179 replies to this topic

[Kraftwerkedup]

He IS right. Scouting doesnt work because it doesnt matter.

Make the maps 10x as large and it still wont matter. Scouting doesnt matter. Theres really not much you can do about that unless you offer seriously greater rewards for scouting than you do for killing. Thats the only way anyone will fulfill that role. Maybe if they were the only ones who could "spot" and got 200k cbills a match without premium for doing so without ever shooting anything.

Then you have what...two roles? Killing stuff. And looking at stuff.

Cool.

PGI bit off more than it could ever hope to chew with the "role warfare". It would need some pretty creative design to deliever 4 different and specific roles that played differently and were attractive and had something important to do.

[FupDup]

MischiefSC, on 07 November 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

Are you just trying to troll me Fup? Scouting doesn't work... because of map design? Scouting doesn't work because it doesn't matter, because the game always ends with people shooting each other and it gets to that point very quickly. Because of ECM creep lots of matches are 1/2 over before one side even gets a dorito. Position of the enemy is irrelevant in most matches. Scouting is sorta nice but any mech can scout - the 'scout' is the guy that sees the other team first. 'Scouting' is irrelevant to the playout of the fight by and large. You know that. Do I really need to dig up your critiques of PTS1?

...And I would like to make "scouting" and other shenanigans both more useful in the first place, and more dependent on mechs specialized for that application (rather than just an Atlas poking his head over a hill).

If we really had to brute force it, we could pull out Homeless Bill's proposal for Progressive Scanning, which has various sensor-based buffs to holding locks that make more intuitive sense (e.g. scan somebody long enough and you can see their health percentage that is displayed on the scoreboard all the time, even if you don't have that specific red mech locked afterwards). There are other things, like the very last level of scanning (takes lots of time) is that the target mech is permanently revealed. Certainly makes more sense than directly increasing the damage you deal.

http://mwomercs.com/...ssive-scanning/

MischiefSC, on 07 November 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

IW, if it does not directly affect weapon performance, is irrelevant. Completely and totally. Fluff, window dressing. ECM was the 'strongest' IW you could get in this game and everyone pretty much learned to ignore it unless they were using LRMs.

So, you're saying weapon buffs in disguise. K.

In this case, the laser lock thingy is actually kinda similar to how ECM turns off lock-on missiles. Such IW. Much RW. Wow.

MischiefSC, on 07 November 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

That last bit was so disingenuous I'm not sure if I should just troll you back and make a 'Yo' Mama' joke or actually point out how absurd it is.

Having locks impact laser range performance added significant complexity to playing laser boats. Not a ton, but significant. Lasers were still superior but not nearly so much and that superiority became situational and not fiat. Which was more balanced than we've had any weapon in this game since it came out. Yes, that's complexity. In fact I didn't start using 'complexity' in this debate, people arguing along side you did. Saying it was 'too complex'. Too hard.

The distinction I'm going to make is that Ghost Damage can qualify as complicated, but not complex.

What things are complex? Stuff like, for example, torso twisting to spread damage across body parts. Having so many different hitboxes that you can choose to go after. Maybe the critical hit system could count if it wasn't relatively pointless. MASC and the Gauss charge can mildly qualify because they can open up the possibly of some new applications. Counterstrike Global Offensive's predictable recoil system. I think even games like Star Cit where you have a limited power resource, and have to figure out precisely how you want to distribute that power to win. Stuff like that.

What things are complicated? Ghost heat. Certain mechs have really hard to read quirk lists, and quirks in general may not be easy to interpret. UI 2.0. Miscellaneous details about the game that aren't even documented, like Flamers generating exponential heat on their user. Etc.

The distinction: complexity has the potential to add depth and maybe even l33t skillz, while complication is just more details to bog you down.


The "Ghost Damage" (or Ghost Range, or whatever I feel like calling it) is complicated but not complex because it ultimately amounts to requiring more exposure time to deal full damage (gotta get that dorito to appear).

You're trying to trump it up and present it as this totes amazeballs epicness, but really it translates into more exposure time in the end, which can be a liability depending on the level of preparedness of the red team...


...Not to mention that it's just really damn weird and wacked out, even by space magic standards. I mean really, just what the fudge.


By the way, your mama is so fat that she yells at her team's Dire Wolves for leaving her behind.

Edited by FupDup, 07 November 2015 - 08:13 PM.

[Kraftwerkedup]

Heres a short list of our options:

- Ghost Range
- Balancing Clan and IS exactly the same stat wise
- Tweaking stats ignoring lore for non red v blue balance (longer burn higher dam, vs less burn time lower damage etc)
- Cone of fire ala WoT
- Reticule bounce ala First Person Shooters
- Fixed convergence unless you target something
- Preset convergence in mechlab
- Another shot at the old "slowly converge" method
- much more severe ghost heat restrictions
- heat scale effects (blowing up randomly, cant aim, turn and move slower, overload heat sinks, early shut down randomly)

Active and passive radar ALONG with the infotech crap, would work great...then youre at least halfway to having something interesting to do as a "Scout mech".

[Kraftwerkedup]

Also I liked the idea of arm weapons acting exactly like they do now, but making torso mounted weapons not converge at all, they just fire forward.

Theres only a handful of mechs that can converge 6 or more lasers in arms. And those mechs all need the help. Nova, Locust, Executioner, Gargles, all the other bad laser vomit mechs, Wubshees, HBRs, TBRs, ACHs, Stalkers, just lost 30-60% of their pixel perfect firepower. The rely on their torso laz0rs to get those 60 damage alphas.

If those arent hitting pixels...well...much better for everyone. Then youre better off mixing your build, or, god forbid! Taking some missiles, or equipment since torso hardpoints become much less valuable real estate. And as a side benefit, high mounted torso hardpoints (all the high mounts are torsos folks) just took a serious hit..level the playing field against the Ridge Poke Master Race.

Edited by Kraftwerkedup, 07 November 2015 - 08:12 PM.

[FupDup]

Kraftwerkedup, on 07 November 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Also I liked the idea of arm weapons acting exactly like they do now, but making torso mounted weapons not converge at all, they just fire forward.

Theres only a handful of mechs that can converge 6 or more lasers in arms. And those mechs all need the help. Nova, Locust, Executioner, Gargles, all the other bad laser vomit mechs, Wubshees, HBRs, TBRs, ACHs, Stalkers, just lost 30-60% of their pixel perfect firepower.

Stalkers actually have 4 out of 6 energy hardpoints in their arms, as do Cheetahs.

[Matthew Ace]

Kraftwerkedup, on 07 November 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

Heres a short list of our options:

- Ghost Range
- Balancing Clan and IS exactly the same stat wise
- Tweaking stats ignoring lore for non red v blue balance (longer burn higher dam, vs less burn time lower damage etc)
- Cone of fire ala WoT
- Reticule bounce ala First Person Shooters
- Fixed convergence unless you target something
- Preset convergence in mechlab
- Another shot at the old "slowly converge" method
- much more severe ghost heat restrictions
- heat scale effects (blowing up randomly, cant aim, turn and move slower, overload heat sinks, early shut down randomly)

Active and passive radar ALONG with the infotech crap, would work great...then youre at least halfway to having something interesting to do as a "Scout mech".

I'll add 1 more to reduce pinpoint convergence.

Predefined point of convergence for each cluster of hardpoints - weapon will converge with reference to the red points as opposed to converging with reference to individual weapon hardpoints.

Exhibit A: Hunchback.



Excuse my "epic" drawing - limitation of resource (I'm out and only have a smartphone at my disposal).

Edited by Matthew Ace, 07 November 2015 - 08:16 PM.

[Kraftwerkedup]

FupDup, on 07 November 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

Stalkers actually have 4 out of 6 energy hardpoints in their arms, as do Cheetahs.

Aye, so losing about 30% of their firepower, losing those 2 LL. Cheetahs lose 10 damage from their PP, which is pretty critical to the ACH.

Or 14 from C-SPL not hitting PP anymore.

You get 36 out of a stalker to a pixel instead of 53.

Edited by Kraftwerkedup, 07 November 2015 - 08:16 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Ultimatum X, on 07 November 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

Again, why does implementing "IW" need to directly result in a Laser nerf?

Part of me feels that you like this more because it was nerfing lasers than it was about IW.


I'm not trying to strawman you here, I'm just going on my gut.


If players shift away from laser builds because of a nerf like that, how the hell was "IW" suddenly a success?

It isn't.




If they want information warfare to mean anything, they need to come up with something that isn't some kind of ball and chain on ONE existing weapon system.


And it's not like we haven't given them ideas, Active/Passive radar (probably put forward by multiple players but Roland's old thread was probably the most well thought out in recent history) is easily several orders magnitude better than "HOLD LOCKS FOR LASERS".



If they want IW to be a thing, it needs to be its own thing and not a knee jerk reaction to a meta-game state that they not only created but apparently don't even recognize how they created it.

Going to respond to you and @Deathlike both so I'm not burning 2 pages of interwebz for the same stuff.

I love my wub builds. That's part of why I like it - it nerfs lasers without totally nerfing lasers. The whole point was that lasers were 'nerfed' but only in certain conditions, so if I played smart and played to the mechanic I still got the exact same performance out of my WubShee (with minor changes - due to loss of skills I had to change 2 of my MPLs to MLs to add 2 DHS) I just had to work harder to get it. That is, fundamentally, the whole point.

My core objection is that stat changes don't really mean ****. It'll just change which lasers I put on and do the exact same thing with. Maybe I'll have to change chassis. A big enough stat change means I'm back to ballistics because the math says that universally X is superior overall. A stat change is the worst conceivable solution. Some stats need adjusted, yes - that is not going to balance the game though.

I'd prefer a convergence option - I always have. This was never tough to explain - never tough to understand though. If you locked lasers your optimal range was better. You still did damage at all the same range; without a lock I was still tickling people with MLs at 540m. The only difference was that sweet '5 spot' was at 270m with a lock and 162m without. So I was a tad more cautious on what shots I took and where I spent my heat and against fast lights and mediums it was harder to get full damage on them.

So I got a laser nerf (which the game, overall, needed) that wasn't a flat meta-adjusting laser nerf. It nerfed me against nimble opponents who played the IW game well and struck me when I wasn't ready while still letting me vomit 60+ pts on a single location on that Atlas who was brawling in the open with a teammate.

The other bit is all completely and totally missing the point of the PTS.

We asked for an iterative PTS and we got it. In no way, shape or form is the current PTS what would go live. It's not just about lasers; it's using lasers as a test for this sort of mechanic. Every single dev post has pointed this out - it's small, iterative changes with everything else stripped out to test concepts. That's what we asked for and are now apparently totally incapable of understanding.

So in that context it's a success; tying locks to weapon performance has a significant impact on gameplay, enough to make IW viable. If it's not range/damage tied then it's been a good proof of concept for the idea of locks tied to CoF/Convergence at range. So, just in case it's been missed....

This wasn't about lasers. It was about IW and tying locks to weapon performance because without that there is no IW or scouting. The entire point of IW is that it plays out in group vs group. If you have teammates who are locking you do better. If you have teamates inhibiting enemy team locks you do better. Enemy scouts are dangerous as they make you vulnerable to more firepower and need suppressed. Brawling is stronger overall but when you move in to brawl you're going to get locked which makes you more vulnerable to the enemy team.

@Wintersdark really hit it on the head. I could give a fly **** about a change on weapon stats now. I've seen and played in an environment where I've seen the concept of IW and it's so much more fun than the same murderball grind that I've little interest in going back. I don't care if the laser damage falloff thing never comes back. I'd rather have CoF/convergence anyway. I like the dorito changes though, again, lights need way faster locks than bigger mechs - again, a way to balance lights/mediums vs bigger mechs to a degree we've never had in the game before.

I watched Locusts and lights absolutely shine, I saw 1 well placed UAV absolutely change the direction of a match, I saw some awesome rope-a-dope tactics play out and all manner of better, more complex play. Both in PTS2 and PTS3. There is no IW without it affecting weapon performance directly. So if it's there, it's going to be a mechanic like that.

Gameplay needs to change. It can change and we can get something way more like what we were offered back in closed beta. That's not going to play like the one we have now. So.... yeah. It's going to be different. The big fear now is that PGI will just write off the concept and this game, as it is now, is all it'll ever be.

That holds no real interest for me.

[Kraftwerkedup]

Wubshee goes from a 63 PP alpha, to no PP alpha at all...

Considering thats what I primarily drive, I realize what that idea entails...

[Matthew Ace]

Kraftwerkedup, on 07 November 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

Wubshee goes from a 63 PP alpha, to no PP alpha at all...

Considering thats what I primarily drive, I realize what that idea entails...

Forgotten to quote?

[MischiefSC]

Kraftwerkedup, on 07 November 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

Wubshee goes from a 63 PP alpha, to no PP alpha at all...

Considering thats what I primarily drive, I realize what that idea entails...

There's another thread talking about this one. Convergence is the ideal goal - the problem is that according to PGI it makes hitreg issues. If we can't do convergence than maybe a CoF effect based on locks/range/movement/heat/how many weapons you're firing? It could also in theory replace ghost heat - you don't have ghost heat, you just have worse accuracy for firing too many weapons (of a particular size) at once. So 4 MLs or 2 LLs are pretty even but 2LLs *plus* 4MLs would cost you accuracy, just as 4 LLs would. So you don't need to ghost heat the 4 LLs (which just drives people to mix LLs and MLs) you just use a convergence/CoF system to reduce viable alphas.

Some good ideas there.

FupDup said:

Straw man and opinions stuff

Not gonna bite that one other than 'more exposure'.

Yes, more exposure is good. All the way around. For all the reasons that poptarting was bad. The point is to combine more exposure with less dps, so you get more exposure with higher TTK.

IW without a direct impact on weapon performance is pointless. Utterly. Active/passive sensors, don't care. Shoot the other guy. If my weapons perform the same with/without dorito then the dorito is convenience. Good for the team overall, sure, but it rarely affects the outcome of the match. You tie dorito to weapon performance and you give lights faster doritos than assaults you create a new balancing tool. IW becomes a direct threat. If it's not a direct threat then it's pretty meaningless.

[Kira Onime]

MischiefSC, on 07 November 2015 - 08:35 PM, said:

Yes, more exposure is good. All the way around.

Maybe...I guess.... can't say I agree.

But you're assuming people would just accept the increase exposure and "deal with it".

Thing is, the way they'd "deal with it" would be going towards weapons that don't require exposure to work and deal their damage.


Need 3-5 seconds to get a lock to even do damage? lolok. Might as well just use Gauss+PPC, pop that 30 pinpoint damage onto the enemy and not give a **** about the exposure since it doesn't affect that build.
Enjoy trying to get locks while that happens.

[FupDup]

MischiefSC, on 07 November 2015 - 08:35 PM, said:

Not gonna bite that one other than 'more exposure'.

Yes, more exposure is good. All the way around. For all the reasons that poptarting was bad. The point is to combine more exposure with less dps, so you get more exposure with higher TTK.

More exposure cancels out higher TTK because it means the red team has more opportunities to shoot you.

Current laser exposure shouldn't be compared to the old (or even current) poptart exposure because a well-timed poptart could fall down to safety almost faster than human reaction time.

Most lasers can't get anywhere near that level, besides the IS Small Pulse (which has very tiny range and fairly low damage). Some like the Clan ERLL even have really long exposure that is already an issue (1.5 seconds is a big deal, even without waiting for doritos at range...).

MischiefSC, on 07 November 2015 - 08:35 PM, said:

IW without a direct impact on weapon performance is pointless. Utterly. Active/passive sensors, don't care. Shoot the other guy. If my weapons perform the same with/without dorito then the dorito is convenience. Good for the team overall, sure, but it rarely affects the outcome of the match. You tie dorito to weapon performance and you give lights faster doritos than assaults you create a new balancing tool. IW becomes a direct threat. If it's not a direct threat then it's pretty meaningless.

On the other hand, making IW into weapon buffs mean you can't even call it a design pillar of its own anymore, because then it's just a facet of the dealing damage/killing pillar. It becomes Weapon Warfare instead of Information Warfare.

Did you glance at Homeless Bill's proposal that I linked, by the way?

Edited by FupDup, 07 November 2015 - 08:48 PM.

[Mystere]

Kira Onime, on 07 November 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

Maybe...I guess.... can't say I agree.

But you're assuming people would just accept the increase exposure and "deal with it".

Thing is, the way they'd "deal with it" would be going towards weapons that don't require exposure to work and deal their damage.


Need 3-5 seconds to get a lock to even do damage? lolok. Might as well just use Gauss+PPC, pop that 30 pinpoint damage onto the enemy and not give a **** about the exposure since it doesn't affect that build.
Enjoy trying to get locks while that happens.

Unless convergence also comes into the picture. Then you're also going to have to get into the convergence distance sweet spot (for fixed convergence) or expose yourself (for convergence requiring target lock).

[Kira Onime]

Mystere, on 07 November 2015 - 08:46 PM, said:

Unless convergence also comes into the picture. Then you're also going to have to get into the convergence distance sweet spot (for fixed convergence) or expose yourself (for convergence requiring target lock).

We'll have to see whatever happens with that.
Last I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, was something along the limes of "would add too much calculations to the server" or something around those lines.

[Mcgral18]

MischiefSC, on 07 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

My core objection is that stat changes don't really mean ****. It'll just change which lasers I put on and do the exact same thing with. Maybe I'll have to change chassis. A big enough stat change means I'm back to ballistics because the math says that universally X is superior overall. A stat change is the worst conceivable solution. Some stats need adjusted, yes - that is not going to balance the game though.

I can't help but feel, this is completely wrong.


You ABSOLUTELY balance things with their base stats, until things have their niche where they dominate, and where they fall short outside of it.

That's why PPCs are rubbish; PGI kept them with the same cooldown as Brawling weapons, but reduced their velocity, to where they can only be used as mid range Brawling weapons...but they have too much heat to brawl.
They should keep the high velocity, but lose the cooldown instead. Good at mid-long range, but poor up close.


Lasers could use a touch down in damage (mainly Clams), and a touch down in range (for most Clam lazors), along with some quirks being touched down. Easy to use, effective, and still likely the best overall choice (for acceptable long-mid-short range options), but significantly worse than SRMs up close, ACs for heat, and PPCs/Gauss for long range trading (but if you stay in the open, Lasers could still hurt, but the peek-ability with long-ish cooldowns of PPCs win that peeking game).


NOT adjusting .XML values with the current state of balance? That's...pants on head ridiculous.

Edited by Mcgral18, 07 November 2015 - 08:59 PM.

[Mystere]

Kira Onime, on 07 November 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

We'll have to see whatever happens with that.
Last I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, was something along the limes of "would add too much calculations to the server" or something around those lines.

As I said in another thread, parts of it is being done now. It is now happening when someone steps into your line of fire after you have pulled the trigger. So I don't see why having fixed convergence is more complicated.

[FupDup]

Mcgral18, on 07 November 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

I can't help but feel, this is completely wrong.


You ABSOLUTELY balance things with their base stats, until things have their niche where they dominate, and where they fall short outside of it.

That's why PPCs are rubbish; PGI kept them with the same cooldown as Brawling weapons, but reduced their velocity, to where they can only be used as mid range Brawling weapons...but they have too much heat to brawl.
They should keep the velocity, but lose the cooldown instead. Good at mid-long range, but poor up close.


Lasers could use a touch down in damage (mainly Clams), and a touch down in range (for most Clam lazors), along with some quirks being touched down. Easy to use, effective, and still likely the best overall choice (for acceptable long-mid-short range options), but significantly worse than SRMs up close, ACs for heat, and PPCs/Gauss for long range trading (but if you stay in the open, Lasers could still hurt, but the peek-ability with long-ish cooldowns of PPCs win that peeking game).


NOT adjusting .XML values with the current state of balance? That's...pants on head ridiculous.

Chief won't allow that though, because OMGPPCPPFLD. Nice things cannot be had on this day.

[Kira Onime]

Mystere, on 07 November 2015 - 08:59 PM, said:

As I said in another thread, parts of it is being done now. It is now happening when someone steps into your line of fire after you have pulled the trigger. So I don't see why having fixed convergence is more complicated.

Something only PGI, sadly, has the answers to as far as I'm aware.

[Nightshade24]

I am kinda sad... I was looking forward to this...Excluding the many many reasons I like it in play- i have to say laser interaction with BAP and TAG was the reason I was really happy about the lock on idea... it brings more purpose to these things and makes TAG/ BAP not a "SSRM" or "LRM" only thing because in canon TAG and BAP was good overall for any build.

It also shows promise to the targeting computer and command console with possible buffs to those to involve the new lock on system so command console is worth it and such.

sigh...