1094 replies to this topic

[H I A S]

Punish movement and reward camping? Best trollthread ever.

Edited by arivio, 10 February 2016 - 02:13 PM.

[Mead]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Its a forum in which your goal with the OP would be to share your message and persuade others to your cause. However, you've instead resorted to calling anyone who brings up valid arguments delusional and have failed to give any solid responses.

Even now you are simply telling anyone who doesn't agree to leave.

There's been a whole lot of childishness and disrespect poptarting on both sides of this hill, and there's no more high ground left to take. Let's not waste time pretending one side or the other has remained morally superior in that regard...

[TexAce]

ChaiXuan, on 10 February 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

so why not just cut the heat threshhold in half? that would equal longer TTK, no?

Has also been discussed ad nauseum. Search for it here in the forum. (I'm personally not against it but this is another topic).

Its not only about TTK, its also about bringing it more towards battletech. Other heat effects were blurry vision, slower running speed, HUD flicker, longer target locking time and many other stuff.

Edited by TexAce, 10 February 2016 - 02:14 PM.

[ChaiXuan]

arivio, on 10 February 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Punish movement and reward camping? Best trollthread ever.

not just movement from what i have seen.....pushing the limits of our heat thresh holds as well......

[Livewyr]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

I'm latching onto the concept that even if I am perfectly at an enemy there is still a 1% chance give or take that that shot will miss at no fault of my own and without my opponent being the one who caused it by dodging in any way.

You know happens, right? That actually happens.

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

I'm not looking at it in extremes at all, just that even in its smallest possible outcome I would hate the idea of that randomization being there and undermining aiming in general.

That's an extreme. (Any randomization at all... hate... that's extreme.)

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

Probability is randomness, its weighted randomness, but still random in essence.

Well, yes. And?

It's weighted in your favor.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

Its not only about TTK, its also about bringing it more towards battletech. Other heat effects were blurry vision, slower running speed, HUD flicker, longer target locking time and many other stuff.

Ah, so more like battletech but less like every other PC battletech game to date. All those examples you stated were in the other games, cones of fire were not.

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

You know happens, right? That actually happens.

Not to degrees that would matter with the size of targets we are talking about if you would like to bring realism into this. However a game about giant mechs is never a great spot to bring in things "That actually happen"

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

That's an extreme. (Any randomization at all... hate... that's extreme.)

I'm not looking at extremes, but I could be considered extreme in how far against this idea I am, I'm simply representing my own opinions and those of all of my friends who play, so I feel I should make my dislike quite clear for my sake and theirs.

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Well, yes. And?

It's weighted in your favor.

Its far less "weighted in my favor" than being able to 100% know where you are going to hit when you pull the trigger. As for how weighted it is for or against me no one has actually given the exact specifics, but I've seen that in many cases there will be chances to entirely miss a mech at higher ranges, which means if I were aiming for a certain component even more of a miss zone.

Edited by Dakota1000, 10 February 2016 - 02:22 PM.

[ChaiXuan]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

Has also been discussed ad nauseum. Search for it here in the forum. (I'm personally not against it but this is another topic).

Its not only about TTK, its also about bringing it more towards battletech. Other heat effects were blurry vision, slower running speed, HUD flicker, longer target locking time and many other stuff.

blurry visions and HUD flicker would be awsome at high heat levels!

[TexAce]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Ah, so more like battletech but less like every other PC battletech game to date. All those examples you stated were in the other games, cones of fire were not.

You know there is no group pinpointing at all in Battletech and every shot is decided by a friggin dice?! You cant just core out a CT with your 50pt alpha and call it a day.

Edited by TexAce, 10 February 2016 - 02:19 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

You know there is no group pinpointing at all in Battletech and every shot is decided by a friggin dice?! You cant just core out a CT with your 50pt alpha and call it a day.

Yes, I know all about the TT, but this isn't TT. This is a PC adaptation. You know there is pinpointing in the other PC battletech games and every shot is decided by exactly where you aim?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

50pt alpha and call it a day.

Except a 50 pt alpha is only 25 pts of damage in TT.

Those 30 point alphas everyone feared so much way back when were equivalent to a single Gauss round in TT. Yes, teams are able to do that at extreme distances with decent accuracy, but honestly, with brawling as powerful as it currently is, I don't feel like that is really necessary, the only thing that probably should be done is dial back the alphas on both sides, and dial back some of the structure quirks on things, but honestly I'd rather see them balance engines before doing all of that just to get that on the same page.

[TexAce]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

Except a 50 pt alpha is only 25 pts of damage in TT.

Those 30 point alphas everyone feared so much way back when were equivalent to a single Gauss round in TT. Yes, teams are able to do that at extreme distances with decent accuracy, but honestly, with brawling as powerful as it currently is, I don't feel like that is really necessary, the only thing that probably should be done is dial back the alphas on both sides, and dial back some of the structure quirks on things, but honestly I'd rather see them balance engines before doing all of that just to get that on the same page.

I get that everyone has their idea how this game has to be balanced.

Lower heat cap
Quirks
Convergence
A real skill tree.
Hardpoint sizes
Ghost Heat
Change alpha striking
Double Structure
Space magic dust
....
And everyone thinks their idea is the best ever created.

Well the proposal in this thread happens to be CoF. I would love to have real convergence or at least the one from CB back. But we can't. Thats what I wrote in my first sentence in the OP. So I made up a easier to code alternative which would basically have the sam effect from the TTK perspective. You can either agree with it, use any of the 100 arguments (pro or contra ) mentioned here for your your own argumentation or make up new ones.

The concept in the OP is clear enough to understand what the outcome would be, what the benefits would be and what the downsides would be.

Edited by TexAce, 10 February 2016 - 02:36 PM.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

Except a 50 pt alpha is only 25 pts of damage in TT.

Those 30 point alphas everyone feared so much way back when were equivalent to a single Gauss round in TT. Yes, teams are able to do that at extreme distances with decent accuracy, but honestly, with brawling as powerful as it currently is, I don't feel like that is really necessary, the only thing that probably should be done is dial back the alphas on both sides, and dial back some of the structure quirks on things, but honestly I'd rather see them balance engines before doing all of that just to get that on the same page.

A 50 point alpha here, is more like a 100 point alpha in TT... we have double the armour and structure in MWO...


Stock Nova Prime has a fire power status of 84 @ 72 heat here (12 ERML), in TT it has 84 Fire power @ 60 heat (12 ERML), thing is in TT, that thing alpha's it has a good chance at murdering another mech, and being shut down for a couple of turns, wheil it bleeds off that heat....

[pyrocomp]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

Yes, I know all about the TT, but this isn't TT. This is a PC adaptation. You know there is pinpointing in the other PC battletech games and every shot is decided by exactly where you aim?

This is a first PC adapatation aimed at PvP not at PvE. Just to point that bots do not whine or disagree on disbalance or lack of 'fair' initial state. So no CoF needed, a player of any skill level should be able to beat the game. So in-built eazy mode. It's just how the games a made and solved. And (read above) in every game pinpoint and boating were a problem. Should PGI make the same fundamental mistakes or try another options? Might still be not very good, but to repeat previous mistakes is a really bad choise.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 10 February 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

A 50 point alpha here, is more like a 100 point alpha in TT... we have double the armour and structure in MWO...

You calculated the wrong way.

An AC40 to the leg of a Nova in this game leaves it with 8 armor left if it is maxed or 1/6th of its max armor left.
An AC20 to the leg of a Nova in TT leaves it with 4 armor left if it is maxed which is 1/6th of its max armor left.

Double the armor/structure means it takes double the damage to put as much of a dent in it.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2016 - 02:37 PM.

[Gloris]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

You know there is no group pinpointing at all in Battletech and every shot is decided by a friggin dice?! You cant just core out a CT with your 50pt alpha and call it a day.

Phewwwww
For a second there i thought we were playing a First person shooter video game, and not a Tabletop game. Thanks for snapping me out of that illusion

Now all PGI has to do is remove First/3rd person and give us Isometric view and then MWO is finally a good game.

[Hotthedd]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

Probability is randomness, its weighted randomness, but still random in essence.

I get the reason the people against this idea keep using the word "random". "Random" causes a knee-jerk reaction equivalent to suggesting impaling puppies, and helps to sway opinion. That is why terms such as probability are construed as "random", even if they are not.

[Livewyr]

Tex, consideration/suggestion for the movement penalty concept. Speed / Throttle * (Throttle/10) = Penalty coefficient.

This would allow a progressive penalty based somewhat on realism (as a concept.)

If we had the penalty purely attached to speed, that would punish light mechs excessively compared to assaults no matter what they did.
If we had the penalty attached to throttle percentage, that was excessively punish heavy mechs. (More penalty for the same speed...)

So if we had say, a normalization, that would balance the penalties, I think.

Example: If a light mech is moving at full throttle (100%) and is going 150 kph (which is essentially worst case scenario for movement accuracy penalty) his coefficient would be (150/100) * 1 = 1.5. (Worst case.)
If said light mech was moving 50kph at 33%; it would be (50/33) * 0.33 = 0.5

For an assault mech:
Doing 75kph at 100% throttle would end up 0.75 coefficient
Assault doing 40kph at 70% throttle = 0.4 coefficient.
Assault doing 30kph at 50% throttle = 0.3

Medium mech at leisure pace:
40kph at 35% = 0.4

Barely moving 16kph at 7% = .01

TBR moving 81kph at 100% throttle: 0.81


TL;DR
Things that move easier (more engine rating per ton) suffer smaller penalties for the same speed as something heavier with a larger engine. (Ease of movement.)
However, simultaneously, things that need higher throttle to achieve greater movement are not punished as severely.

(Admittedly, this idea is only half-formed, but I'm hoping it's a base for an improvement.)

[Mystere]

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

What I think is happening:
They are latching onto an extreme definition of "Cone of Fire" as an area where every part of the cone has an equal chance of being hit. That concept scares them. Rightfully so, I wouldn't want that either.

However, the problem comes when they refuse to acknowledge that the above is not the case. They get stuck in the first thought and reaction. "I move, I miss."

They can't make it to the concept that the cone of fire creates a possibility (not to be confused with a probability) that a shot will miss the intended precise target- let alone that these possibilities are decreased or increased by the player.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If they cannot get beyond that knee-jerk reaction... there is no point in discussing with them; and we should just work on refining the concepts down.

LIke is the bloom for heat linear, or progressive/exponential? (Same for movement)

Or in picture form:



vs.

[Livewyr]

Mystere, on 10 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

Or in picture form:



vs.

Hehe, some pictures are just hard to read.. for some.

[pyrocomp]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

I get that everyone has their idea how this game has to be balanced.

The game follows the lines of previous MW titles that were essentially PvE. Bots do not whine on disagree on 'unfair' conditions. This is PvP where balance is an issue.

But over lots of debates here I get the impression that at current level of core mechanics complexity (or rather simplicity) it is futile. Mech and weapon numerical models should be much more complex. Just what were the decisions to use a single heat scale (other than 'we had it in TT, where you can track only few numbers as it is a platform limit') but not the model of heat exchange between components? Why only 7 components? Why every mech has same paper doll? Why JM6 has the same armor values for the arms as CTF (in TT both mech had equal arms sized in terms of probability chances on those dices, but now the arms are of a different size)? Many decisions were already made. They severely limit balancing options and balance tolerance. We at present might not have the balanced game, but it might be is as balanced as possible in current mech/weapon models. To get better balance more complex models are needed. CoF is just one of the many options to add complexity to the mech/weapon models. It might take a whole lot more 'additions' to get to a slightly better balance.