102 replies to this topic

[Kristian Radoulov]

How much if it is down to you guys complaining because you don't have good aim? Honest question here as I get the feeling a lot of what I read stems from people trying to close the skillgap via mechanics to even the playing field.

Do you think it will make for closer games? Have you thought about how increasing TTK will skew the mechanics of current fights (IE focused fire even more important than now pushing people towards deathballing/nascaring even harder)?

Edited by Kristian Radoulov, 09 February 2016 - 10:05 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Kristian Radoulov, on 09 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Honest question here as I get the feeling a lot of what I read stems from people trying to close the skillgap via mechanics to even the playing field.

What it stems from is the issue found in instant convergence and high alpha builds…

And what we're trying to figure out is a way to mitigate those high damage builds from instant-gibbing mechs.

Aiming (or "Skill" as you call it) is the thing that you see that makes this issue very clear.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 09 February 2016 - 10:50 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

I have great aim! But I also recognize Battletech's armor system is incompatible with convergence.

Either...

a. Remove Convergence...



OR




Go to a scalable armor hitbox/plate system.

Light 'mechs get 6 boxes in torso section (2 for LT, 2 for CT, 2 for RT)
Medium 'mechs get 9 boxes (3 for LT, 3 for CT, 3 for RT)
Heavies get 18 boxes (6 for LT, 6 for CT, 6 for RT in a 2x3 column per section)
Assaults get 27 boxes (9 for LT, 9 for CT, 9 for RT in a 2x6 or 3x3 column)

Each box has full armor value of the respective section... i.e. 42 pts in RT, 42 pts per box independent of each other. Damage one box--only that box goes down in armor value.

Internal structure is still the same as it is now. Result: Aim is rewarded, skill is rewarded, mech TTK goes up for the average player.

Watch and understand:



The scalable armor system will allow us to keep convergence.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 09 February 2016 - 09:37 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Kristian Radoulov, on 09 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

How much if it is down to you guys complaining because you don't have good aim? Honest question here as I get the feeling a lot of what I read stems from people trying to close the skillgap via mechanics to even the playing field.

Do you think it will make for closer games? Have you thought about how increasing TTK will skew the mechanics of current fights (IE focused fire even more important than now pushing people towards deathballing/nascaring even harder)?

Just the opposite. Aiming in this game is too easy. It's down right trivial.

[thehiddenedge]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 09 February 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Just the opposite. Aiming in this game is too easy. It's down right trivial.

I second this. There's almost no skill involved in pinpoint convergence. It's like a point and click adventure game.

"Oh, but, but.. you have to hold teh lazorz on the same component, teh skillz"

[Kristian Radoulov]

Mister Blastman, on 09 February 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

I have great aim! But I also recognize Battletech's armor system is incompatible with convergence.

Either...

a. Remove Convergence...



OR




Go to a scalable armor hitbox/plate system.

Light 'mechs get 6 boxes in torso section (2 for LT, 2 for CT, 2 for RT)
Medium 'mechs get 9 boxes (3 for LT, 3 for CT, 3 for RT)
Heavies get 18 boxes (6 for LT, 6 for CT, 6 for RT in a 2x3 column per section)
Assaults get 27 boxes (9 for LT, 9 for CT, 9 for RT in a 2x6 or 3x3 column)

Each box has full armor value of the respective section... i.e. 42 pts in RT, 42 pts per box independent of each other. Damage one box--only that box goes down in armor value.

Internal structure is still the same as it is now. Result: Aim is rewarded, skill is rewarded, mech TTK goes up for the average player.

Watch and understand:


The scalable armor system will allow us to keep convergence.

Option B looks very promising for it's ability to keep the rewarding aspects of convergence, but the increase in TTK on average is still a double-edged sword in terms of how it would affect game-play. That's really my biggest concern as tactics in pug matches are already very stale.

Edited by Kristian Radoulov, 09 February 2016 - 09:44 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Best to stick to this topic because anything not about this even if interesting and not negative has a good chance of being deleted.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Removing convergence will absolutely kill diversity of fielded Mechs.

Let's just drop in mechs' with hardpoints clustered onto a single arm or torso, mkay? No convergence, no problem! Just use clustered hardpoints and you have now bypassed the removal of convergence.

It's alright. Not like people use laser blackjacks or battlemasters, anyways.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 09 February 2016 - 09:49 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Kristian Radoulov, on 09 February 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

Option B looks very promising for it's ability to keep the rewarding aspects of convergence, but the increase in TTK on average is still a double-edged sword in terms of how it would affect game-play. That's really my biggest concern as tactics in pug matches are already very stale.

The puggles can be herded but say you get in that overwhelming situation of three enemy puggles versus yourself due to four Leeroys on your team dying in the first ten seconds...

The boxes will keep you alive longer and with your expert aim, you can slay them as they panic spray your 'mech so they can try to get the kill first.

SRMs would have the added bonus of internal-seeking as the spread would allow them to damage through that one pierced hole more frequently than missing it over and over with a fld or laser weapon. Plus, SRMs and LRMs could melt entire sections with a form of splash.

The goal for any game balance mechanic should always be a. Skill preservation and b. Gameplay enhancement. Skill should always be preserved first when considering any mechanic--or enhanced and made more relevant.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Mister Blastman, on 09 February 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

The puggles can be herded but say you get in that overwhelming situation of three enemy puggles versus yourself due to four Leeroys on your team dying in the first ten seconds...

The boxes will keep you alive longer and with your expert aim, you can slay them as they panic spray your 'mech so they can try to get the kill first.

SRMs would have the added bonus of internal-seeking as the spread would allow them to damage through that one pierced hole more frequently than missing it over and over with a fld or laser weapon. Plus, SRMs and LRMs could melt entire sections with a form of splash.

The goal for any game balance mechanic should always be a. Skill preservation and b. Gameplay enhancement. Skill should always be preserved first when considering any mechanic--or enhanced and made more relevant.

Preservation of the need for skill is important. Remving convergence will tip the "skill" balance in favor of the best Mechlabbers who choose the best Mechs that can bypass the removal of convergence.

What about preservation of in-game assets?

Think of what removal of convergence would do - Do you really want to see nothing but Mechs with clumped hardpoints on the field? What about all the other Mechs in our garages?

The break-down of torsos into smaller bits is more of a Pipedream. PGI would have to rework every model in the game... In don't think that would happen.

Cone of fire, when applied appropriately, would not render hoards of Mechs obsolete as removal of convergence would.

[Mister Blastman]

Prosperity Park, on 09 February 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Preservation of the need for skill is important. Remving convergence will tip the "skill" balance in favor of the best Mechlabbers who choose the best Mechs that can bypass the removal of convergence.

What about preservation of in-game assets?

Think of what removal of convergence would do - Do you really want to see nothing but Mechs with clumped hardpoints on the field? What about all the other Mechs in our garages?

The break-down of torsos into smaller bits is more of a Pipedream. PGI would have to rework every model in the game... In don't think that would happen.

Cone of fire, when applied appropriately, would not render hoards of Mechs obsolete as removal of convergence would.

Cone of fire reduces skill, though.

I'm not a programmer anymore, haven't been in a decade and when I did code, I coded logic and back end stuff (engines, etc.). I never messed with graphics.

The hitboxes could be handled through a meshing system I imagine--a tool could be written to apply it provided the mechs are sectioned as individual objects (arms, torso, legs). But I'm not a 3D artist. I realize it could take a lot of work--be a massive undertaking.

But it would preserve convergence and provide a true integration of tabletop theme and intention with modern shooter convergence.

I think the work and time would be worth it versus giving us another half-assed community warfare.

[SilentWolff]

Kristian Radoulov, on 09 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

ALL THESE THREADS ABOUT CONE OF FIRE AND CONVERGENCE...

Are from bads that couldnt hit a barn door from 2 paces.

[FupDup]

Mister Blastman, on 09 February 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

Go to a scalable armor hitbox/plate system.

Light 'mechs get 6 boxes in torso section (2 for LT, 2 for CT, 2 for RT)
Medium 'mechs get 9 boxes (3 for LT, 3 for CT, 3 for RT)
Heavies get 18 boxes (6 for LT, 6 for CT, 6 for RT in a 2x3 column per section)
Assaults get 27 boxes (9 for LT, 9 for CT, 9 for RT in a 2x6 or 3x3 column)

Each box has full armor value of the respective section... i.e. 42 pts in RT, 42 pts per box independent of each other. Damage one box--only that box goes down in armor value.

Internal structure is still the same as it is now. Result: Aim is rewarded, skill is rewarded, mech TTK goes up for the average player.

Is that mech wearing a hat?

Besides headgear, my first concern/thought/whatever is that the number of "new hitboxes" per weight class isn't distributed equally. I really don't think heavies and assaults need more advantages in that form (they are already popular enough, especially dem heavies) so I'd rather keep it consistent across the classes.

Edited by FupDup, 09 February 2016 - 10:10 AM.

[Kristian Radoulov]

Mister Blastman, on 09 February 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

The puggles can be herded but say you get in that overwhelming situation of three enemy puggles versus yourself due to four Leeroys on your team dying in the first ten seconds...

The boxes will keep you alive longer and with your expert aim, you can slay them as they panic spray your 'mech so they can try to get the kill first.

SRMs would have the added bonus of internal-seeking as the spread would allow them to damage through that one pierced hole more frequently than missing it over and over with a fld or laser weapon. Plus, SRMs and LRMs could melt entire sections with a form of splash.

The goal for any game balance mechanic should always be a. Skill preservation and b. Gameplay enhancement. Skill should always be preserved first when considering any mechanic--or enhanced and made more relevant.

I see your point 1v1. On the flip side I can also envision a scenario where b/c the average TTK is up, massed firepower overwhelms aim for the average player. So players that have a bit better than average aim can no longer pull ingenious flanking maneuvers because if they are caught out of position and the enemy has time to send a mech or two to help you insta-lose. Do you get what I'm saying? The average person would start to deathball even harder. To me TTK problems have always been primarily an issue of poor situational awareness and positioning (a lot of times due to poor teamwork especially from the lights that REFUSE to scout) and secondly an inevitable result of having so many mechs on the field on such small (by Battletech standards) maps.

[MischiefSC]

Kristian Radoulov, on 09 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

How much if it is down to you guys complaining because you don't have good aim? Honest question here as I get the feeling a lot of what I read stems from people trying to close the skillgap via mechanics to even the playing field.

Do you think it will make for closer games? Have you thought about how increasing TTK will skew the mechanics of current fights (IE focused fire even more important than now pushing people towards deathballing/nascaring even harder)?

Always room for improvement but I do alright. The problem is that for the same reason every other fps has similar mechanics it would be a benefit in mwo as well. Even more so as pinpoint accuracy doesn't so much reward skill as reward a sniping/poking/trading mechanic over everything else.

I would say positioning is a better and harder skill to master than accuracy - $60 will get you a mouse with adjustable dpi and dpi clutch.

I would argue that perpetual pinpoint accuracy degrades the skill gap and drives mechanics to whatever build/weapons best exploit pinpoint precision. Given that the whole setting of the game, all the weapons, mech designs and fundamental mechanics of the game were built around not being accurate.

Hence why I like the convergence tied to IW concept. It rewards teamwork and coordination with precision but run and gun? Not so much. I favor rewarding positioning (which I feel is a harder skill by far) twitch skills.

[Mister Blastman]

FupDup, on 09 February 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

Is that mech wearing a hat?

Besides headgear, my first concern/thought/whatever is that the number of "new hitboxes" per weight class isn't distributed equally. I really don't think heavies and assaults need more advantages in that form (they are already popular enough, especially dem heavies) so I'd rather keep it consistent across the classes.

Well what I'm worried about is the size of those hitboxes.

Imagine, for a moment, a spider with 27 panels in the torso--or nine even, versus an assault with the same number. The spider panels would be far smaller--so it would be easier to spread that damage.

A stock spider has 96 armor total in the torso - 28/40/28
A atlas has 292 armor total - 84/124/84

If you go to nine boxes...

spider will have 288 - 84/120/84 total per section (but still only 28/40/28 per BOX)
atlas will have 876 - 252/372/252 total per section (but 84/124/84 per BOX)

Notice... that the spider has 84/120/84 per section versus the 84/124/84 per box on the atlas.

The reason I proposed scaled armor increasing the number of boxes as the 'mech increases in size is to prevent "spider atlases."

Effectively you'd need to melt the same amount of armor with bad aim to down a spider (well, any aim, really) versus great aim downing an Atlas. So the spider can't have the same number of boxes due to them being so small and ease of spreading the damage versus the larger robot.

[Mead]

SilentWolff, on 09 February 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

Are from bads that couldnt hit a barn door from 2 paces.

It started off as a better conversation than the others, but I guess someone had to be the first to ****** it up. Congrats?

[FupDup]

Mister Blastman, on 09 February 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

Well what I'm worried about is the size of those hitboxes.

Imagine, for a moment, a spider with 27 panels in the torso--or nine even, versus an assault with the same number. The spider panels would be far smaller--so it would be easier to spread that damage.

A stock spider has 96 armor total in the torso - 28/40/28
A atlas has 292 armor total - 84/124/84

If you go to nine boxes...

spider will have 288 - 84/120/84 total per section (but still only 28/40/28 per BOX)
atlas will have 876 - 252/372/252 total per section (but 84/124/84 per BOX)

Notice... that the spider has 84/120/84 per section versus the 84/124/84 per box on the atlas.

The reason I proposed scaled armor increasing the number of boxes as the 'mech increases in size is to prevent "spider atlases."

Effectively you'd need to melt the same amount of armor with bad aim to down a spider (well, any aim, really) versus great aim downing an Atlas. So the spider can't have the same number of boxes due to them being so small and ease of spreading the damage versus the larger robot.

Having a larger body to shoot at is supposed to be one of the tradeoffs of carrying more armor and more firepower. Those "little hitbox" mechs can't usually carry much dakka and they also have a lower health pool to deal with when they get hit by a huge salvo.

It's why people like me have complained about so many mediums being scaled the size of heavies for so long, because then why the heck wouldn't I just use a heavy? Russ insists on keeping "55 ton mech size," however...

[Mister Blastman]

Kristian Radoulov, on 09 February 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

I see your point 1v1. On the flip side I can also envision a scenario where b/c the average TTK is up, massed firepower overwhelms aim for the average player. So players that have a bit better than average aim can no longer pull ingenious flanking maneuvers because if they are caught out of position and the enemy has time to send a mech or two to help you insta-lose. Do you get what I'm saying? The average person would start to deathball even harder. To me TTK problems have always been primarily an issue of poor situational awareness and positioning (a lot of times due to poor teamwork especially from the lights that REFUSE to scout) and secondly an inevitable result of having so many mechs on the field on such small (by Battletech standards) maps.

Well, with good to perfect aim the TTK remains the same as it is now. If you're an expert flanker, you shoot that enemy in the box a few times and they are dead. There's no extra shots required.

The only time the extra boxes come into play are when robots are moving (terrain spreads through mech movement), twisting, large distance (ppfld has an advantage at large distances again, unlike now), desperation and bad aim.

With SRM/LRM splash and ppfld advantages/disadvantages, I think in the end we'd see more diverse weapon loadouts. Gauss would still be as deadly with boxes as it is now--if the player has good enough aim. But simultaneously they'll be worse in a brawl due to movement and harder to hit those smaller boxes.

I get what you're saying (sort of). Good players don't have as much an issue with ttk now due to spreading damage. I end drops all the time at 14 - 30% health. If I'm not at 80% early on I'm not pulling my weight and tanking damage while hurting the enemy.

Most pugbads and terriscareds sit behind a rock at 97% until the match is half done.

[Kristian Radoulov]

A bit off topic but I applaud you, Mr. Blastman, for clearly putting in a lot of time and thought into this issue.