22 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

I'm rather disappointed at this stage of balancing. We've somehow arrived at "ghost damage" for lasers - effectively a damage nerf - as a way to increase TTK and give some illusion of "reducing the pinpoint meta" by making laser damage be magically reduced against non-locked targets.

We can start with the obvious problems:
- Yet another non-intuitive mechanic being added to the game, on top of everything from ghost heat to PPC minimum range to charging Gauss rifles.
- This nerfs mechs based not on how dangerous they are but rather simply by weight and hardpoints; lighter mechs are usually stuck using lasers, so they take it on the chin with this.
- Does nothing to actually prevent pinpoint kills once the lock is achieved. This means either the meta-mechs will now need good sensors (on top of everything else), or the meta-mechs will just use weapons not affected by this nerf. I heard Gauss Rifles and Dire Wolves were good...

I get what they are going for here - an end to instant, hard-hitting damage, but this is not the right way to do this.

Since all ideas are on the table, please consider adding a narrow, variable Cone of Fire instead of mechanics like "ghost damage":
- It makes sense; no need to explain goofy mechanics like vanishing damage with some weapons but not others.
- It is similar to table-top and Lore.
- It also works well with info-tech; just tighten up the cone of fire a bit once a lock is achieved, and you're done.
- It already exists in the game, as seen when using jumpjets, MASC, or machine guns. Obviously, the proposed one would not be as wide, but the same concept would apply.

This basic proposal would reduce the deadly effect of pinpoint alphas in a way that makes sense in-game, and which meshes well with info-tech while not requiring anything totally alien to be added to the code or illogical effects like damage-reduction from some weapons based on sensor status.

Edited by oldradagast, 14 October 2015 - 05:31 PM.

[jay35]

Cone of fire does not belong on precision-fire weapons in a skill-based FPS game.

[Anarcho]

I like the changes... give it some time to sink in

[Davers]

"Cone of Fire" was never on the table.

[Kraftwerkedup]

jay35, on 14 October 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Cone of fire does not belong on precision-fire weapons in a skill-based FPS game.

Quick...tell every other FPS game on the market this...theyre all going to fail!!

[That Guy]

i am actually not opposed to a small cone of fire... for direct fire ballistic weapons. not world of tanks levels of RNG

basically small enough that close range fights there is no chance for an aimed shot to miss, but large enough to potentially spread the damage of a grouped PPD weapon.

to start off lets say all ballistic weapons get the same relative accuracy. at max effective range all shots will fall somewhere within a 2-3 meter circle around the point of aim. big enough to spread the damage out, but not flinging skill out the window.

this also leaves the door open for accuracy quirks, so that say IS medium mechs that rely on a single ballistic weapon are not hurt, or mechs that are made of ballistic points cant two shot an assault from 700m with UAC5 spam

[Fractis Zero]

It's called an LBX. And if you torso twist you spread damage.

Edited by Fractis Zero, 14 October 2015 - 10:45 PM.

[627]

jay35, on 14 October 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Cone of fire does not belong on precision-fire weapons in a skill-based FPS game.

Actually battletech was always about cone of fire. You never knew what component you'll hit back in 3025. Weapons aren't accurate in battletech.

And every(!) other FPS have this mechanic.

On top of it, we have it while jumping so why not having this when not targeting a mech? without a lock your mech don't know where to converge/focus so you get a cone of fire like "shoot in the general direction of the enemy aka spray and pray."

And CoF can be implemented in different ways, it doesn't have to get bigger the longer you shoot here.

[TheCharlatan]

Again with the COF?
IT IS NOT FEASIBLE WITH THIS ENGINE.
How many times must this be said?

Complaining about PGI not wanting to put a full stop to game development and putting all it's engineers to work on it for months, just to work on something that not all the player base wants, and that might not work, is complete bonkers.
It's as if i asked for the game to stop using Crytek and go to Source "because it would be better".
Please make a reality check.

Edit: and if we want a "moving" reticle, that will be the end of movement in this game, as sitting tight would always win over moving.

Edited by TheCharlatan, 15 October 2015 - 02:44 AM.

[L3mming2]

i hate cof with a pasion...

and the op has stated in some other post that hes to smart to actualy take the troble to test something before comenting.

my view test the PTS or go home

[sycocys]

Didn't we have cof at one point and it bugged up the netcode like crazy?

And even if that isn't the case, using alternatives that might add more depth to the game as well as possibly just keep the simpler faster running netcode/HSR which already has some issues registering all hits isn't a big deal if they can make ways that actually work to add some balance to the game. Add cone of fire to weapons and you will easily quadruple the load the the netcode has to attempt to process, probably why it isn't in the game.

The "ghost damage" mechanic really isn't affecting much outside of reducing LL vomit at extreme ranges. You can still fire away to your hearts content and have your drop off tail but you'll actually need to get close enough to visually confirm that you are indeed shooting at a mech at the least.

Get in the PTS and try it out. It's actually quite interesting in action and adds tactical depth to the game.

Edited by sycocys, 15 October 2015 - 07:28 AM.

[Foust]

jay35, on 14 October 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Cone of fire does not belong on precision-fire weapons in a skill-based FPS game.

There are many precision-fire weapons in skill-based FPS games that would disagree with you. Cone of Fire does not equal removal of skill.

[Luscious Dan]

jay35, on 14 October 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Cone of fire does not belong on precision-fire weapons in a skill-based FPS game.

Not a huge fan of this as a blanket statement. Cone of fire makes sense in a lot of contexts, whether it's a hip-fired machine gun, a semi-automatic sniper rifle firing more rapidly than it should be, or a 100-ton mech chain firing ultra autocannons.

Lasers are tricky because it's not a stream of separate bullets straying off line, it's a visible beam wiggling around in space. If you're shooting a group of 6 medium lasers and each one is firing off in random directions, it'll look terrible and tick people off.

IMO this game needs more reticle shake, or at the very least a looser reticle to indicate less accurate fire. When you collide with a mech, there should be a drop in accuracy. When you land after a drop or move across rough ground, there should be a drop in accuracy. When you're hosing quad UAC-5 shells, there should be a reduction in accuracy. When you're stationary, you should have more accuracy, as your targeting and recoil compensation mechanisms have fewer variables to deal with.

How would this interact with lasers? I think the simple answer is to have the arm and torso crosshairs stray independently of each other, based on the current level of accuracy. So you could still get tight groupings, they just wouldn't necessarily be perfectly on target. You might see two sets of laser beams (one from arm weapons, one from the torso) sweeping around slightly if you're moving across rough ground or firing your autocannons.

And I do mean slightly. Your shots shouldn't be winging off in random directions when you step on a pebble. But holding a laser perfectly on target while moving, shooting and getting shot at should be a little more difficult.

[SirNotlag]

I Disagree COF is random the current system on the PTS is much more skill based and can be worked around.

[That Guy]

TheCharlatan, on 15 October 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:

Complaining about PGI not wanting to put a full stop to game development and putting all it's engineers to work on it for months, just to work on something that not all the player base wants, and that might not work, is complete bonkers.
It's as if i asked for the game to stop using Crytek and go to Source "because it would be better".
Please make a reality check.

this statement is false. adding a COF to a weapon is as simple as adding a variable to the weapon config.
see

[Commissar Aku]

SirNotlag, on 15 October 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

I Disagree COF is random the current system on the PTS is much more skill based and can be worked around.

COF does not equal random or a loss of skills, pin point damage on the other hand does mean removal of skill.

On the firing of lasers there is already a cone of fire in the game, it is called using JJ, so not even like it isn't already present. Your mech is moving and the torso and arms moving independently of each other it would make sense (living in reality) that even with a computer that your shots wouldn't be pin point accurate.

This nerf to laser range if you aren't targeting things is a nerf to clans and makes IS nearly unplayable, especially lights. I thought the whole point of redoing the quirks was to make both factions equal, and make more people want to play lights, this change seems to have done the opposite to both.

[sycocys]

I'm going to test some more tonight - but I can tell you that even the current range nerfs are very far from unplayable in lights. Require more thought and planning? Yes, running around like a chicken with your head cut off spraying MPL and SL everywhere and at anyone isn't going to work well anymore - you actually have to plan your pokes and strafing maneuvers rather than just diving in and seeing what happens.

Far more interesting as far as I'm concerned, but I never played lights like an add kid on redbull either.

[Mystere]

jay35, on 14 October 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Cone of fire does not belong on precision-fire weapons in a skill-based FPS game.

SirNotlag, on 15 October 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

I Disagree COF is random the current system on the PTS is much more skill based and can be worked around.

I think when people read "cone of fire" the knee-jerk reaction is "it's all random" -- which is not what most supporters of CoF are saying at all. It's not even close. Most ideas I've seen revolved around a gaussian distribution instead.

Have both of you ever heard of CEP? If not, then I understand what I assume are your "it's all random" reactions.

As for myself:

Mystere, on 15 October 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

And I am of the school of convergence. I say have zero weapon convergence when target is not locked. Alternatively, have a fixed convergence point set by player if target is not locked.

Edited by Mystere, 15 October 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[sycocys]

Adjust convergence distance with your mousewheel? Could be an interesting addition.

I also support being able to not have convergence or it being more dynamic, I just highly doubt it's something PGI would be interested in. Also recall that it was something of an issue with the netcode somewhere along the line.

The idea of being able to disable it or dynamically adjust it would be cool though. The limited amount we have is kind of nice, but it would still require being able to disconnect/seperate the torso/head weapons from the arm weapons entirely and each mech having 2 "reticule" groups might bugger up the system a bit more than we'd guess.

[oldradagast]

TheCharlatan, on 15 October 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:

Again with the COF?
IT IS NOT FEASIBLE WITH THIS ENGINE.
How many times must this be said?

So... I guess you haven't used jump jets and fired a weapon while the jets were still active in over a year? Nor have you done the same with MASC in effect, nor have you fired in a machine gun in a few years.

Delayed convergence is what is not possible / practical with the game engine. A cone of fire ALREADY EXISTS in the game engine and happens almost every match! They are NOT the same thing.
- Delayed convergence requires tracking the target's location and gradually allowing the weapons to come to focus on that point, which has issues with HSR
- A cone of fire is just a small randomizer on the aim; one that doesn't need to be huge and which can be tightened once a target lock is achieved. It has nothing to do with the enemy's location or HSR, and is already in the game.

As for the rest, do you think the rest of the community wants the lunacy they've got up on the PTS? Better a simple solution than that drek.

Edited by oldradagast, 15 October 2015 - 06:02 PM.