143 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

Fair enough:
- Ghost Heat and all "hard limit" systems fail because the meta simple turns into "boat the most long-range precision weapons you can boat that keeps you just under the bad-stuff-happens limit and win." Witness the current laser vomit meta, and whatever new mechanic they introduce that sounds like it will be based on the raw damage you deal. If that is how power draw will work - X damage fired at once and bad stuff happens to you - the meta will immediately switch to doing X-1 pinpoint damage at once at long ranges. Bam - new stagnant meta instantly defined.
- All accuracy penalty systems based only on heat level fail because of the Gauss Rifle, one of the most powerful long-range precision weapons in the game... and it basically produces no heat. So, yes, making a system that puts in some sort of cone of fire, damage scatter, or whatever based only on heat level could work... but you'd still need some sort of goofy special case for the Gauss rifle. That's why an across-the-board cone of fire works better in a way - no special cases needed.

True any mechanic that mitigates or circumvents X meta will shift focus onto Y meta. COF is no different. In theory, Power Draw, if done well, will effectively limit max damage for alpha strikes AND cap DPS AND affect every weapon fairly across the board but we only have theories of how it'll be implemented, if at all.

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 08:08 AM, said:

You're taking my words out of context.

I NEVER said that a cone of fire system would depend on the mech you were aiming at. I have never said that in all the posts I've made about a CoF system.

I have always advocated for a constant CoF system, regardless of what mech you are using or aiming at.

Go back a couple pages and you should find the post where I advocated for a 5-pixel deviation CoF system.

In fact I think I told you to do that already.

A 5 pixel CoF would pretty much be about the size of the circle in your targeting reticule, that's not a huge CoF, and I've also advocated for it to be tied into the range mechanics.

If you're shooting at something at or inside optimum range for your weapons, you have no CoF, if you're shooting beyond optimum range, you'll start getting deviation. For example, let's take a Medium Laser.

270 Meters optimum range, 540 meters max range. At 270 meters, you have no CoF deviation. At 540 meters you would have the maximum 5-pixel deviation. That is not a huge penalty, and depending on the mech you're shooting at, you're likely to hit the part of the mech you were aiming at to begin with. Let's say an Atlas or an Awesome CT hitbox.

Now a Locust on the other hand, yes, that's likely to be that much harder to hit because of one, how fast the little f***er is, and how small it is. You wouldn't want to engage that mech beyond optimum range for your weapons.

So. Your proposal is a negligibly small COF? Why bother then, exactly?

Edited by cazidin, 01 May 2016 - 09:35 AM.

[Ultimax]

Lostdragon, on 30 April 2016 - 08:16 PM, said:

I think we just have different opinions of how mech combat should play out. I want to see it be more slow and deliberate with mechs slugging it out and taking a lot of fire before going down.

Yes you want death by a thousand paper cuts.

That removes/reduces the skill of needing to know where to be and where to not be, how to properly twist and mitigate damage, when and where to expose yourself to fire on a target.


For me it feels like dumbing the game down so its easier to survive your mistakes.

Alan Davion, on 30 April 2016 - 08:25 PM, said:

To get a TTK that short in MWO you would need to increase damage output of weapons by about 2 or 3 times over what we have now, and at that point,

I'm not saying I want TTK that short here. I'm saying that those games being held up as examples of successful FPS games with CoF have TTK that short.


This game doesn't need CoF on top of the longer TTK we already have.

The Flying Gecko, on 01 May 2016 - 06:11 AM, said:

Meanwhile, in Counter-Strike, one of the most successful FPS titles of all time....

...enemies die pretty much instantly when you hit them with bullets.

Edited by Ultimax, 01 May 2016 - 10:18 AM.

[Mavairo]

pbiggz, on 30 April 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

This is very simple. If your game is about shooting, and you make shots NOT go where people aimed, people will not play your game. I oppose super pixel perfect pinpoint convergence, but there are people out here who want to go equally extreme in the opposite direction, like super aggressive link fire only or zero convergence or just zero convergence altogether.

Said as if world of tanks, and world of warships didn't exist and weren't stupidly successful.

[Alan Davion]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

I'm not saying I want TTK that short here. I'm saying that those games being held up as examples of successful FPS games with CoF have TTK that short.


This game doesn't need CoF on top of the longer TTK we already have.

TTK is already quite short here, especially in group queue where players coordinate fire better. The possible exception to the rule would be dropping solo in Tier 5 where I'm currently stuck, then the TTK is a fair bit longer.

[Dogstar]

>If your game is about shooting, and you make shots NOT go where people aimed, people will not play your game

Tell that to World of Tanks and their multi million dollar monthly take.

Anyone who has played WoT and comes to MWO is quite pleasantly surprised with the pinpoint accuracy at all ranges

[Mavairo]

Dogstar, on 01 May 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

>If your game is about shooting, and you make shots NOT go where people aimed, people will not play your game

Tell that to World of Tanks and their multi million dollar monthly take.

Anyone who has played WoT and comes to MWO is quite pleasantly surprised with the pinpoint accuracy at all ranges

Not having to yanno..lead my shots, or having to adjust for enemy position changes etc etc, in mwo is almost like easy mode compared to world fo warships, as far as shooting goes. This game is pretty much point and shoot... and shoot.
World Of Warships... I have to place my shells, where their citadels will be 10 seconds in advance or more depending on shell travel times, to inflict maximum damage. Sometimes, the RNGesus and Dispersion will kick in, and throw my well placed shots off etc etc.

World of warships definitely has RNGesus, but it doesn't interfere with skill threshold what so ever.. if anything it makes the good players even more terrifying (I'm abit above average, in most of my ships but I wouldn't call myself God Mode Good like some people are). Guys that are actually really good, can consistently use their ships to blow off enemy turrets -or- hit them in citadels etc, even with RNG getting involved.

It definitely lengthens time to kill, and allows slower more armored ships, feel like the armored behemoths that they are meant to be. At the same time, it rewards the quicker less armored ships, because odds of hitting are less.

There's also things like camo schemes that effect enemy accuracy, as well as their ability to be detected by enemy ships.

MWO could take a couple things from World of Warships. I think if nothing else it could stand to take the Detection mechanics from it... it'd definitely let you play up the importance of info warfare, and make mechs that are good at it to stand out vs other mechs.

COF, and Detection enable you to have more factors in mech balancing to fine tune gameplay with. This game could stand both imo.

Ships also factors in angle of incoming fire vs your armor scheme and thickness. Taking shells 90 degrees dead onto the ship is a horrible thing, as it allows easier armor penetrations etc. Where as making shells come in against your armor hit at an angle can result in shells simply bouncing off your hull etc. While I don't think necessarily this is what MWO needs, it'd be interesting to see MWO use it, as it adds yet another layer of depth to combat. Maximum Firepower, vs Defense etc along with a constant positioning and re-positioning.

Edited by Mavairo, 01 May 2016 - 10:52 AM.

[Alan Davion]

cazidin, on 01 May 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:

So. Your proposal is a negligibly small COF? Why bother then, exactly?

All I'm saying is that it's possible to introduce a CoF that wouldn't wildly affect the game play, it would just force people to adapt a little bit.

My 5 pixel CoF example is purposefully on the small end because I think we all know how people fly off the handle at the slightest things here. A larger CoF, to the affect of 10, 15 or more pixels is certainly possible, but that would alter the game play further than I think most players would be comfortable with.

I think it would be easier to start with a small CoF, then incrementally increase it to the point where you can still somewhat reliably hit the enemy mech at long ranges, but introduce a small element of the TT random hit location system.

[cazidin]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

All I'm saying is that it's possible to introduce a CoF that wouldn't wildly affect the game play, it would just force people to adapt a little bit.

My 5 pixel CoF example is purposefully on the small end because I think we all know how people fly off the handle at the slightest things here. A larger CoF, to the affect of 10, 15 or more pixels is certainly possible, but that would alter the game play further than I think most players would be comfortable with.

I think it would be easier to start with a small CoF, then incrementally increase it to the point where you can still somewhat reliably hit the enemy mech at long ranges, but introduce a small element of the TT random hit location system.

You're right. PGI can implement negligible changes. Like reducing heat on PPCs by 0.5.

[ComradeHavoc]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

How is that any different from the current system? Everyone already has it hardwired into their brains to shoot the CT, with the exception being light mechs, in which people have it hardwired into their brains to shoot the little ankle biters in the legs.

It does matter what mech you are aiming at, as well as whether you and they are moving.

If you were both standing completely still, yes, there is likely a good chance you could end up shooting a PPC bolt right between that Locust's spindly little legs. But if you're aiming at the Awesome, there's about a 99% chance you will hit that Awesome, you may even get a lucky headshot on the guy.

If you're both moving, you will undoubtedly miss the Locust, but you shouldn't be shooting at a Locust with a PPC at that range to begin with. If you're shooting at the Awesome, then yes, there's likely a 50/50 chance you may hit or miss the target.



And you are part of the problem.

Both MW2/4 did not have pin-point accuracy. Granted MW4 had better accuracy than MW2, but it was still nowhere near as bad as MWO is. MW2/4 were excellent games that rewarded both sniping and knife fighting. You could order your lance mates to go flank the enemy, shoot them, draw them out of position and then you come in from behind and just rip the shite out of them.

MWO has been reduced to this.

Get into cover/position.

Wait for enemy mechs.

Poke out of cover.

Fire alpha strike.

Duck back into cover.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum until enemy is destroyed.

Yeah, that takes SO much skill.

Read: It requires zero skill and zero thought.

Cone of Fire would force people to completely re-evaluate their mechs, not to mention force PGI to completely re-evaluate the quirk system, which I think is a big double-win for the game as a whole.

If the "hardcore" players can't adapt to a very slight cone of fire system, then they really weren't all that hardcore to begin with in my eyes.

Hell, there could even be a mission in the MWO Academy that covers the CoF system.

Next time read my entire post. Dumb Dumb.

[Davers]

Dogstar, on 01 May 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

>If your game is about shooting, and you make shots NOT go where people aimed, people will not play your game

Tell that to World of Tanks and their multi million dollar monthly take.

Anyone who has played WoT and comes to MWO is quite pleasantly surprised with the pinpoint accuracy at all ranges

It's funny how you make 'pleasantly surprised' sound like a bad thing.

[Alan Davion]

cazidin, on 01 May 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

You're right. PGI can implement negligible changes. Like reducing heat on PPCs by 0.5.

And that's the huge problem that they keep making bigger.

They keep making sweeping changes without gathering enough data or feedback from the community. If something is a problem, whether it's weak or too strong, you make one sweeping change, wait a bit, see how it pans out, and then make smaller changes as necessary.

[Lostdragon]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Yes you want death by a thousand paper cuts.

That removes/reduces the skill of needing to know where to be and where to not be, how to properly twist and mitigate damage, when and where to expose yourself to fire on a target.


For me it feels like dumbing the game down so its easier to survive your mistakes.

Well another way to look at it is that it increases the skill necessary to consistently hit a single component. Instead of just having to point and click you would have to think about your speed, heat, range (close enough and CoF is irrelevant), target size, etc. as opposed to now when it only makes sense to always fire all your weapons unless you are in something ridiculous like a 12 ERML Nova or you are already at very high heat from alpha striking a couple of times.

To me it sounds like your side of this discussion never wants to have to consider anything other than the simple tactic of poke and alpha. A smart CoF mechanic would actually help brawlers be more competitive and diversify the tactics that work in the game.

[oldradagast]

Mavairo, on 01 May 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

World of warships definitely has RNGesus, but it doesn't interfere with skill threshold what so ever.. if anything it makes the good players even more terrifying (I'm abit above average, in most of my ships but I wouldn't call myself God Mode Good like some people are). Guys that are actually really good, can consistently use their ships to blow off enemy turrets -or- hit them in citadels etc, even with RNG getting involved.

Agreed. Laughably, my results in WoWS are generally MORE consistent than in this game since here you can get insta-ganked by some idiot "skill" build if you made the mistake of daring to come out from behind a rock. There, that type of easy-mode lunacy is next to impossible, barring skilled and well-timed criss-crossing torpedo drops that usually only show up from high tier carriers or large destroyer swarms.

WoWS requires MORE skill in aiming because of flight times, different shell flight arcs, and scatter while still having the same need to try to aim for different sections of the enemy ship. And, their game makes a heck of a lot more money than this one.

But, sure - let's continue to learn nothing from more successful video games AND nothing from Battletech itself - a game that depends upon NOT having long-range pinpoint damage to work - and maintain the pinpoint meta, despite how badly it's warped the game and how many idiotic band-aid mechanics it's generated. It's all "skill" - because having 3 pulse lasers hit the same spot instead of one under the current system requires so much (read: zero) skill.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 May 2016 - 03:13 PM.

[cazidin]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

And that's the huge problem that they keep making bigger.

They keep making sweeping changes without gathering enough data or feedback from the community. If something is a problem, whether it's weak or too strong, you make one sweeping change, wait a bit, see how it pans out, and then make smaller changes as necessary.

Perhaps I was unclear. I understand that your stance is one that, should PGI for whatever reason implement a COF that they should start small and work their way up however a 5 pixel COF would be so small and have so negligible effect that one has to ask "Why bother?".

Whatever inaccuracy it does introduce will be, at best, a minor inconvenience and at worst anger players, which most likely would lead to the idea being scrapped before it left the hypothetical test servers. If it's a large COF and they make small adjustments as necessary? Then the public outcry will be all the greater for the massive shift in how shooting works.

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

WoWS requires MORE skill in aiming because of flight times, different shell flight arcs, and scatter while still having the same need to try to aim for different sections of the enemy ship. And, their game makes a heck of a lot more money than this one.

But, sure - let's continue to learn nothing from more successful video games AND nothing from Battletech itself - a game that depends upon NOT having long-range pinpoint damage to work - and maintain the pinpoint meta, despite how badly it's warped the game and how many idiotic band-aid mechanics it's generated. It's all "skill" - because having 3 pulse lasers hit the same spot instead of one under the current system requires so much (read: zero) skill.

First. My apologies for cutting the first third of your post but I'd like to keep this post to a reasonable size. With that having been said, Oldradagast, here's my rebuttal.

Yes, WoWS does require more skill in aiming because of all those factors, whereas MWO really only has velocity and drop off for their Autocannon shells, though LRMs and SRMs did have a cork-screw flight patch in beta IIRC, WOWs also doesn't have lasers which deal incredible damage to a few pixels in a short amount of time, does it?

That's why I will always suggest a system that punishes high heat weapons. Instantly hitting your target and having the ability to compensate for an initial miss should come with a greater penalty than it does now. That's why you see a laser meta. They're so easy to use and with so few or so weak penalties that they're among the best weapons atm.

I'd like to see faster velocity Autocannon shells, with the exception of course of Gauss or AC/2s and normalized ammo too but that may be perceived as an increase to TTK simply because your shots will be more accurate. I'd like to see a lot of changes to most of the weapons for better balancing but alas I have little power in that regard.

In summary. Heat Scale > COF or convergence or any RNG system. If you think I'm wrong please tell me why. I'd like to see more of your perspective.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

In summary. Heat Scale > COF or convergence or any RNG system. If you think I'm wrong please tell me why. I'd like to see more of your perspective.

I would start with Heat Scale, followed by increasing cooldown timer of ERLL/LPL/ERppc (also increase their velocity) to bring them closer to Gauss Rifle. They are pulling lots of power off the engine and require a longer cooling off period for the components themselves.

Heat Scale - 2-3 intermediate intervals where the mech is hit with movement penalty similar to the loss of a side torso w/cXL (that movement penalty would be removed from cXL ST loss). Example 33%/66% intervals w/ 15/30% loss. Another planyer posted about having weapon cooldown penalty where it is increased the hotter the mech is running.

Change in Ghost heat. Instead of a big hit when a set of specific weapons are fired, change it to micro-Ghost heat that kicks in when more than one weapon is fired.

A few mentioned it would mean more poke and shoot, but those penalties would also mean the mech would be slower getting back into hiding. And an increased in the long range energy cooldown would also provide med/close range mechs more time to move from one location to another before those weapons could be fired.

I also agree on the AC velocity increase. They were decreased when ballistic ranges were 3x, but that was changed to 2x and the nerf to jump jets went live, the velocities were never set back to previous velocities.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 01 May 2016 - 06:36 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Yes you want death by a thousand paper cuts.

That removes/reduces the skill of needing to know where to be and where to not be, how to properly twist and mitigate damage, when and where to expose yourself to fire on a target.

No, it makes battlemechs feel like battlemechs, like they can tank hits and crap. MW3 and 4 had really good combat, you felt pretty strong.but would take alot of damage if you were a complete tool. Focus fire would still kill a mech, but mechs would feel tanky. This game needs to get away from the death in 2 seconds crap. Its a FPS, but using huge, heavily armored battlemechs. Were not a fragile infantry man.

One battlemech in MW3-4 could last a good pounding, here, you pretty much last 30 seconds, if that. You can only twist and turn so much before every part on your mech is falling apart, and in the bigger, slower mechs, its even harder to twist and turn, since they move neither fast, nor turn very far. Maulers, Dire Wolves and Atlas cant even turn far enough to twist away anything.

This game needs to feel tanky, not like everyone is running around as a human shooter.

[Ultimax]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:41 PM, said:

No, it makes battlemechs feel like battlemechs, like they can tank hits and crap.

Battle tech table top AC 20, Gauss and a host of other weapons are way more dangerous than our versions.

Think of how little armor mechs have, and what happens when a single big weapon hits them in TT.



Death by papercut will see every match devolve into a dumb short range brawl - we will run across 3KM of polar just to face hug each other.

Edited by Ultimax, 01 May 2016 - 07:05 PM.

[Alan Davion]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

Battle tech table top AC 20, Gauss and a host of other weapons are way more dangerous than our versions.

Think of how little armor mechs have, and what happens when a single big weapon hits them in TT.

Death by papercut will see every match devolve into a dumb short range brawl - we will run across 3KM of polar just to face hug each other.

That's because all ACs in BT are rapid fire weapons, even the IS ACs, not these single shot DMR/Sniper ACs we have here.

Only the AC2 has a fire rate that I would call even remotely close to the TT version.

Make IS ACs function more like Clan Standard or Ultra ACs and that'll be a step in the right direction.

[FupDup]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

That's because all ACs in BT are rapid fire weapons, even the IS ACs, not these single shot DMR/Sniper ACs we have here.

Only the AC2 has a fire rate that I would call even remotely close to the TT version.

Make IS ACs function more like Clan Standard or Ultra ACs and that'll be a step in the right direction.

Those "rapid fire" BT Autocannons always allocated their damage into a single hit location. For example, a "burst" from an AC/20 always dealt 20 damage to one spot, never spread.

[Mystere]

VompoVompatti, on 30 April 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

Personally I don't want my shots flying in random directions.

Assuming you do know the difference between an even and a normal distribution, it should be mentioned that hardly anyone is asking for the former.

Of course, my assumption could be totally wrong.