385 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Fire for Effect,

I just spent an hour replying to your arguments only to have the client time me out before hitting send.

I may reply later after I calm down and tape my keyboard back together...

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Fire for Effect and Hotthedd:

You both have some valid points.

Fire for Effect, you're correct that convergence is out. I don't understand all the tech jargon, but PGI has said with Host State Rewind the way it is, convergence cannot be used without creating other massive problems.

You're also correct that nobody wants to have their shots fly randomly. Moreover, this probably is also problematic for the PGI servers and budget.

Hotthedd, you're correct that pinpoint alpha's are not the normal (as in what most people think) condition for BT. Besides, short TTK is one of the biggest complaints people have about gameplay.

A SUPERMAJORITY of players have said that pinpoint alpha is a problem. By this alone, we know something has to be done.

I find it funny that you both ignored the fact that multi-point reticle/targeting reconciles and solves the problem!!!

As they say in business: 'A good deal is one where nobody gets everything they want.' (Or something like that.)

So, just say you both like the multi-point solution and shake hands on the compromise!

[Hotthedd]

I could live with the multi-point reticles, but the problems I see are these:

- It penalizes chain fire as much as group fire, unless chain fire always hits the center reticle.
- It is new programming that would need to be added to the game.
- It can be yet another confusing mechanic for new players.
- For players that switch 'mechs every couple of games (or in CW), there is a period of re-learning the 'mech's targeting. (there are lots of times I think I'm dropping in one 'mech, only to realize I forgot that Iselected another)

But if it decreases the pinpoint alpha problem, then I would be happy to adapt.

[Karl Streiger]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 02 November 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

@Fire for Effect and Hotthedd:

You both have some valid points.

Fire for Effect, you're correct that convergence is out. I don't understand all the tech jargon, but PGI has said with Host State Rewind the way it is, convergence cannot be used without creating other massive problems.
...
I find it funny that you both ignored the fact that multi-point reticle/targeting reconciles and solves the problem!!!

if convergence is out - five/four points of impact must be out either, i'm very lucky to have 2 crosshairs and even those hardly allow me to shot at two targets it the same moment - to watch for a group of 2 and another group of 3 crosshairs my very unpleasent - not to mention that my DireMonster with 6 weapon groups is hard to play as it is.

multiple crosshairs will increase the difficultys to run a "nice" build - and will force boating much more (i fear)

[Fire for Effect]

Hotthedd, on 02 November 2015 - 08:19 AM, said:

Fire for Effect,

I just spent an hour replying to your arguments only to have the client time me out before hitting send.

I may reply later after I calm down and tape my keyboard back together...

thats bad :-(

i keep making these long texts in open office and then copy it in here take a few hours sometimes do it while waiting for matches ;-)

my keyboard has bitemarks too dont worry

[Spleenslitta]

I see a lot of good options for how to solve the problem.
I collected 3 ideas from here and there that could be combined to balance MWO.

1- High amounts of heat should make the mech sluggish both in speed and how fast it is in general.

2- Remove convergence for torso weapons completly and slow down convergence on arm weapons.
I know this would give some mechs an advantage on how fast they can respond with their weapons. Only a few Banshee would be able to do high amounts of pinpoint damage because of their lacking arm weapon slots.

3- More recoil to big ballistic weapons would help prevent ballistic boating such as AC40 Jagers.
The more big ballistic weapons you fire the more the shoots go wild. It can handle 1 AC20 but 2 at the same time?
If arm mounted ballistic weapons handled recoil worse than torso mounted ballistic weapons that would make sense since they are further from the mechs center of mass.

I also like the engine power idea where everything draws power from the engine. Especially energy hungry energy/gauss weapons.

Some would say it would demand too much skill and there is no way to hit anything accuratly.
But that's just the thing.....in the books even the best pilots had very poor accuracy. Especially when the mech got sluggish due to high amounts of heat.

The fact that this would make MWO into a shooter that demands high amounts of skill to master could be MWO's way to truly stand alone as the thinking players shooter.

[Apnu]

I think the problem is the game's roots.

We're all talking about weapon systems and mechs designed off a turn-based TT game that had RNG to hit and RNG to damage, plus RNG to crit.

But we have a game where there is no RNG to hit and there is no RNG to damage location. So naturally most alpha's will go to one location.

I favor a cone of fire at medium and long ranges for any energy or ballistic weapon. If a player wants pin-point accuracy, that player should have to brawl and risk their armor. As it is now, the game's meta is at medium and long ranges. MWO is turning into one of those games where everybody hides and snipes. And its bleeding players because of it.

[Khobai]

I favor a damage distrbution mechanic that transfers a portion of damage outward towards arms and legs.

So if you get hit in the side torso... say 25% of that damage might go to an undestroyed arm or a leg (whichever is closer to the point of impact).

That solution has the advantage of being completely non-random. And it also makes arms and legs absorb a greater percentage of damage like they should.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Karl Streiger:

Multi-point reticle is not necessarily out just because cone and convergence are.

Cone and convergence are similar in that the "point" where the shot hits changes dynamically. Thus, lag and packet loss between client -> server -> client creates a lot of difficulties with the HSR system in place.

But a multi-point reticle system doesn't suffer from this dynamic reticle problem. Whatever the "point" is pointing at is where it hits. It's static and recorded by the client and server. I'd guess that's the key feature that allows HSR to work (seeing as I understand it to be a hit-reg issue solving system).

Even if this is not exactly how it works (I'm not an IT professional), I can't see why it would be different that multiple weapons hitting 2 points. The number of weapons fired is always variable and to the system the "point" of contact for the hit is just coordinates.

@Khobai:

I have to disagree with this (sorry, man ). I don't mind if my hits don't go exactly where I thought they would (CoF would be -acceptable- to me, if not ideal) but I really want all my damage to go to the place the shot hits.

Transfer makes everything splash/scatter. That should be a weapon choice, not a gameplay mechanic!

[Slimspadey101]

Simply put, my vote would be for a combination of the selections. Laser damage on a single component migrating to other components when passing a point within a short time frame as long as the target has armor left on said component. More internal structure hit points, because crits and zombies are fun.

Cone of fire would be okay, but not ideal imo. Imagine the jump jet shake.

Edited by Slimspadey101, 04 November 2015 - 06:35 AM.

[Clint Steel]

I'm still a fan of lowering the heat capacity of heat sinks, but increasing their heat dissipation.

This would mean it would limit large alphas since you would could only fire 2 large lasers rather than 5 with out overheating, but the heat that you did build up would also dissipate more quickly.

This probably isn't popular with PGI however, since coolshots would be less effective.

[Ionna Silver]

I just don't think that nerfing heat is always the solution, as gameplay should still FEEL responsive. It's a tried and true fact that in order to not be bored a player should pretty much always be doing something, meaning that moving around waiting for your heat to die down likely isn't fun. A combination of things can work, but I'm of the mind that additional armor and structure might help, and is vastly more simple to impliment.

[Hotthedd]

Ionna Silver, on 04 November 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

I just don't think that nerfing heat is always the solution, as gameplay should still FEEL responsive. It's a tried and true fact that in order to not be bored a player should pretty much always be doing something, meaning that moving around waiting for your heat to die down likely isn't fun. A combination of things can work, but I'm of the mind that additional armor and structure might help, and is vastly more simple to impliment.

It isn't nerfing heat, it is making excessive heat have consequences (like in the BattleTech universe).
Your "tried and true fact" really only applies to people with ADHD. There is more to a game than running around shooting red doritos.

[Ionna Silver]

Hotthedd, on 04 November 2015 - 02:06 PM, said:

It isn't nerfing heat, it is making excessive heat have consequences (like in the BattleTech universe).
Your "tried and true fact" really only applies to people with ADHD. There is more to a game than running around shooting red doritos.

So you're saying people with ADHD shouldn't be considered a part of PGI's audience, noted....

[Omaha]

No, not a problem

Other, Please explain.



Evade more. Stop staring, use the force. TWITCH LIKE NO TOMORROW!

My Opinion. No one wants to play a game, where you. The pilot of a mech, is staring down another mech, carelessly shooting eachother. For 5 minutes, just clicking mouse buttons. People I think want action you can call it what you want (COD complex, i guess).

PINPOINT HIGHALPHA IS NEEDED. PERIOD. Time to kill is fine! Stuff blowing up like it should? Now that is another story!

Edited by Omaha, 04 November 2015 - 05:31 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Clint Steel:

I, among many, wholeheartedly agree that something has to be done about heat. I also think heat cap should be lower and dissipation higher. Perhaps other penalties to being at threshold, too (like movement and torso twist or just... blowing up!).

Seems in PTS 3 the cap is at least going to be lower for Clans. (And a bit higher for IS single-heatsinks, I don't know about this yet.)

But the problem with alphas is not only with energy (read: lasers). It's also with gauss and AC/UAC builds.

So we need another solution.

BTW, you who come in and say "Alphas aren't a problem!", please look at the poll. SUPERMAJORITY voted they are, so please voice a solution, constructive criticism or nothing at all. Perception is reality: a perceived problem is a real problem, as far as people are concerned.

[eleazr]

Seems like there's multiple “problems” being discussed here. Personally the only “problem” I see is that clan lasers are the current meta. I would prefer the higher skill ballistic/ppc weapons that require leading to hit harder.

I would have to disagree with the Cone of Fire crowd here. CoF is not going to be a silver bullet to solve all of your problems, and the reason is simple geometry.

Let's say that I'm in a poking duel with the latest meta mech, the “Square Wolf.” Now Square Wolf here has to expose 1/4 of his mech to get a proper alpha in and that quarter measures 10m x 10m, each arm, side torso and center torso are 4m wide and 10m tall.

Let's say we're dueling at 1000m with long range weaponry, pretty much “sniper range” material. Let's say we tune my CoF such at 1000m I have a square cone measuring 10m on a side. Ok, this is nice, I pull the trigger and I'm sure to hit something, but I don't have a great deal of control over where I hit. Cool.

Now let's bring this theoretical duel in to 500m, a more typical PUG engagement range. Using the basic principle of proportional triangles (take two triangles with the same angles, half one leg on one triangle and you half all the legs, keeping everything proportional) my CoF now measures 5m x5m. Now I can with ease, focus down a single component. If we bring this engagement into 100m for practical SRM brawling range, I can easily pop his 1m x 1m cockpit.

This defeats the whole purpose of a CoF as I am able to focus down components at practical engagement ranges. Ok, so let's retune my CoF such that at 500m my CoF is the magic 10m x 10m that we really want.... but...

what we're using is long range weaponry, so let's take this engagement back to “sniper range” and look at what we get... a massive 20x20 fire cone (400 square meters) trying to hit a 10x10 mech (100 square meters) .... i.e. I'm going to completely miss 1/4 of my shots and there is nothing I can do about it - never mind trying to counter snipe that raven with his dinky little arm poking out.

I mean sure, you can make your CoF dynamic, making it grow when you move or fire more weapons and shrink if you bring BAP or TC, but the overall affect of a CoF will be either to dramatically reduce all engagement ranges, or it will have no meaningful affect whatsoever. Bottom line: it will not magically bring “balance” to MWO.

[eleazr]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 04 November 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

BTW, you who come in and say "Alphas aren't a problem!", please look at the poll. SUPERMAJORITY voted they are, so please voice a solution, constructive criticism or nothing at all. Perception is reality: a perceived problem is a real problem, as far as people are concerned.

High alphas aren't a problem. You have a lot of complainers who vote in polls like this. If a given player is happy, he's not going to go digging to try to find a poll to tell the world that he's happy - he'll be playing. the problem really is the strong metas that plague this game. lasers today, PPC-popsniping yesterday, NASCAR still on some maps. This problem is a symptom of linear thinking and sledgehammer 'balancing.'

"Tactic A is too strong - NERF TACTIC A." This simplistic mentality echoed here in this thread and copied too often by PGI is the problem.

Clan Lasers are the current meta? How can we undermine lasers or give players more options?

• re-ballance heat sinks to lower the heat cap and increase dissipation.
  
• go bug stomping. SRMS for a while there were doing quite well, but hit reg issues have been creeping back in for a while now.
  
• bring other weapon systems into effectiveness - for example:

• LRMS - give them an overall, slight nerf but give them a solid buff when combined with tag and especially narc - i.e. make them a TEAM skill weapon and incidentally undermine ECM without an outright ECM nerf.
  
• PPCs - less heat, more velocity, and an out-of-linear idea - give them an ECM suppression bubble and use this bubble to simultaneously buff PPCs and combat ECM without an outright ECM nerf.

• buff jump jets a bit (i.e. old metas, even pop-sniping, isn't bad as long as it's a minor option)
  
• bottom line: look around BEYOND just the lasers
  
• Most importantly: DON'T DO TOO MUCH TOO FAST!!!

Edited by eleazr, 04 November 2015 - 11:07 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@eleazr:

I actually agree with most of those ideas.

But, the alpha problem is a problem for more reasons than just lasers. It's about being able to put massive damage on 1 point with pinpoint accuracy; a thing that just isn't "real" according to the BT world (ancient tech, weather conditions, weapon characteristics and other factors prevent it).

The TT version uses chance via dice to simulate this and prevent everything from hitting 1 spot. It has a disconnect between the player and the pilot's "skill".

MWO doesn't have that possibility of chance and there's no disconnect; it's all actually about skill.

How to simulate this "chance" in MWO is the big question with alphas.

The other side about weapon balance is another question. I'm in favor of weapons performing differently and being balanced so that there's no single "meta" but a variety of effective builds and synergies.

Currently, Clan lasers are absolutely dominant and if you don't bring them or a god-Quirked IS 'Mech it is incredibly difficult to successfully face down a meta build. (I won't say impossible, but you have to be dang good.)

[Hotthedd]

Ionna Silver, on 04 November 2015 - 04:33 PM, said:

So you're saying people with ADHD shouldn't be considered a part of PGI's audience, noted....

No. I'm saying they shouldn't be the TARGET demographic.