84 replies to this topic

[dario03]

I prefer that it stays gone. I prefer having the option of targeting a mech, making note of its damage, engaging it, and while engaging it be cycling through other enemies to pick my next target or break off and engage a more open target. This system punishes that kind of play if using lasers. Yes you should press R but its not always best to hold target and just ignore all the other enemies around you. If I see that the enemy dragon is orange CT and fresh every where else, I know thats where to hit, I don't need the doll to tell me anything more. I need to know what my next target should be after I kill him.

[cazidin]

I don't think most people realise this but if laser damage is tied to a lock then ECM will get an indirect buff. Also, this is the closest thing to laser convergence that PGI and their servers can handle. Careful what you wish for, eh? Personally, I think the best method for dealing with the laser meta would be to implement a proper heat scale. Sure, some mechs could get away with an alpha strike but never a second consecutive strike without penalties.

[Pjwned]

Jay Leon Hart, on 17 November 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Make it only affect ERLL / LL / maybe even LPL - fixed? Small / Meds don't change, ballistics & PPCs can be used to snipe with a degree of aim & skill.

Nice, just arbitrarily nerf a select few weapon systems by giving them arbitrary range reductions unless they have a target lock because...reasons.

Makes a lot of sense.

[xengk]

Sandpit, on 17 November 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

Pinpoint never has and never will be the issue. Instant convergence of multiple weapons from multiple firing points on the mech (shoulders, arms, hands, head, etc.) hitting the exact same spot instantaneously always has been and always will be the issue.

They've tried everything from nerfs to buffs to clucnky mechanical interfaces. It's never worked.

There's a reason for that.
(X) <--- reticle instantaneously aligns every weapon to the exact same pinpoint area every time regardless of weapon positioning, movement modifiers, etc.

The TT game simulated this by adding modifiers to the base "to hit" number based on any number of factors such as target movement speed, terrain, shooter movement speed, heat, etc. In MWO you have none of that. You have a simplistic generic shooter mechanic.

Each arm and shoulder should have its own reticle that moves at a certain rate to align to the targeting system. The head should have the smallest time lapse in swinging around, the shoulders the second fastest, and the arms/hands the third since the more articulation and range of movement you have, the more time it takes that weapon to swing into place.

Then add modifiers based on the weapons size. AC20 does not articulate (just like a tank turret doesn't swing around as fast as a man with a .50 cal on a swivel) as fast as an MG. Therefore there's a slight delay in that weapon's reticle swinging into exact location for pinpoint accuracy.

This doesn't mean you make it an extreme adjustment that allows for completely missed shots based purely on this mechanic but it does mean that you can completely do away with ghost heat and that if you fire instantaneously as you swing your heavy mech or assault mech around a corner at full speed with nothing but big bore weapons there's a slight delay and it might result in hitting an arm instead of a specific torso unless you give the targeting system a split second to catch up.

No, more than one reticle is not "too hard". Any player who runs any kind of missile system already has two separate reticles. You're simply talking about adding in 1-2 reticles to the base of it. One for each arm and side torso (that's 2 total) and one for head and CT (that's one) so that's a total of 3 reticles. That's not excessive and far more intuitive than trying to figure out a complicated and lazy mechanic like ghost heat.

Let me also state I'm not "against" ghost heat. It does what it was intended to do, I just feel there are better ways to achieve the same effect and this is one of them.

Why not something simpler?
Implement the crosshair sway in 3PV into 1PV.


The crosshair will sway and bop when your mech is moving, the faster you go the more it sway.
Only time the crosshair will be stable is when the mech is at a stand still, you get pin point accuracy but become an easy target.
Nascar light will need to slow down to plant precise shot or risk spraying damage all over the target.

Pin Point pilot skill can be reworked to reduce crosshair sway.
Command Console and Target Computers can also provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Improved Gyros can be rework to provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Certain mech variant can also be quirked to have crosshair stabilizing bonus.
All of the above will stack, if the player is willing to invest in the equipment and module.

A foreseen problem would be an immobile firing line vs deathball.
Mechs in firing line will have perfect convergence, while mechs in the deathball will be unable to land precise shot as they move. Something need to happen to break firing line's nerves to scatter them.

Edited by xengk, 17 November 2015 - 11:43 AM.

[FupDup]

xengk, on 17 November 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

Why not something simpler?
Implement the crosshair sway in 3PV into 1PV.


The crosshair will sway and bop when your mech is moving, the faster you go the more it sway.
Only time the crosshair will be stable is when the mech is at a stand still, you get pin point accuracy but also an easy target.
Nascar light will need to slow down to plant precise shot instead of spraying all over the target.

Pin Point pilot skill can be reworked to reduce crosshair sway.
Command Console and Target Computers can also provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Improved Gyros can be rework to provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Certain mech variant can also be quirked to have crosshair stabilizing bonus.
All of the above will stack, if the player is willing to invest in the equipment and module.

Sounds like it would encourage static camping so that the camping team would have the advantage against the team that decided to try to advance on them.

Also nerfs mobility-dependent mechs like lights and mediums (they sacrifice armor and firepower for that mobility), which don't really need nerfing. Meanwhile, mechs that are slow as balls in the first place (e.g. Dire Wolf) don't lose as much from it.

[xengk]

FupDup, on 17 November 2015 - 11:40 AM, said:

Sounds like it would encourage static camping so that the camping team would have the advantage against the team that decided to try to advance on them.

Also nerfs mobility-dependent mechs like lights and mediums (they sacrifice armor and firepower for that mobility), which don't really need nerfing. Meanwhile, mechs that are slow as balls in the first place (e.g. Dire Wolf) don't lose as much from it.

Yes, more lumbering death machines and less drive by shooting.
Let torso movement also incur some crosshair sway, they trade damage rolling for accuracy.
Flanking, LRM, artillery and air strike become more useful in the battlefield.

Skilled player can learn to "counter-sway" to minimize damage spread, sorta like how player can learn to control gun recoil on some FPS.

[Sandpit]

xengk, on 17 November 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

Why not something simpler?
Implement the crosshair sway in 3PV into 1PV.


The crosshair will sway and bop when your mech is moving, the faster you go the more it sway.
Only time the crosshair will be stable is when the mech is at a stand still, you get pin point accuracy but become an easy target.
Nascar light will need to slow down to plant precise shot or risk spraying damage all over the target.

Pin Point pilot skill can be reworked to reduce crosshair sway.
Command Console and Target Computers can also provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Improved Gyros can be rework to provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Certain mech variant can also be quirked to have crosshair stabilizing bonus.
All of the above will stack, if the player is willing to invest in the equipment and module.

A foreseen problem would be an immobile firing line vs deathball.
Mechs in firing line will have perfect convergence, while mechs in the deathball will be unable to land precise shot as they move. Something need to happen to break firing line's nerves to scatter them.

The only issue I have with that is that multiple weapons in multiple positions are still firing in the exact same location. It's the same exact issue except you've added a dynamic where the exact same thing happens except now it all hits the RT instead of CT.

My example:
1AC 10 LA
1 ML RA
1LL CT
The AC 10 has a modifier of .4 seconds. The ML has no modifier and the LL has a modifier of .2 seconds.
So I turn a corner and have to fire off my weapons quickly before the targeting computer and internal systems have a chance to converge everything. That means the AC10 might hit a smidge to the left hitting the RT, the ML hits the CT, and the LL hits the LT or CT.

See how that dispersal of damage completely and utterly removes the whole immediate pinpoint convergence issue? Have a big assault weapons platform? Great! Now you have to turn the corner at 60/kph and wait a split second before they all converge into one tiny pinpoint area. It's not going to "encourage" camping. The reason it won't encourage camping is because this isn't something that affects all weapons the same unilaterally. Each weapon has its own movement modifier with bigger weapons having a bigger modifier.
This automatically discourages and makes poptarting much more difficult.

Your Example:
Nothing changes really. Every weapon still has pinpoint convergence and does all of the damage to a single location. That right there is the culprit behind a lot of balancing issues. If you create a mechanic that creates a disparity in convergence based on weapon size you automatically create more diversity as well as doing away with mega alpha shots taking down a mech in a single volley as the norm and instead make it a much more skillful (and lucky) thing to do.

[STEF_]

ChronoBear, on 17 November 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

Thank you for the laugh. So someone can't peek over a hill for a second, alpha and run away as effective?

Let me get my tissues

u serious?
without lock, dmg nerfed.
With lock, double gauss in da face.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, ok ok..... now I see your tier.

my turn to laugh

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 17 November 2015 - 12:19 PM.

[MischiefSC]

The issue comes down to two approaches -

1. Introduce a new mechanic that is used to better balance weapons given that the fundamental differences of hitscan, ppfld, missile spread etc are not being balanced by quirks and can not be.

2. Wants to keep to existing game mechanics but find the secret sauce of quirks to balance all weapons and chassis without significantly changing existing mechanics or introducing any significant new ones.

There isn't a middle ground in that. Either you're going to address the core issues and make big changes that alter how the game is played or you try to keep the existing game and tweak it.

Edited by MischiefSC, 17 November 2015 - 12:14 PM.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 17 November 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

The issue comes down to two approaches -

1. Introduce a new mechanic that is used to better balance weapons given that the fundamental differences of hitscan, ppfld, missile spread etc are not being balanced by quirks and can not be.

2. Wants to keep to existing game mechanics but find the secret sauce of quirks to balance all weapons and chassis without significantly changing existing mechanics or introducing any significant new ones.

There isn't a middle ground in that. Either you're going to address the core issues and make big changes that alter how the game is played or you try to keep the existing game and tweak it.

Agreed and based on track records I'd be willing to bet gobs of money that we don't get a new system any time soon. PGI is bound and determined to "do it their way" it seems. Unfortunately that usually means some mind boggling choices, very slow balance changes, and stubborn companies thinking they "know better".

MWO STILL has so much potential and could be so much more. I don't see it changing any time soon though. The only thing we can really do is make suggestions and give feedback. If the game is enjoyable to us we play it. If not we find something else to occupy our time. It's F2P so there will ALWAYS be a population of players playing. It becomes a matter of minimally viable number of players to keep the game going.

[xengk]

Sandpit, on 17 November 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

The only issue I have with that is that multiple weapons in multiple positions are still firing in the exact same location. It's the same exact issue except you've added a dynamic where the exact same thing happens except now it all hits the RT instead of CT.

My example:
1AC 10 LA
1 ML RA
1LL CT
The AC 10 has a modifier of .4 seconds. The ML has no modifier and the LL has a modifier of .2 seconds.
So I turn a corner and have to fire off my weapons quickly before the targeting computer and internal systems have a chance to converge everything. That means the AC10 might hit a smidge to the left hitting the RT, the ML hits the CT, and the LL hits the LT or CT.

See how that dispersal of damage completely and utterly removes the whole immediate pinpoint convergence issue? Have a big assault weapons platform? Great! Now you have to turn the corner at 60/kph and wait a split second before they all converge into one tiny pinpoint area. It's not going to "encourage" camping. The reason it won't encourage camping is because this isn't something that affects all weapons the same unilaterally. Each weapon has its own movement modifier with bigger weapons having a bigger modifier.
This automatically discourages and makes poptarting much more difficult.

Your Example:
Nothing changes really. Every weapon still has pinpoint convergence and does all of the damage to a single location. That right there is the culprit behind a lot of balancing issues. If you create a mechanic that creates a disparity in convergence based on weapon size you automatically create more diversity as well as doing away with mega alpha shots taking down a mech in a single volley as the norm and instead make it a much more skillful (and lucky) thing to do.

The crosshair sway will more likey spreading the damage across CT and RT.

Having delayed converge will be a nerf toward heavy, assault and some medium like Hunchback 4G and YLWangs.
It become near impossible to land damage on a circling light with big weapons, as the it will track behind the crosshair to hit the dirt behind the light. Needing the player to counter circle or lead aim (now fast tracking weapon will hit the dirt infront the target) or SSRM to deal with lights.

However it is still possible to pin point alpha with delay converge, they just need to stare at the target half a second longer to pin the damage.

Edited by xengk, 17 November 2015 - 12:22 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think one reason it was put-down is that the Laser Lock penalty was a direct buff to ECM. ECM doesn't need buffs.

It was also a direct nerf to Light Mechs that have to run and gun, and don't always have time to cram "R" when they are zigzagging around.

Additionally, they were applying the nrlerf to short-range weapons like small and medium Lasers, when it ONLY should have been applied to long range Lasers such as Clan ERML, and LL-class weapons. The point of the Laser Lock penalty was to discourage long-range Alpha Sniping, and you can't do that with ISMLs.

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 17 November 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

Agreed and based on track records I'd be willinWe've got bet gobs of money that we don't get a new system any time soon. PGI is bound and determined to "do it their way" it seems. Unfortunately that usually means some mind boggling choices, very slow balance changes, and stubborn companies thinking they "know better".

MWO STILL has so much potential and could be so much more. I don't see it changing any time soon though. The only thing we can really do is make suggestions and give feedback. If the game is enjoyable to us we play it. If not we find something else to occupy our time. It's F2P so there will ALWAYS be a population of players playing. It becomes a matter of minimally viable number of players to keep the game going.
timestamp play enough

The problem is that when we do look at new mechanics a significant segment of the game fills their diaper. We have close to a 50% population of type 2 people from the list and that is a cheaper, easier solution for pgi.

So this game, as it is right now is it. This is the game mwo. The potential to be something more complex, better balanced and such... not going to see it. It wouldn't play enough like existing shooters.

Unfortunate. I was really jazzed about the unseen.

Edited by MischiefSC, 17 November 2015 - 12:33 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Prosperity Park, on 17 November 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

I think one reason it was put-down is that the Laser Lock penalty was a direct buff to ECM. ECM doesn't need buffs.

It was also a direct nerf to Light Mechs that have to run and gun, and don't always have time to cram "R" when they are zigzagging around.

Additionally, they were applying the nrlerf to short-range weapons like small and medium Lasers, when it ONLY should have been applied to long range Lasers such as Clan ERML, and LL-class weapons. The point of the Laser Lock penalty was to discourage long-range Alpha Sniping, and you can't do that with ISMLs.

The idea needed a lot of work still. I'd have preferred a cconvergence mechanic. Also needed to scale with weapon range, so a spl might see a 10% nerf and erlls 40%. Also quirks on light mechs could be used to reduce that nerf or, conversely, make locks almost instant.

The key is that the concept, tying locks to weapon performance, was a sea change in mwo balance mechanics and a huge step in the right direction to make a really significant IW and change how the game is played.

That, not the specifics of the alpha iteration of the idea just on lasers, is what got tossed. The whole thing. We're back to quirks (which were never a real balance solution) and maybe some speed loss on cxls.

Which is to say, nothing. A bit slower than what's currently on live but everything broken in performance on live is broken on pts4 with no idea of a solution on the table. However everyone is happy with a new coat of quirk paint - for a bit. So that's what we get.

Edited by MischiefSC, 17 November 2015 - 12:41 PM.

[Sandpit]

Quote

[color=#959595]The crosshair swar will more likey spreading the damage [/color]

Which is the entire point and a good thing

Quote

[color=#959595]Having delayed converge will be a nerf toward heavy, assault and some medium like Hunchback 4G and YLWangs.[/color]

uhm it's a nerf to EVERY mech.
It also gives more distinct differences between weapons. Lighter mechs and weapons are supposed to be quicker. It doesn't nerf any particular mech chassis. I'd happily go with this mechanic as a heavy and assault pilot. It's what gives a game like this diversity, strategy, and depth. It makes choices mean something.

It adds a deeper distinction between different weapons and builds. It doesn't prevent or nerf those mechs you were talking about from using the exact same loadout as now. The only thing it does is ensure that coming around a corner at 90/kph or poptarting over that ridge, or zig zagging across the map at top speed MIGHT cause a few more misses at long ranges as well as spreading damage more often.

It doesn't enact anything that prevents those weapons from firing in the exact same ROF as now nor does it affect their damage output nor does it include scheming up overly complicated heat solutions such as ghost heat.

PPD is not the problem. Instantaneous is and always has been the underlying problem with weapon balance in this game. Until that changes nothing else will.

How do I know?
I've watched it for over 4 years. Nothing has fixed it yet. Not a single solitary idea. Everything that has been done thus far has not fixed it. They just keep piling on more and more complicated mechanics that do nothing to solve the issue. It's been proven that their way doesn't work. Period.

[Mystere]

Sarlic, on 17 November 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

Is this thread for real?

I guess so.

But then again this thing is for real too:




Did PGI actually get the science right, if even just a bit? OMFG!

Sandpit, on 17 November 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

There is absolutely no reason I can possibly see to require lasers to have a lock. It makes zero sense to make the one and only direct fire ballistics counter a change like this.

Not if you recognize the above picture.

Edited by Mystere, 17 November 2015 - 12:59 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Gas Guzzler, on 17 November 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

All the people who say " You just have to press R" are either really clueless or are purposefully omitting important details.

To elaborate, the "Magic Jesus Field" which prevents locks entirely due to quartering your sensor range. PTS1-3 had a decent Jesus Box, which had a purpose but wasn't the all powerful Magic Jesus Box, because they set the 'targetingfactor' variable to 1, AKA it didn't quarter your sensor range, and you had 100% sensor range.

PTS4 did not implement that, and is at the current live 25% sensor range, with full Magic Jesus Field action, and they simply reduced the radius to 90M.



I can see a compromise where the Magic Jesus Box retains all current features (double duration locks, Magic Jesus Field, 90 (or even 180M) radius, but don't make it quarter the sensor range.
Half is a much more reasonable value.

Stock sensor range is 800M, which BAP and the sensor range module can both extend by 25%, to 1200M total.
Which means stock you can target an ECM mech at 200M, and 300M (theoretically, ECM might cancel BAP range, as I found out on PTS3) on the live game.

Laser lock and the current Magic Jesus Box would be far too lulzy, and Gauss would reign supreme, as it does.


Set the 'targetingfactor' to 0.5 (50%) and you can still target Jesus Box covered mechs at 400M by default, or 600M if you spend tonnage or a module slot.

Added bonus of making LRMs less absolute garbage, as they can be used past their Min range without paying additional taxes.



The Magic Jesus Field is what people forgot about when this was being tested, although the 3 second Dorito Delay wasn't, as it turns out, Dorito Delay but paper-doll delay. Dorito Delay was a quirk...a pretty damn significant hit on some mechs.

Edited by Mcgral18, 17 November 2015 - 01:05 PM.

[Ultimax]

Cementi, on 17 November 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

You should be locking regardless

Except for all of those times where you can't get a lock, due to ECM, heavily obscured targets, range or because you are not a terrible derp at this game and actually use things like reflexes and cover to keep yourself alive.


I feel like people saying "just press R" might actually not understand the concept of winning trades and why it's one of the most important things in the entire game.

Gas Guzzler, on 17 November 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

All the people who say " You just have to press R" are either really clueless or are purposefully omitting important details.

Can we classify them as purposefully clueless?

MechaBattler, on 17 November 2015 - 10:06 AM, said:

Lasers need to be nerfed.

This is the kind of simpleton-thought that has lead to PPCs largely being shelved, and the sad state of "hover jets".

[Jay Leon Hart]

Pjwned, on 17 November 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Nice, just arbitrarily nerf a select few weapon systems by giving them arbitrary range reductions unless they have a target lock because...reasons.

Makes a lot of sense.

Well, to be fair, it's as arbitrary as PPCs and IS LRMs having a minimum range. Lots of things in the game are arbitrary, that's not really an argument against something. Now that's not to say I care either way if this change happens (it isn't and never will) but if it did, we could at least focus on the "worst offenders"

[hybrid black]

Anarcho, on 17 November 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

Cons:
- Hear the lamentation of the meta widows...

So please, help me find more cons to this list

you still would be just as bad?

I don’t get why bad players think they will all of a sudden rise because of a meta change, the good players will still be better and **** you just as much

Edited by hybrid black, 17 November 2015 - 01:34 PM.