385 replies to this topic

[Rumrunner711]

Fire for Effect, on 27 October 2015 - 05:28 AM, said:

you cannot fire more than 3 IS Large Laser
you cannot fire more than 6 Medium Laser at the same time. you have to wait for a second before you can fire the rest of your same category Lasers.

and so on.

the technical lore reason is: because
(the same reason why ghost heat was introduced instead of simply limiting the amount of weapons that you can fire at the same time)

I like this idea.

Though diminishing returns could be added into it too. Maybe the amount of weapons a mech can fire at once could be directly tied into its engine rating.

If firing more than the optimal amount of weapons at a time then the damage output could be reduced, movement speed could be reduced, and so on ( it could be explained as a power drain on the engine ).

So the bigger the engine, the more weapons it can support for alpha/multi-fire strikes.

[Heuvadoches]

I have a suggestion for the high alpha "problem" ...

Put on your damn shades and deal with it. Some mechs can ... learn how to avoid them.

[Hotthedd]

Heuvadoches, on 27 October 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

I have a suggestion for the high alpha "problem" ...

Put on your damn shades and deal with it. Some mechs can ... learn how to avoid them.

So could you give out a protip? How do you avoid being "Bravo" when the enemy calls out "Focus Bravo"?

In other words, you can TRY to mitigate it somewhat, but nobody avoids it altogether.

[Rem Norton]

Karl Streiger, on 27 October 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

As said - wall of ignorance.
So tell me you sane man - do you see any difference between this:

and this:
HBK-4G

and if you see them do you think it is enough - considering how hits are distributed?

Quantity of armor and structure are increased. So what? Somebody thinks this is reason for nerf alpha strike damage? I so dont think.

[Karl Streiger]

Rem Norton, on 27 October 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:

Quantity of armor and structure are increased. So what? Somebody thinks this is reason for nerf alpha strike damage? I so dont think.

No not the increase is the problem - how those values were used is the problem. strictly spoken MWO uses the same record sheet as the board game based on 1985. Not to mention that this game played with pen & paper and dice had much more micromanagement and more simulation aspect as the computer game of 2012.

tldr;
Anyhow the 2w6 was the measurement unit which you need to "read" this record sheet. This is the key fact hat anybody has to understand. It does not imply that we should use dice or random mechanics in MWO. No it simple means that we have to transform the ingredients with one unit into the number of ingridients of the unit of your choice.
Example - I'm from Germany we use the metric system, anyhow i did bought a Coocking Book by Jamie Oliver lately - all units are in imperial units. And it is logic that i can't turn oz. into g - i have to use the calculation of 28g = 1oz.
Simple right? So I have to ask why it is so "hard to understand" in MWO

OK you can't simple find a translation number.
But you can take a the TT numbers and simple dice until you got statistical relevant numbers - or you write a program (I needed 2 days)
than you simple analyze the number of hits necessary to destroy a target:
for example 29 hits of a Large Laser to kill a Atlas; or 51 hits of the MLAS, or 24 for a IS PPC, 10 for the AC 20.. just hit not shots needed (You see the average damage needed to destroy a AS7 in TT is about 200-250dmg - and they don't have double armor and structure)

Next step is to take those values and compare them with your system - of course players can avoid damage or spread the damage over more components so this is the hard part.
Just a math approach or a test run with real peoples?
But i can say for sure who aim for the torso won't hit the legs and vice versa - so the overall armor is reduced. (the idea of carrion crows to use the pelvis as leg hit boxes would help much)

the other direction is much simpler - turning MWO weapons into TT weapons.
Ranges are the same: PPC - fires 1 each 4 sec = 25dmg/10sec - because of double structure 12.5dmg - using a "kind" of targeting computer = 14hits = 175dmg

Just from this test i can say for sure that the conversation from TT to FPS are faulty.

And we are not even talking about "Alpha; Group Fire" eg hitting the same spot.
Or when you are able to remove range as a key factor the smaller laser weapons have much more power than the big guns.
Example 1 Clan ERLarge vs 4 ER Small plus 2 Poor Dubs"
dmg/heat per 100ms = 0.73/0.21 vs 2/0.09 - you have almost 3 times the power for less heat - same weight.
So the light mechs won't use a "bigger" weapon as long as they have enough hardpoints to mount smaller ones.
but to have a bigger weapon is the golden choice in TT. because a bigger weapon = enemy faster dead.
Not so in MWO - because smaller weapons hit the same spot - the smaller weapons are always the better choice.

[Kmieciu]

Kjudoon, on 26 October 2015 - 09:14 PM, said:

Lowering the cap and increasing heat dissipation does nothing to functionally change or fix the problem of too much damage in one spot. All it does is slow... Slightly... the speed of alphas. You are still having surgical instagimps. The ttk will be minorly increased... Very minorly but once again it is a cancer hiding behind painkillers.

Right now 5xERML+2xLPL produce 50 heat while 23DHS give you 82 heat capacity. That's why laser vomit WORKS.

Decrease the max heat capacity below 50 and instantly the laser vomit becomes weaker. Heat sinks should not increase the heat capacity. I know it's against TT rules and basic thermodynamics. But it's needed for the gameplay.
We need lower capacity to encourage using DPS as instead of Alpha Strikes.

[Rem Norton]

Karl Streiger, on 27 October 2015 - 11:48 PM, said:

No not the increase is the problem - how those values were used is the problem. strictly spoken MWO uses the same record sheet as the board game based on 1985. Not to mention that this game played with pen & paper and dice had much more micromanagement and more simulation aspect as the computer game of 2012.

tldr;
Anyhow the 2w6 was the measurement unit which you need to "read" this record sheet. This is the key fact hat anybody has to understand. It does not imply that we should use dice or random mechanics in MWO. No it simple means that we have to transform the ingredients with one unit into the number of ingridients of the unit of your choice.
Example - I'm from Germany we use the metric system, anyhow i did bought a Coocking Book by Jamie Oliver lately - all units are in imperial units. And it is logic that i can't turn oz. into g - i have to use the calculation of 28g = 1oz.
Simple right? So I have to ask why it is so "hard to understand" in MWO

OK you can't simple find a translation number.
But you can take a the TT numbers and simple dice until you got statistical relevant numbers - or you write a program (I needed 2 days)
than you simple analyze the number of hits necessary to destroy a target:
for example 29 hits of a Large Laser to kill a Atlas; or 51 hits of the MLAS, or 24 for a IS PPC, 10 for the AC 20.. just hit not shots needed (You see the average damage needed to destroy a AS7 in TT is about 200-250dmg - and they don't have double armor and structure)

Next step is to take those values and compare them with your system - of course players can avoid damage or spread the damage over more components so this is the hard part.
Just a math approach or a test run with real peoples?
But i can say for sure who aim for the torso won't hit the legs and vice versa - so the overall armor is reduced. (the idea of carrion crows to use the pelvis as leg hit boxes would help much)

the other direction is much simpler - turning MWO weapons into TT weapons.
Ranges are the same: PPC - fires 1 each 4 sec = 25dmg/10sec - because of double structure 12.5dmg - using a "kind" of targeting computer = 14hits = 175dmg

Just from this test i can say for sure that the conversation from TT to FPS are faulty.

And we are not even talking about "Alpha; Group Fire" eg hitting the same spot.
Or when you are able to remove range as a key factor the smaller laser weapons have much more power than the big guns.
Example 1 Clan ERLarge vs 4 ER Small plus 2 Poor Dubs"
dmg/heat per 100ms = 0.73/0.21 vs 2/0.09 - you have almost 3 times the power for less heat - same weight.
So the light mechs won't use a "bigger" weapon as long as they have enough hardpoints to mount smaller ones.
but to have a bigger weapon is the golden choice in TT. because a bigger weapon = enemy faster dead.
Not so in MWO - because smaller weapons hit the same spot - the smaller weapons are always the better choice.

Board game is not equal to FPS. This is, like speak in Russia: "is two huge differences". Make FPS on rules of board game - is a madness.
All, who agree to nerf alpha strike damage must understood: this conversion affects also them too.
Who plays better, that will better play under any conditions, who plays poorly, that will poorly play always. And no changes of game mechanics will help it to play better, because 99% of efficiency of any battlemech is located between the pilot's ears.

Nerf alpha damage just will make playing boring. Nothing more...
I strongly recommend to think over it.

Edited by Rem Norton, 28 October 2015 - 12:34 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Kmieciu, on 28 October 2015 - 12:02 AM, said:

Right now 5xERML+2xLPL produce 50 heat while 23DHS give you 82 heat capacity. That's why laser vomit WORKS.

Decrease the max heat capacity below 50 and instantly the laser vomit becomes weaker. Heat sinks should not increase the heat capacity. I know it's against TT rules and basic thermodynamics. But it's needed for the gameplay.
We need lower capacity to encourage using DPS as instead of Alpha Strikes.

Better, return to tabletop numbers including a heatscale that acts like TT and the inability to focus fire onto the same component like TT.

Problem REALLY solved and the CoD infection will begin to drain away thank God.

[Karl Streiger]

Rem Norton, on 28 October 2015 - 12:31 AM, said:

Board game is not equal to FPS. This is, like speak in Russia: "is two huge differences". Make FPS on rules of board game - is a madness.
All, who agree to nerf alpha strike damage must understood: this conversion affects also them too.
Who plays better, that will better play under any conditions, who plays poorly, that will poorly play always. And no changes of game mechanics will help it to play better, because 99% of efficiency of any battlemech is located between the pilot's ears.

Nerf alpha damage just will make playing boring. Nothing more...
I strongly recommend to think over it.

I think i can agree about the part about the pilot - no change will make a poor player into a better one.
A random cone may give the newb the chance to hit instead of a miss, while it may give the better player the chance of a miss rather than a hit. But still shooting is the minor part about MWO - more important is the knowlege of map and positioning.

And i don't want to make TT and MWO equals. When i would have to code the weapon.xml - there would hardly be any values remaining that you could see in TT.
My small lasers would deal only 0.75 dmg - but firing every 1second (just as a quick example) - or alll Lasers would have the same output - but a different RoF (Large high RoF, small low RoF)
And the armor?
Well i know take the TT armor values and put them into a bin, maybe even the record sheet mechlab and the hit locations.
But in the end i would always cross check if a game of MWO "feels" like TT or the novels.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 28 October 2015 - 12:53 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Quote

Nerf alpha damage just will make playing boring. Nothing more...
I strongly recommend to think over it.

High alpha gameplay is boring because it's similar to every other shooter/sim out there.
Think about it.
Killing the enemies in one alpha makes MWO similar to Warthunder. At higher tiers the tanks/planes have such powerful weapons that they can destroy each other in 1 shot / salvo. It's like playing Counter Strike where everybody has AWP.

Mechwarrior should be different IMHO. It should be about DPS and managing multiple different weapons on a mech. Right now, it's about boating similar weapons and alpha strikes.

Mechs are distinct from other war machines in that they can bring up to 16 different weapons at the same time. lasers, cannons, machineguns, gauss rifles, ppcs, flamers, guided and unguided missiles. Like it or not, Battletech was about bringing a weapon for every occasion.

[Rem Norton]

So, gentlemans, we smoothly approached to understanding of an essence of a problem! Problem in that BattleTech consists not only on Mechs.
BattleTech contains a lot more various war machines and "living creatures".
Look for this, for example: http://www.masteruni...vailableEras=13
We see, what BattleTech contains (on a invasion time) 881 Mech, and 1030 other units.

To any who is familiar with military science obviously that Mech is initially designed as war machine capable to solve wide range of battle tasks, as is independent unit, and as a part of tactical group.

Tasklist contains such tasks as destruction of fortification, tracked and wheeled tanks, flying war machines, armored and light infantry, support of friendly units on a battlefield, destruction enemy Mechs. That is to play the main, but not the single role on battlefield.
For solving of these tasks Mech is initially equipped with various types of the weapon.

But MWO not contain other types of war machines, except Mechs, therefore for ours Mechs is no need for carry weapons, not intended for destruction something, except enemy Mechs.

As a result of it our Mechs are redesigned for the most effective destruction only Mechs, ignoring other types.

Everything isn't so simple as it seems and essence isn't in strong alpha damages. Essence of problemm in a lack of many types of fighting units.

P.S. Sorry for my terrible English...

Edited by Rem Norton, 28 October 2015 - 02:56 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Rem Norton, on 28 October 2015 - 02:49 AM, said:

P.S. Sorry for my terrible English...

still much better than mine

but you made a very good point. its also an development known from the board game. One of the fiercest Mechs you can have in 3060 is the Thunder Hawk. It does not work well facing infantry - most Mech doesn't
And because of its "nature" it wasn't a good choice for shooting fortifications.
well it worked vs tanks but a single LBX or SRM rack worked much better.

Anyhow i could life with a Thunderhawk or a Gauszilla (5 Gauss) even when they hit the same spot. I have more problems with light weapons hitting the same spot (because the 12 ER Small Laser boat would work well vs tanks and infantry and because of hitting the same spot also vs Mechs in MWO)

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

1) Just to be clear, all this arguing about whether alphas are a problem or not is currently moot.

At the time of this post A SUPERMAJORITY of voters rated that it is.

2) This is neither a board game or an FPS; it's a simulator.

3) Heat is absolutely broken.

4) I already reconciled pinpoint accuracy and the alpha problem!!! A multi-point reticle/targeting system!!! See my post on Page 5.

BTW, thank you Widowmaker1981, as the only one who nodded to this idea!!!

[Karl Streiger]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 28 October 2015 - 03:18 AM, said:

4) I already reconciled pinpoint accuracy and the alpha problem!!! A multi-point reticle/targeting system!!! See my post on Page 5.

Don't be upset. This topic is as old as MWO and in the past there were dozens or even hundreds of ideas. The cross hair idea is as old as this topic, too.
I wouldn't want this crosshair - but i could life with that mechanic. (you have to think about the offset and the TLC you use - instead of hitting just LMB)

The good about it some Mechs will be indeed work better than othes (HBK-4P, Nova) but on the other hand i don't see much of a problem with them.

[Kmieciu]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 28 October 2015 - 03:18 AM, said:

A multi-point reticle/targeting system!!!
BTW, thank you Widowmaker1981, as the only one who nodded to this idea!!!

How about using an existing mechanic? Like laser duration or "jumpjet-masc-shake" ?

Edited by Kmieciu, 28 October 2015 - 04:14 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Kmieciu, on 28 October 2015 - 04:12 AM, said:

How about using a existing mechanic? Like laser duration or "jumpjet-masc-shake" ?

That'd be helpful, but all that does is decrease accuracy, not break up the alpha into separate hit locations.
I thought about that too.

[Kmieciu]

Kjudoon, on 28 October 2015 - 04:14 AM, said:

That'd be helpful, but all that does is decrease accuracy, not break up the alpha into separate hit locations.
I thought about that too.

Beam duration makes ALL the difference.
Have you ever used Clan ERLL? With 1.5 second duration it's almost impossible to keep the beam on the single location. You're happy when you can keep the whole beam on an enemy and not your teammates' backs. Nowadays in MWO 1.5 seconds feels like ages.

IS LPL has the same damage, yet it is far more deadly thanks to the 0.67 second duration. It burns holes right trough mechs. If you put on a mech with duration quirk, this laser feels as pinpoint as a autocannon.
Right now the duration on IS LPL is so short that it is simply superior to the AC10. And you can fire 3 with no heat penalty or 4 with 8.4 points of heat penalty. It's one of the best IS weapons just because of the duration.

You can shoot it, then torso twist away, while the enemy Clanner is only halfway through ERLL burn. He wastes 50% of his damage.

Edited by Kmieciu, 28 October 2015 - 04:25 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Kmieciu, on 28 October 2015 - 04:23 AM, said:

Beam duration makes ALL the difference.
Have you ever used Clan ERLL? With 1.5 second duration it's almost impossible to keep the beam on the single location. You're happy when you can keep the whole beam on an enemy and not your teammates' backs. Nowadays in MWO 1.5 seconds feels like ages.

IS LPL has the same damage, yet it is far more deadly thanks to the 0.67 second duration. It burns holes right trough mechs. If you put on a mech with duration quirk, this laser feels as pinpoint as a autocannon.
Right now the duration on IS LPL is so short that it is simply superior to the AC10. And you can fire 3 with no heat penalty or 4 with 8.4 points of heat penalty. It's one of the best IS weapons just because of the duration.

Really? I got 3 kills tonight doing just that at 400m while eliting my GHR. Yes it's easier when you are close range... IMHO, too close... but beam duration didn't seem to be a deterrant there. Same goes for many times with my HBRs firing ERLLs

You are right though... I do feel the same way about 1.5 seconds.

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 October 2015 - 04:26 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Kmieciu, on 28 October 2015 - 04:23 AM, said:

Beam duration makes ALL the difference.
Have you ever used Clan ERLL? With 1.5 second duration it's almost impossible to keep the beam on the single location. You're happy when you can keep the whole beam on an enemy and not your teammates' backs. Nowadays in MWO 1.5 seconds feels like ages.

IS LPL has the same damage, yet it is far more deadly thanks to the 0.67 second duration. It burns holes right trough mechs. If you put on a mech with duration quirk, this laser feels as pinpoint as a autocannon.
Right now the duration on IS LPL is so short that it is simply superior to the AC10. And you can fire 3 with no heat penalty or 4 with 8.4 points of heat penalty. It's one of the best IS weapons just because of the duration.

You can shoot it, then torso twist away, while the enemy Clanner is only halfway through ERLL burn. He wastes 50% of his damage.

Breaking up the alpha strike is the idea. Make the player face a choice: Chain fire for more precision, but more face time to deal damage with every weapon, or Group fire with less precision (focused damage) but less face time, or Alpha Strike with even less focused damage, but minimal face time.

[Koniving]

I agree that high pinpoint alphas are a problem, but not the problem. The real problem is actually high Front Loaded Alphas.

These are alpha strikes that deliver all of its damage to not just one spot -- but at the same instant.

An example being twin AC/20 -- punished unnecessarily by ghost heat -- because it is a weapon combination that can instantly kill ANY and EVERY single mech in the game with a single blow. Why can it do this? Because it takes the one flaw from tabletop while ignoring the lore. Autocannons are not front-loaded, unlike what tabletop would have us believe. This is because keeping track of weapon variants and rolling for as many hits as actual numbers fired...is a pain in the rear.

This post I placed in a thread about former FASA guru James' Battletech computer game is a good reference.
This was written in response to ammo being in the left torso of the Hunchbacks, and though trunicated it took note of drum changes between 4J, 4P, and the location change of the drum for the 4SP.

Koniving, on 28 October 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

I can tell you why.

There are two well known constants in every Hunchback design:
A large hunch on the right torso... and a drum on the left.

Edit: Truncated for length and specifics.

So -- that's why it's in the left torso, the mech's small stature and it being one of the exceptionally highest caliber AC/20s to exist in Battletech in the 3025 era (high caliber means fewer shots and bigger ones; 180mm Tomodzuru Autocannon mount type 20). While its round count is not specifically stated, the slightly larger Chemjet Gun at 185mm fires 4 shots per cassette (magazine) with 5 cassettes per ton of ammunition (meaning 4 shots = 20 damage, with 150mm being 10 shots per cassette, so you can do a little bit of math or do as I do and assume that 180mm does 5 shots per cassette to get rid of the decimals^1).

Edit: Take note here on this mention of the replacing AC/20 variant and different firing pattern.

That is until discontinuation of the Komiyaba Type VIII models (the skeleton/frame) and Kali-yama industries began using a newer Crucis Type V chassis (skeleton/frame) to produce the new "4Gs" around the time of creating the HBK-5 series. HBK-4Gs using the Crucis Type V chassis which were made from that time onward then carried the much more recoil-manageable and ammunition abundant 120mm Kali-Yama Big Bore. In a 1987 publication, a similar 120mm autocannon was stated to have a firing rate of 3 to 4 shells per second and a cassette (magazine) size that lasted 4 seconds (meaning between 12 and 16 shells to do 20 damage), with 5 cassettes per ton of ammunition.

Edit: 4 seconds not 3 seconds.

Each "Cassette" is reported as a "Round" on the ammunition computers to save screen space. (Hence the tabletop confusion of "5 rounds" being ZOMG!) The damage difference between the Tomodzuru Autocannon mount type 20 at 180mm and the Kali-Yama Big Bore at 120mm is (using the ^1 note above) 4 damage Tomodzuru versus 1.667 rounded or 1.25 damage KY Big Bore per bullet.

Just imagine what could happen if MWO had weapon variants... and not front loaded damage as tabletop suffers.

Awesomes would truly be exactly that, as PPCs are supposed to be front-loaded, unlike autocannons.

Now consider what is stated. I didn't go as in depth as I could have, because the Ichiba Medium Lasers were replaced with Hellion V MLs to make up for the difference in exposure time. The Tomodzuru AC/20 was high damage, quick to fire, only needed to deliver 5 bullets and was slower than molasses to reload. On the negative side the Ichiba MLs were short-length beam weapons (beam as in Star Trek phasers, "Peeeeeeeeeeew"). The Kali-Yama Big Bore took 3 seconds to spend its full load to do 20 damage. On a positive note, Hellion V medium lasers are "Zap" type weapons, as in "Pzzt", or 0.2 second zaps. (Granted a Hellion V laser needed 4 zaps to do 5 damage, still it was a quick hit and done; great for twitchy gamers).

MWO will never do this. Which is sad. However it would fix the front loaded issue that we really have. Damage can then be equal to "rated" amounts per 5 or 10 seconds, heat can also be at rated amounts per 5 or 10 seconds, and the extreme thresholds (current high of 138 max threshold [for 100% heat] instead of the canonical 30 reactor threshold) can be removed as can the cooling nerfs on double heatsinks (1.4? Pfft, 2.0 per 10 seconds per DHS). Furthermore the double armor/structure can be removed, and mechs would still live incredibly longer with a significantly increased time to kill.

As you can imagine, the chain reaction of changes that would become necessary is... astronomical. In return, however, the balance of the game, the feel and value of weapon systems, and the overall experience would be significantly improved!

Edited by Koniving, 28 October 2015 - 07:20 AM.