162 replies to this topic

[Ratpoison]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

More hitboxes is simple in design. It is far simpler than a combination of...

ghost heat
ppc damage spread
target laser range delay
multiple shells per autocannon
quirks per each mech
multiple balance passes every time the meta shifts

Instead... you get one solution for them all.

Simplicity. KISS

Keep It Stupid Simple. Done.

Implying that your idea solves the need for all those things and does it "simply"...

You can't be for real.

[Mister Blastman]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 08:22 PM, said:

Read my post above yours as to why your system is far from simple. Just because you can explain it in a single sentence doesn't make it simple

Fixing something one time--and all the work involved, is far better than trying to fix it over and over again with more and more convoluted systems while the community moans.

TTK goes up. Skill goes up. Pinpoint is still useful but it is harder to apply that pinpoint--thus TTK goes up.

Problem solved. Done.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

Fixing something one time--and all the work involved, is far better than trying to fix it over and over again with more and more convoluted systems while the community moans.

TTK goes up. Skill goes up. Pinpoint is still useful but it is harder to apply that pinpoint--thus TTK goes up.

Problem solved. Done.

"Simple"

[Ratpoison]

I need to just start filtering out all posts and topics that insist their solution is "simple"...

[Mister Blastman]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 08:25 PM, said:

"Simple"

I think I understand the elegance of nuking a problem from orbit one time and being done with all the issues.

tortuousGoddess, on 08 February 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

Implying that your idea solves the need for all those things and does it "simply"...

You can't be for real.

I am for real. I'm here. And here's the answer.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

I think I understand the elegance of nuking a problem from orbit one time and being done with all the issues.



I am for real. I'm here. And here's the answer.

May I ask what you're occupation is? See, I'm a developer and I actually have to write the code for every "simple" idea a client has. What clients think is simple and what is actually simple are two very different things. I can tell you write now that your suggestion is both time consuming and decided not simple to add. There is no magic "subdivide hitboxes" button you can press to make things better.

As from before, here is a listed of why "just adding a bunch more hitboxes" isn't "simple". This list isn't even comprehensive in that I totally forgot about the fact that someone has to go in and type all the new hit box armour values into an XML sheet.

Quote

1. UI would require a massive overhaul to represent the extra 6 hit boxes
2. Servers would now have to synchronise the data on 12 extra armor values per mech
3. Servers would now have to simulate an extra 6 hit boxes locations at least per mech
4. Every single mech would require new hitboxes, and then have those hitboxes balanced and tested.
5. Every single mech would require new art to represent the destroyed / in tact states of each place
6. The code for damage transfer would have to be completely overhauled
7. This code for CERPPC spread would have to be completely overhauled
8. PPFLD will still be the best way to take down mechs, as any other method will have it's damage spread across all the different hitboxes and thus be worthless. The winning move will be to drill the same armor component over and over with pin point damage.

[Mystere]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

More hit boxes = Less armour between each hitbox = Easier to drill through with a pinpoint alpha strike.

Actually, this line is proof that you did not read or failed to comprehend what he said.

[Ratpoison]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

I think I understand the elegance of nuking a problem from orbit one time and being done with all the issues.



I am for real. I'm here. And here's the answer.

Oh, so you're just crazy enough to think that you can do something that no balance patch has accomplished ever. Got it.

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 08:40 PM, said:

Actually, this line is proof that you did not read or failed to comprehend what he said.

Ironic that you didn't read the follow up to that.

Edited by tortuousGoddess, 08 February 2016 - 08:41 PM.

[Mystere]

ShadowFire, on 08 February 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

BS TT random numbers/dice rolling rules should not apply in the virtual game world.

Sigh! No one is invoking random anything on the convergence change suggestions. So either you are not reading or you are failing to comprehend the ideas being presented.

[Mister Blastman]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

May I ask what you're occupation is? See, I'm a developer and I actually have to write the code for every "simple" idea a client has. What clients think is simple and what is actually simple are two very different things. I can tell you write now that your suggestion is both time consuming and decided not simple to add. There is no magic "subdivide hitboxes" button you can press to make things better.

As from before, here is a listed of why "just adding a bunch more hitboxes" isn't "simple". This list isn't even comprehensive in that I totally forgot about the fact that someone has to go in and type all the new hit box armour values into an XML sheet.

I understand that hard work is required for quality results. And sometimes, huge amounts of sacrifice in terms of time and effort are needed if you want to accomplish something great.

I'm a money manager and a science fiction novelist.

[Troutmonkey]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 08:40 PM, said:

Actually, this line is proof that you did not read or failed to comprehend what he said.

Yep, I didn't read the last part and I corrected myself, adjusting my argument to address the still outstanding issues of the idea.

Quote

Okay I've read it again. This may have been easier if you just quoted the part that I had wrong instead of just yelling at me. I guess I was right about the communication issues. Anyway I admit was wrong. It won't make mechs weaker. It will make mechs insanely tough. TTK will go through the roof. Mechs would be able to take insane amounts of punishment. Expecially light mechs who's hit boxes will be so small that it would be impossible not to spread.
Now, guess what, still bad idea.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

I understand that hard work is required for quality results. And sometimes, huge amounts of sacrifice in terms of time and effort are needed if you want to accomplish something great.

I'm a money manager and a science fiction novelist.

I can tell you right now that
1. Your idea isn't simple and will take a lot of effort to add.
2. Your idea is incompatible with the limited server resources available
3. Your idea won't achieve the results that you think it will.

An even simpler version of your idea would be to just "increase the armour of all mechs by 3 times"
Now, that's actually a simple idea that will have pretty much the same effect with nearly zero effort BUT just like your idea it still doesn't solve the issue and create's more. Like how triple armour on an Assault Mech is far more extra armour than triple armour on a Light Mech.

[Mystere]

ShadowFire, on 08 February 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

On the other hand many new players get started with lights and mediums. PGI (and us) should want them to stick around to become regular players of the game. Not get slaughtered by the more experienced and well equipped players.

It could be reasonably argued that they are getting slaughtered right now and that a reduction in TTK will actually help them.

[Mister Blastman]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

I can tell you right now that
1. Your idea isn't simple and will take a lot of effort to add.
2. Your idea is incompatible with the limited server resources available
3. Your idea won't achieve the results that you think it will.

An even simpler version of your idea would be to just "increase the armour of all mechs by 3 times"
Now, that's actually a simple idea that will have pretty much the same effect with nearly zero effort BUT just like your idea it still doesn't solve the issue and create's more. Like how triple armour on an Assault Mech is far more extra armour than triple armour on a Light Mech.

The difference is tripling armor doesn't reward skill.

My solution does.

All changes should be made in such a way that they both reward skill and enhance the game.

I'm positive it will accomplish the results I'm looking for.

[Mystere]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 08:22 PM, said:

Read my post above yours as to why your system is far from simple. Just because you can explain it in a single sentence doesn't make it simple. Ghost Heat was chosen because it was the simplest solution technically, and it partially addressed the problem. It "kinda" works, but is still far and away not as effective as Homeless Bill's "CoF, but only when you shoot too much" idea which was technically harder to achieve and required a bit more work on the developer side

Actually, from a simplicity standpoint, reducing the heat scale by a factor X and increasing heat dissipation by a factor Y is much simpler than the entire Ghost Heat system.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 08 February 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

Ironic that you didn't read the follow up to that.

Oh, did you mean to say that I should have predicted that someone would admit to making a mistake several posts/pages after the original mistake? I ain't psychic, and I am under no obligation to read to the very end of a thread before writing any comments.

Edited by Mystere, 09 February 2016 - 11:26 AM.

[Troutmonkey]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

Actually, from a simplicity standpoint, reducing the heat scale by a factor X and increasing heat dissipation by a factor Y is much simpler than the entire Ghost Heat system.

What PGI wanted to do was to punish boating and high alpha weapon strikes but they didn't want to drastically alter the game play. That solution is one of the better ones, as it solves the issue by punishing alpha strikes with immediate shutdown. My only criticism of it is it doesn't deal with low heat ballistics very well, so Gauss becomes even more powerful than it is.

Unfortunately such a change would ultimately change the core game play in a drastic way. I would still like to try this solution at some point, but MWO would be an entirely different game for it.

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Oh, did you mean to say that I should have predicted that you would admit to making a mistake several posts/pages after your original mistake? I ain't psychic, and I am under no obligation to read to the very end of a thread before writing any comments.

Hey it was me who made the mistake. I got half way though Blastman's idea and then skimmed the rest after seeing his very "simple" diagram

Too be fair I am simultaneously debating against several terrible ideas in several different threads at the same time. I can't be expected to be perfect in my dismantling of all of them.

[Mystere]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

I understand that hard work is required for quality results. And sometimes, huge amounts of sacrifice in terms of time and effort are needed if you want to accomplish something great.

I'm a money manager and a science fiction novelist.

You just reminded me of something ...

Instead of abstracting and factoring his work, a developer who used to work on one of my projects decided to just massively copy and paste large sections of code. When I asked him why, he said doing the former was difficult.

Another developer who also used to work on another project of mine insisted that the utility program he wrote was tested and ready. Not even five minutes after I got my hands on it and ran my test cases, the application bombed out ... every single time. This happened several times. After repeatedly asking him if he really tests his work, he insisted that he does ... every single time.

Note that I used the phrase "used to work" in both cases.

Edited by Mystere, 08 February 2016 - 09:26 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 09:22 PM, said:

You just reminded me of something ...

Instead of abstracting and factoring his work, a developer who used to work on one of my projects decided to just massively copy and paste large sections of code. When I asked him why, he said doing the former was difficult.

Another developer who also used to work on another project of mine insisted that the utility program he wrote was tested and ready. Not even five minutes after I got my hands on it and ran my test cases, the application bombed out ... every single time. This happened several times. After repeatedly asking him if he really tests his work, he insisted that he does ... every single time.

Note that I used the phrase "used to work" in both cases.

The easy way is nice for a short time but it is the hard work that pushes you to the next level.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

The easy way is nice for a short time but it is the hard work that pushes you to the next level.

Just because something is hard to do doesn't mean it is in any way a better solution.

Are you sure you're not a politician? You seem to fit all the requirements. Religious ideology that their way is best despite obviously superior alternatives, the tendency to ignore expert advice, catchy slogans that avoid confronting criticisms of said ideas, the "just trust me, this is totally going to work" attitude.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 08 February 2016 - 09:34 PM.