67 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

ghost damage wasnt necessarily a bad idea. it was just a bad idea for it to only affect lasers.

If ALL weapons did like 30% less damage without a target lock it would significantly improve TTK and make sensor locks actually meaningful

Because right now getting sensor locks basically doesnt matter at all.

Edited by Khobai, 04 February 2016 - 11:42 AM.

[Sandpit]

wanderer, on 04 February 2016 - 11:37 AM, said:

....or, you know you could make sure all weapons had the same "no lock, damage spreads".

Excalibur delivers the same energy (damage) regardless, but unless it's got lock, it can't converge all that damage to the smallest and hence least protected spot to maximize the effect of that burn.

The Test laser system simply removed damage from hitting anywhere on the 'Mech, rather than allowing for no-lock weapons to deal damage in the same amounts across the target. That's the problem.

locks aren't needed. it's just another complicated mechanic for players to master. It's another headache for new players to deal with.

It was tested. It wasn't a "few crybabies" that got it undone, it was a live test that showed it was a bad idea.

Imagine how much better MWO would be overall if PGI actually I dunno, tested their ideas on a live server before implementing them?

I know the excuse used to be "We can't afford a test server like that"

Wonder what the excuse is now?

[Ratpoison]

Sandpit, on 04 February 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

There have been no less than a dozen other suggestions made on these very forums.

It's already coded into the game actually. You have a separate target reticle for arms and torsos. They've already implemented the mechanic needed to solve the issue. They just choose to ignore it and not work on it.

O O That's two reticles right? So you're going to tell me that a multi-million dollar game dev company that coded that mechanic right there in the first place can't add in a movement modifier to those reticles that move based on weapon size?

or

X that's an exampl of convergence. Two weapons fire at same location, if it hits at the correct "optimal" distance, the weapons converge at the center of the "X". If it hits under or beyond that convergence range for that particular weapon (again based on optimal range), then it doesn't hit the exact center of the "X", it either hits ^ the bottom legs being off-cetner slightly or beyond the optimal range it resorts to the top portion of the "X" and again moves past the perfect convergence point and hits slightly off-center.

That's two examples I tossed out in under 5 minutes of how to solve the instant convergence problem that requires no extra coding, doesn't screw with hit reg, and most importantly doesn't involve complex mechanics for the character like ghost heat and such. SO yes, PGI has been given PLENTY of examples over the years. They choose not to even discuss them, they're ignored and dismissed.

Good job, both of your ideas enable just the fatal flaws I was talking about. Skillcap? Trashed. Meta? Shoulder mounted large weapons are the only thing that makes sense. Performance? If you're lucky, it might not take a drastic hit. And oh boy will the new players be confused as hell... Thanks for the examples.

Not even PGI's "multi-millions"(lol) can make those problems just go away.

Edited by tortuousGoddess, 04 February 2016 - 11:50 AM.

[Mystere]

Sandpit, on 04 February 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

locks aren't needed. it's just another complicated mechanic for players to master. It's another headache for new players to deal with.

The still non-existent Information Warfare would be more meaningful if, among other things, locks directly affected the damage dealt and/or damage spread. Which is why I myself prefer "convergence on lock" vs. the alternative "maximum damage on lock" (aka. the inappropriately named "Ghost Damage") or "cone of fire" mechanics. The base mechanics are already there. Hopefully though, PGI's code base does not look like a pot of spaghetti.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

The still non-existent Information Warfare would be more meaningful if, among other things, locks directly affected the damage dealt and/or damage spread. Which is why I myself prefer "convergence on lock" vs. the alternative "maximum damage on lock" (aka. the inappropriately named "Ghost Damage") or "cone of fire" mechanics. The base mechanics are already there. Hopefully though, PGI's code base does not look like a pot of spaghetti.

Those two things are exactly the same in effect; arbitrarily mitigating your ability to deal damage based on your ability to acquire lock.

[Whiskiz]

http://mwomercs.com/...harts-for-pts2/

For those wanting source, though im not sure if thats how it works still or if the numbers are the same, because testing.

[Sandpit]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Good job, both of your ideas enable just the fatal flaws I was talking about. Skillcap? Trashed. Meta? Shoulder mounted large weapons are the only thing that makes sense. Performance? If you're lucky, it might not take a drastic hit. And oh boy will the new players be confused as hell... Thanks for the examples.

Not even PGI's "multi-millions"(lol) can make those problems just go away.

riiiight
care to explain how?

Your response equates to "Nuh uh cuz I said so"

Care to show exactly how those two brief and simplified examples don't solve the issue of convergence?

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

Those two things are exactly the same in effect; arbitrarily mitigating your ability to deal damage based on your ability to acquire lock.

With the "convergence on lock" mechanic, you can still potentially deal full damage (i.e. all weapons damage) without a lock depending on weapon grouping/location, just not on the same spot on the target. On the other hand the "maximum damage on lock" mechanic is guaranteed to deliver only partial damage in the absence of a lock. So no, they are not exactly the same.

Note too that the "convergence on lock" mechanic is not mutually exclusive from a "fixed convergence" mechanic. The latter can be the default in the absence of a lock. So if your target is within the latter's sweet spot, you still do full damage on the same target location.

Edited by Mystere, 04 February 2016 - 12:03 PM.

[wanderer]

Never mind that even the bloody tutorial tells you to "lock your targets". The reality is that locks have no meaning because PGI just plain didn't bother to have any, unless of course you had LRM/SSRMs. It has no effect on targeting whatsoever. Zero.

And of course, weapons that DO need sensor locks don't converge to begin with. And the PokeMeta doesn't encourage sensor locks because you get maximum damage from putting the crosshair on the target, pushing the fire button, and ducking as fast as possible to avoid return fire making you into a center-punched salvage ornament, often faster than you'd get a lock to begin with.

Woo.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

With the "convergence on lock" mechanic, you can still potentially deal full damage (i.e. all weapons damage) without a lock depending on weapon grouping/location, just not on the same spot on the target. On the other hand the "maximum damage on lock" mechanic is guaranteed to deliver only partial damage in the absence of a lock. So no, they are not exactly the same.

Note too that the "convergence on lock" mechanic is not mutually exclusive from a "fixed convergence" mechanic. The latter can be the default in the absence of a lock. So if your target is within the latter's sweet spot, you still do full damage on the same target location.

Exactly why the response of the meta will be shoulder mounted large weapons; nothing else makes sense when you can't aim it all where you want, because accurate location damage(aka being able to aim your weapons) is a core part of winning the game. What point is taking the range penalty of smaller weapons when you have to deal with them spreading damage all over too? If that happened, I'd be taking anything that can stack ACs, PPCs, or Large Lasers in the shoulder, because that's going to be the best way to keep my damage all in one spot, and PPFLD will be the name of the game with ER and Std medium lasers reduced to trash. The balance is ruined because you trashed all the other options. All of the non-convergence ideas mentioned in this topic result in exactly this.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

Exactly why the response of the meta will be shoulder mounted large weapons; nothing else makes sense when you can't aim it all where you want, because accurate location damage(aka being able to aim your weapons) is a core part of winning the game. What point is taking the range penalty of smaller weapons when you have to deal with them spreading damage all over too? If that happened, I'd be taking anything that can stack ACs, PPCs, or Large Lasers in the shoulder, because that's going to be the best way to keep my damage all in one spot, and PPFLD will be the name of the game with ER and Std medium lasers reduced to trash. The balance is ruined because you trashed all the other options. All of the non-convergence ideas mentioned in this topic result in exactly this.

LOL! Who said you will not be able to aim where you want? You're actually going to have to aim more if you want each shot of each weapon to count. What you will no longer be able to do is constantly play AlphaWarriorOnline like there is no tomorrow and still expect all weapons to hit at exactly the same spot ... and that is a very good thing, especially for TTK.

Also, shoulder mounted weapons are already prioritized above all else, followed by high torso mounted ones. So how much different will things be?

Edited by Mystere, 04 February 2016 - 12:28 PM.

[wanderer]

Quote

the meta will be shoulder mounted large weapons

Even the meta shifting to "single location only" that would reduce maximum damage and increase fragility of that delivery mount- the "Hunchback effect" of having to put all your guns in one spot. If you've only got 12 (10, or 9 if it's CXL/ISXL) crit spaces to make your perfect shots out of, you've just cut perfecty focused damage down considerably and concentrated your entire brick of firepower into a single hit location.

Still better than what we have now by a long shot, which is being able to put every hardpoint into perfect-convergence strikes.

Quote

ER and Std medium lasers reduced to trash

Mechs like the 2xERLL Raven-3L would literally be unchanged, and that's a staple build. And speaking of Hunchbacks, the -P would like to say hello with it's 6xML/MPL shoulder.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

LOL! Who said you will not be able to aim where you want? You're actually going to have to aim more if you want each shot of each weapon to count. What you will no longer be able to do is constantly play AlphaWarriorOnline like there is no tomorrow and still expect all weapons to hit at exactly the same spot ... and that is a very good thing, especially for TTK.

Also, shoulder mounted weapons are already prioritized above all else, followed by high torso mounted ones. So how much different will things be?

Think harder about how the meta will respond to that. MechWarrior has always been a game of maximizing your damage output efficiency, while minimizing your facetime so you can perform defensive maneuvers. Do you REALLY think any competitive player is going to accept the enormous increase to facetime on top of the limited range that smaller arms already have? There's no point to them, as they can't keep up in damage, and they make you more vulnerable than the old shoot and twist ever will. PPFLD and large lasers stacked directly on each other are the only things that work in that environment. By proxy, the skill requirement of the game is also trashed, since the go to meta will be nothing but a very limited selection of large weapons and mechs playing in the same styles.

[WarHippy]

Whiskiz, on 04 February 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...harts-for-pts2/

For those wanting source, though im not sure if thats how it works still or if the numbers are the same, because testing.

That entire concept was scrapped months ago. It isn't happening.

Why are we all discussing this ridiculous mechanic again?

[Ratpoison]

wanderer, on 04 February 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

Mechs like the 2xERLL Raven-3L would literally be unchanged, and that's a staple build. And speaking of Hunchbacks, the -P would like to say hello with it's 6xML/MPL shoulder.

Thank you for emphasizing another part of the problem, which is that the usability of most weapon systems will be entirely dependent upon special case mechs like those you mentioned. All the other mechs? Well...

By the way, the dual ERLL RVN uses shoulder height large weapons, so it fits my parameters perfectly and shows the problem.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

Think harder about how the meta will respond to that. MechWarrior has always been a game of maximizing your damage output efficiency, while minimizing your facetime so you can perform defensive maneuvers. Do you REALLY think any competitive player is going to accept the enormous increase to facetime on top of the limited range that smaller arms already have? There's no point to them, as they can't keep up in damage, and they make you more vulnerable than the old shoot and twist ever will. PPFLD and large lasers stacked directly on each other are the only things that work in that environment. By proxy, the skill requirement of the game is also trashed, since the go to meta will be nothing but a very limited selection of large weapons and mechs playing in the same styles.

Competitive players will always do what they gotta do. And the same goes for the metawhores.

But at the same time, that single shoulder is going to look like a really juicy target. Put all your eggs in that basket and you risk losing all of them.

And finally, yes, the Hunchback HBK-4P says hello.

[Lugh]

wanderer, on 04 February 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

Even the meta shifting to "single location only" that would reduce maximum damage and increase fragility of that delivery mount- the "Hunchback effect" of having to put all your guns in one spot. If you've only got 12 (10, or 9 if it's CXL/ISXL) crit spaces to make your perfect shots out of, you've just cut perfecty focused damage down considerably and concentrated your entire brick of firepower into a single hit location.

Still better than what we have now by a long shot, which is being able to put every hardpoint into perfect-convergence strikes.




Mechs like the 2xERLL Raven-3L would literally be unchanged, and that's a staple build. And speaking of Hunchbacks, the -P would like to say hello with it's 6xML/MPL shoulder.

A staple of weaksauce. Most of those guys are useless.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Competitive players will always do what they gotta do. And the same goes for the metawhores.

But at the same time, that single shoulder is going to look like a really juicy target. Put all your eggs in that basket and you risk losing all of them.

And finally, yes, the Hunchback HBK-4P says hello.

Ah good, that one mech is still good, out of...how many exactly?

Not a solid win rate there it seems.

And it doesn't matter if my shoulder is a juicy target when I'm peeking from cover and YOUR SHOTS CAN'T CONVERGE ON IT. You'd have to take the same type of build to stand a chance.

Understand the problem yet?

[wanderer]

Quote

so it fits my parameters perfectly and shows the problem.

Twin ERLLs in one arm barely do more damage than a single Gauss rifle- and have precisely the same issues with convergence.

Compare that to, say a Firestarter being able to deliver it's entire ML/SPL load with pinpoint accuracy- only without perfect convergence, it won't. Even pushing meta towards single location batteries means the maximum damage of those shots to one location plummets, especially at longer ranges. 18 damage to one spot from a pair of ERLLs isn't even breaking the amount a single AC/20 puts into the same location in a single shot.

We can easily drop 50+ damage on one spot with laservomit now at range. And the Gauss charge limiter mechanic was put in because the game was breaking with dealing with more than sixty. And right now, we can not only maximize alphas, but distribute their vulnerability to being damaged as that alpha can have it's weapons spread across the entire 'Mech without penalty.

[wanderer]

Quote

Understand the problem yet?

That you'd actually not be able to blow off an entire armor location in one good hit?

Why yes, I hope that's a "problem". In fact, being able to burn a 55 tonner's CT armor off in one shot should have been a "problem" months ago.

Because that is the problem.

Edited by wanderer, 04 February 2016 - 01:00 PM.