively this means it can be fired exactly 3 times in 10 seconds. Rated for 5 damage and 3 heat in 10 seconds, it would generate 1.67 (rounded) damage and 1 heat per shot.

If it was instead a 4 shot ML, it might have a beam time of 0.25 seconds with a 2.25 second recharge time, and generate 1.25 damage and 0.75 heat per shot.

Of course there would be many variants, each with its own features and flaws. Some might need to shoot more but require less time on target per shot. Some might have perks with flaws. No matter what it is 5 damage in 10 seconds; except when it features the ability to surpass that...with the drawbacks that keep it in line.

Some may have a single instant shot after an energy buildup followed by a long cooldown time.


Pulse lasers


As variants, pulse lasers as per the Mechwarrior 4 intro.

Another game called Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius confirmed something for me by using the basic BT formula and fleshing it out a bit.
In it: "Lasers" have a significantly higher accurate range. It is the second longest range weapon you can have and its attack power is massive for its single shot. Pulse lasers lack that accurate range, paling in comparison; and yet at closer ranges they become much more accurate than standard lasers. This is because they fire dozens of smaller, weaker 'pulses'. Because of this they are more likely to hit faster, more evasive targets than the hit or miss laser. Furthermore, though each individual 'pulse' is significantly weaker than the standard laser, the sheer number of them allow them to achieve greater damages than the standard laser.

Battletech's lore is very similar. Its rules reflect this as well. "All lasers have theoretically unlimited range on paper." "In reality, lasers are affected by atmospheric particles, smoke, and aerosols which dissipate and degrade the strength of the beam over distance)." "Standard lasers outclass their pulse counterparts in long ranges since it is fired less than a handful of times to make its damage, allowing for longer accurate ranges." "Pulse lasers fire a rapid succession of short, intense beams of light each lasting no longer than 1./100th of a second. An individual zap may be inconsequential, but collectively they produce greater damage in the same amount of time than comparable standard lasers. They also typically produce somewhat more heat."

Ah... I got to rambling again. So eager to see how this works out. A genuine... Battletech simulator.

I'm wondering if Star Citizen's "next of kin" concept might be a little 'too' much to throw in... Still, I'm loving it as an idea. It won't be terribly long (few months maybe) before I start a design blog for people to read for my ideas and how I would work out a number of common problems that have plagued the MW franchise.

Nathan Foxbane, on 03 August 2015 - 08:46 PM, said:

Two factors made 'Mechs less "fragile" in Table Top in some cases. First, damage interval was over a period of 10 seconds (in which all the 'Mechs actions were performed), how many times a weapon fired in ten seconds was irrelevant, only that it did a fixed amount of damage a location(s) over a set time interval. Second: hits and damage location were decided on a per weapon basis based upon a dice role using tables and modifiers to skew probability based on actions performed and any previously accrued penalties or bonuses rather than pure pilot skill. Numbers are really chosen here for game balance and do not accurately reflect any sort of first person reality play, leaving PGI stuck between a rock and a hard place because of convergence for most weapons.

Am I saying anything new here, probably not, but I do see this as a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for PGI.

First is absolutely true.

Second, I might note that while balance is one such concern... there is also the fact that the to-hit rolls are meant to represent the pilot's skill with the weapon, the weapon condition, target distance, target state (what is it doing?), shooter's state (is the shooter stationary and aiming or shooting while moving? Is the shooter focusing on one enemy or firing at multiple enemies?), potential to miss, environmental concerns and finally while the rules do not take the enemy pilot skill into account, the untold aspect that the roll is to represent (where the enemy is actually hit) is also meant to reflect the possibility that the enemy pilot may have attempted to deflect (shield) against the attack by moving a limb in the way or have tried to evade (dodge) completely.

To back that up, I point to the fact that regardless of what you are doing (running, stationary, turning, etc) the only time you get the option to 'aim' for a specific body part is when the enemy is unable to react (powered down, fallen, unconscious, disabled, crippled). So you could go for a 'aimed shot to the head' while going max speed in a Locust if the enemy cannot react, but standing stationary for the last 3 turns you can't 'aim' for that headshot against a stationary enemy -- because that enemy is conscious and the machine is able to attempt a dodge or deflection.

(Also by the time you get through all the crap in expanded rules from tac-ops, strat-ops, or in the MaxTech firing sequence... holy crap. The original TT is just the simplified summary; and even with all the rules that is all TT is; a summary of events. As you stated how many times the actual weapon needed to be fired is irrelevant; it could have fired once or it could have fired several thousand times... in X seconds it is rated to do X damage. Glancing/Direct blows allows for the flexibility that the summary really needs to encompass variants and partial/full hits, though even then... BT suffers a horrendous 'pinpoint' damage problem on a per-weapon basis.).



You may be interested in the aforementioned upcoming blog, too.

Mcgral18, on 03 August 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

Too late to do anything about it now. They didn't listen then, they won't listen now.

Point and click. PGI doesn't think we can handle anything with more depth.

Edited by Koniving, 03 August 2015 - 10:13 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

I support this: http://mwomercs.com/...on-convergence/

But PGI won't (because of hit reg I've heard).

[Slepnir]

well on TT the damage output is only calculated for every 10 seconds which is a turn.

PGI decided to use the higher rate of fire rules for solaris thus forcing them to double armor, and then put in ghost heat to limit the high alpha at increased fire rate.

What it should have been is the weapons doing thier normal damage over 10 seconds by ruduced damage for each shot at the higher rate of fire.

That way TTK would increased, and boating/ghost heat would go away.

[stjobe]

Slepnir, on 03 August 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

What it should have been is the weapons doing thier normal damage over 10 seconds by ruduced damage for each shot at the higher rate of fire.

Yes.

If the 20-damage-per-10s-turn AC/20 was redesigned to fire every 4 seconds instead (an increase in rate of fire by 2.5), its damage output per shot should have been reduced to 8, and the heat per shot to 2.8.

Thus, balance is retained, and you won't have to double armour.

Implement proper BT-style heat penalties that start to make fighting your 'mech difficult at roughly 50% heat and gets increasingly worse as heat climbs above that, and you have no need for Ghost Heat either.

Sure, fire your alpha and shut down, go on. Once your 'mech restarts from shutdown, you'll still spend a fair few number of seconds hardly able to do anything as your heat comes down to more manageable levels.

[Nightshade24]

Wintersdark, on 03 August 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

-snip- On the other hand, the atlas gains, what, 120 armor for it's CT?

Correcting- Atlas already does 100 armour front CT with "meh" rear armour.

it would get 200 armour front CT and at satisfactory level for rear....
95 tonners (banshee, executioner, etc) can do 100 with like 10 rear armour or so. so it would also go huge as well.

[STEF_]

Jazzbandit1313, on 03 August 2015 - 04:19 PM, said:

Makes sense to me.

or put something like a 1.5x multiplier on structure across the board.

OR

Why no both?

Because the issue is "high pintpoint dmg with instant magic convergence"

[Wintersdark]

Nightingale27, on 03 August 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

Let's see... Shade told you some fundamental laws of being a good light pilot and you blew him off and called him new. While declaring the fact that you have no idea how lights work.

I declared that I was bad at playing lights,not that I have no idea how they work. Those two things are totally unrelated. My failure with lights is due mostly to the fact that as an old man, I've lost the twitch skills to hold fire on specific mech components at speeds much over 100kph. Also, that while I know what to do, I get too much "weeeeee! Zooom! Fast!" And do things I know I shouldnt.

His "fundamental laws" are by his own words what he thinks the game should be, not what it is, nor what it is designed to be.

Quote

To 3): Well... lights do require a new way of playing that's never seen before elsewhere, and it's very different to most of the other playstyles you see. Add a relatively high level of difficulty, and you get a playerbase where fairly few people actually understand lights.
Then sprinkle some hopelessness on top of that because

• lights can be feast or famine
  
• the strength of the biggest asset of lights, speed, aren't expressed on paper that well

and even less people even try to understand lights.

And .

Lights aren't some mysterious black box. The problem is it is very hard to do well in them, to the point where you generally need a lot more skill than an opponent in a heavy to have an even playing field. But really, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that very few people play lights, and fewer still accomplish anything in them, but any monkey can do fine in a heavy. That leads directly to borked queues, and that's a bad thing. Further buffing the strongest classes and neglecting lights won't improve the game, and that is the bottom line.

So yeah, lights shouldnt be able to go toe to toe, face to face with an Assault, but one on one? The light should have an even chance, assuming equally skilled pilots. As with heavies. Double armour, and that won't be the case. The Assault or Heavy will have so much more armor and firepower, while lights have very little of both, and speed? It's of far less value these days than it used to with HSR improvements.

Now, if we had real role warfare, if scouting had much of any value in the public queues, things would be different though I'd still argue flat doubling would be bad. But we don't, and I can't see it happening any time soon.

I'm not saying lights suck, but they certainly aren't good enough in the game we have to bear a flat armour doubling pass.

[Kjudoon]

To those who want both.  How bad do we want this power creep to go and obsolete old mechs?  Do we really want to justify the creation of more instagimp pinpoint alpha builds?  After all that is wharlt this will do.  Perpetuate the same problem.  And that problem is insta gimp pinpoint or laserbarf alphas.  It is the overwhelming application of damage in a precise manner to one spot or focus fire by a group of mechs when someone pokes their head out for a split second.  You cannont just double the armor or halve the damage without serious repercussions.  Of the two choices if i was forced to pick one i would reduce damage by following dps rules.  An AC20 Would do 20 points of damage if it hit target and fired continuously over 10 seconds as a tip of the hat to tabletop.
That at least would slow ttk down and nerf these out of control alpha groups.  Good shots and guided weapons would be the biggest beneficiaries.  So it would make the situation more tolerable for those not abusing the flaws of the system, tick off those who live by the flaws, and not totally screw over small mechs while hurt the issue of the "light assault" and instagimps.Remember this solution still only ignores the root of the problem: convergence.

Edited by Kjudoon, 03 August 2015 - 11:09 PM.

[Kjudoon]

You want to talk role warfare? Lets put it this way. Every map would have to be increased in sise by a factor of 10. You know so big that if you didnt scout for the enemy and just deathballed you could never see each other in a match with a bad choice. Matches then would have to sit back and wait for lights to zip around looking for mechs or pick up their trail and direct the rest of the team to the enemy while keeping away from light killer mediums from slaughtering them as they patrol around the main body of h3avies and assaults who would obliterate them if they even tried to attack. Then the two forces meet for their battle.

This is just gladiatorial arena fighting. A joke for warfare. A sitcom as compared to a movie. Entertaining with no real value or meaning. Not even CW.

[Moldur]

I really DON'T have a problem with TTK, if you are in a situation where you die instantly, you probably should have expected to die instantly when that situation began to unfold, unless it was by total surprise due to tunnel vision, ecm, or something.

Outside of bad maneuvering, focus fire, or bad luck, there is no crazy fast TTK.

[One Medic Army]

I just miss 16 mechs meeting each other at point blank range, dancing around doing fire+twist at 100m, and targeting every enemy looking for an open torso. For longer than 10 seconds.

Closed Beta, when an Atlas could actually draw fire long enough the rest of his team could back-shoot the people firing at him, and when the 4 backup MLs on a Catapult or Atlas were a legitimate danger.

In short, a time when Sustained damage output mattered rather than Alpha.

Edited by One Medic Army, 04 August 2015 - 12:02 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

I can't say the TTK is very bad AT THIS MOMENT, because hsr went to #$%^&* again , but it will get back once (if) that is fixed.

The TTK (when HSR works), lack of the 'simulator' feel, maps that feel small, current "high alpha pinpoint meta", a bit of too big importance of twitch skills and mouse precision have a common reason IMHO. Too many low/no risk - high reward possibilities here. Why not to use alpha all the time? Name one reason. Why not go at full throttle all the time? Name one reason. Why not to keep yourself constantly at 95% heat in a brawl? Name one reason.

Plus, it's kinda flat. No depth where it could have been plenty. No thinking in "thinking's man shooter", because there is only one way to go. Yes, there are some tactical aspects to the game: pushing, flanking, using cover, ambushes. But let's be honest: every other team pvp game has this. There is also aiming at certain components, but every other team pvp game about machine has this. Yep, it is more pronounced here, as the TTK is not counted in tenths of seconds, like in the most games out there, but that's it. Well, that and torso twisting.

Adding reasonable drawbacks to some - now blatantly always advantegous - actions would add a layer of depth, reduce TTK by a bit, and possibly add some more decision-making where now we have flat obviousness named "do it, because that is always the best thing to do".

OK, we have to keep the pinpoint part, else the L33T crowd will cry, and it's their game too. By why do we have pinpoint nearly all the time, no matter the circumstances? There is some relatively easily avoidable reticle shake when jetting and some shake when hit. The end. But:
- why there isn't even the slightest reticle shake when going at 100% speed? This is a big hump of metal dashing on uneven terrain. Imagine you would have to balance speed vs precision - 100% speed and tiny-whiny reticle shake or 90% speed and total pinpoint, your choice
- why isn't there reticle shake when colliding with the environment or touching the ground? That's several tons of metal falling from several meters.
- why the heat system is so zero-one? zero: 0-99% heat, one - 100% heat. I'm not even persuading adding any complex heat scale. Just add SOMETHING when the heat is very high. Like lower speed, slight reticle shake, sensor interference like when the ecm is near. ANYTHING. No machine operates nominally when on brink of melting down.

And somebody could finally patch that ghost heat system. It isn't terrible per se, just so full of holes it hardly makes sense now... 3 clan lpl bad, 2 clan lpl + 4 clan erml good.... really?

----
EDIT: don't ask me why all the 'shake' turned into 'shate' when I added this post. I don't even want to know

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 04 August 2015 - 12:28 AM.

[Sug]

I'd add a slight damage resist value to each point of armor so the more armor you have the longer it takes to breach it. Or something like in the old Heavy Gear video games where light weapons fire just bounced off the heavier mechs until they were damaged.

Edited by Sug, 04 August 2015 - 12:34 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

I think they should lower the alphas and then re-assess the data

PurpleNinja, on 03 August 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

If TTK (now I know what it means) is so low, why so many people cry "DUUUH STAHP WASTING MA TIME".

Who says that? The board tells another story and my friends who play MWO also complain about the low TTK

Edited by Bush Hopper, 04 August 2015 - 01:11 AM.

[TOGSolid]

This discussion always comes down to the long standing problems with convergence and heat and neither of those things are being changed ever so it's a moot topic at this point.