173 replies to this topic

[davoodoo]

Alphas are an issue because youre not firing your 50+ alpha at atlas with 612 points of armor, you hit exactly his ct with at best 124 points of armor.
If your shots were somewhat spread accros armor then you would simply overheat before you can actually do significant dmg where mechs with sustained fire would whittle you down.

Pinpoint accuracy is pretty terrible, have heat actually affect accuracy.

Edited by davoodoo, 09 May 2016 - 11:42 AM.

[Gerwig]

The mechanics work well enough, they should keep it simple and increase structure quirks across the board to increase ttk.

[Alan Davion]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 May 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Maybe my post wasn't clear enough, I'm talking about prior MW titles, NOT TT. It is very much double the amount in TT, I'm clearly aware of that, but it is NOT double prior titles, at least all of them.

No offense, but you're wrong. Again.

MW2/Mercs followed the TT values exactly. As can be seen in the first few seconds of footage here.

That shows the player repairing his Commando after a mission. And according to my 3025 TRO, those are exactly equal to TT values, like I just demonstrated with the Locust and it's doubled armor/structure values.

MW3/4 clearly had different armor systems altogether, so I don't know how to quantify them. Meanwhile MW1/2 were strictly TT values, and MWO has been doubled over TT.

[mogs01gt]

Alphas should cause higher heat spikes and reduce engine power.

[MischiefSC]

Widowmaker1981, on 09 May 2016 - 04:43 AM, said:

are you trying to say there are less than millions of people in the world who could take advantage of an extra 0.4 seconds of burntime? Are you an idiot?

almost everyone on the planet can react in under 0.8 seconds. a MUCH SMALLER subset of people can react in 0.4s - see my point?

I think you are getting confused with the fact that its almost impossible to react to things which take a total of ~0.5s

Edit: To elaborate, lets say Bill the happy mech shooter is happily stomping along in his mech. Hes kinda old and doesnt have the best reactions ever, so it takes him on average 0.6 seconds to realise hes getting shot at and begin to twist. Vs BK 0.77s laser fire he now has 0.17 seconds to twist before the end of the beam. against clan 1.15s laser fire he has 0.55s, or over three times as long to spread that damage about. See why the extra 0.4s matters, now?

So what fraction of the worlds population is this games population?

Also, do you understand how ping works with HSR?

So if your ping is 200, that 0.4 second is actually 0.2 difference in what you're able to see to react to - even if your reaction speed is 100% perfect.

That's why torso twisting has to be a habit. You need to be twisting before you see them shoot you because your perception /= the reality of what's happening in the game.

Most people in this game, the majority of the population, do not torso twist habitually, they do so reflectively if at all.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

L3mming2, on 09 May 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

ps imo more weight should not necessarily mean better mech..

nor should the opposite always be true - but it almost always is here

and fixt spelling lol

[Satan n stuff]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 May 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Maybe my post wasn't clear enough, I'm talking about prior MW titles, NOT TT. It is very much double the amount in TT, I'm clearly aware of that, but it is NOT double prior titles, at least all of them.

So you compare it to the one other MW game that also had massively increased armor and internal structure? That's one way to "prove" a point.

Alan Davion, on 09 May 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

No offense, but you're wrong. Again.

MW2/Mercs followed the TT values exactly. As can be seen in the first few seconds of footage here.

That shows the player repairing his Commando after a mission. And according to my 3025 TRO, those are exactly equal to TT values, like I just demonstrated with the Locust and it's doubled armor/structure values.

MW3/4 clearly had different armor systems altogether, so I don't know how to quantify them. Meanwhile MW1/2 were strictly TT values, and MWO has been doubled over TT.

MW3 has tabletop everything, but weapon cooldowns were reduced IIRC.
I would have to check what the original had, I have it installed in DOSBox.

Edited by Satan n stuff, 09 May 2016 - 02:47 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alan Davion, on 09 May 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

No offense, but you're wrong. Again.

MW2/Mercs followed the TT values exactly. As can be seen in the first few seconds of footage here.

That shows the player repairing his Commando after a mission. And according to my 3025 TRO, those are exactly equal to TT values, like I just demonstrated with the Locust and it's doubled armor/structure values.

MW3/4 clearly had different armor systems altogether, so I don't know how to quantify them. Meanwhile MW1/2 were strictly TT values, and MWO has been doubled over TT.

FFS, IM NOT SAYING ALL MW TITLES FOLLOWED THE SAME THING, JUST THAT MW4 WAS NOT TT VALUES AND WAS REALLY CLOSE IN ARMOR/INTERNAL VALUES TO MWO, WAAAAAAAAAAAY CLOSER THAN IT WAS TO TT, SO PLEASE, STOP MAKING BLANKET STATEMENTS LIKE THE ORIGINAL QUOTE I COMMENTED (YOU KNOW THE ONE WHERE YOU SAID MWO WAS NOTHING LIKE ANY OTHER MW TITLE BEFORE IT OR LIKE TT WITH REGARDS TO ARMOR/INTERNALS) /end rant

Alan Davion said:

And yet mechs in MWO have double the armor/structure values compared to all previous MW titles as well as TT values.

Satan n stuff, on 09 May 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

So you compare it to the one other MW game that also had massively increased armor and internal structure? That's one way to "prove" a point.

Considering he made a blanket statement (look to quote above), that's pretty much the only necessary thing to disprove a blanket statement (counter-example). I don't really care about the rest of the argument, otherwise I probably would've quoted other stuff and said more.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 May 2016 - 05:54 PM.

[wanderer]

Boogie138, on 07 May 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

2 major reasons. The minor reason is a bit of QQing by the player base. The main reason is money for the developer.

The old guard and lore nerds want games that take almost the entire duration of the match.
They also want it to result in maybe only 3 mechs being destroyed and giving major high fives to the guy that cracked 300 damage.

1) Old guard (hi, Legendary Founder). 2) Lore nerd. (ancient enough to be a pre-Clan TT player)

I want neither. I would, however like to stop seeing my heavy reduced to internals on the first trade if someone happens to shoot me in the -front- before I can react, because muh death-star alpha pulse burns reduce things to FPS play. I'd like to see that guy actually have trouble for heating up, versus riding that maximum heat load and functioning perfectly unless he oopsies and crosses 100%...in which case he either shuts down or melts on the spot.

If the average barrage hit two adjacent locations roughly evenly, you'd lose about 30 armor per BK Death Star alpha rather than 60. Three, and it'd be 20 damage per. Strangely enough, 20 damage also happens to be about the maximum a single shot will deal damage for (with an AC/20, natch)...

Quote

PGI wants longer time to kill (TTK) in order to not scare away new players. It is very frustrating for a noob to show up just to derp off and get melted in 3 seconds flat and then get pissed because there is no re-spawn. PGI needs a solid influx of new players (customers) to help show that the game is not only profitable but can sustain growth.

PGI is very resistant to introducing respawn (I think the community is as well) so the solution? Increase TTK.

Considering PGI's tiering system marches the seals straight into the clubbin' horde, taming the alpha beast is important all the way up.

[monk]

Alan Davion, on 08 May 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

Mechs already have doubled armor/structure over their TT values. Are you saying they need to be doubled again?

Only if you skip half of the point of my post. I'm saying it's not the doubling of the armor that is the solution. It's the distribution of the armor. Currently the CT is the obvious best target given the size of alpha strikes in the game.

Reducing the incentive to hit ONLY the CT adds more tactical options to players. When the CT takes more of a pounding to knock out, maybe they'll instead take off that arm with the (insert giant weapon assortment of your choice) first and then focus on knocking it out after the most significant threat is removed.

Ultimax, on 08 May 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

Yeah, and we have max double armor on every mech and many mechs right now with +30% to +50% extra structure.



This has come up repeatedly before, TT players have rose tinted glasses on when it comes to TTK.

They think their mechs lived longer, they didn't. The games just lasted a long time because it took a long time to resolve all of the dice rolls.


The actual abstracted combat (i.e. in game time from mech perspective) was probably a 3 to 8 minute firefight.

It's not the amount of armor. It's the distribution of the armor in relation to the size of alphas. Ideal TTK is debatable. We all know that. What's less debatable is whether it would be reasonable to have players assess the threat of an enemy mech and decide if their alpha should go to the CT (99% of the time right now) or to another location on the mech. If it would seriously mitigate the immediate threat to take off an arm before the CT, wouldn't that be a fun change? (And sure, this is the case right now at times, but it's much faster to just lob two alphas at the CT and end the fight).

[Alan Davion]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 May 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

FFS, IM NOT SAYING ALL MW TITLES FOLLOWED THE SAME THING, JUST THAT MW4 WAS NOT TT VALUES AND WAS REALLY CLOSE IN ARMOR/INTERNAL VALUES TO MWO, WAAAAAAAAAAAY CLOSER THAN IT WAS TO TT, SO PLEASE, STOP MAKING BLANKET STATEMENTS LIKE THE ORIGINAL QUOTE I COMMENTED (YOU KNOW THE ONE WHERE YOU SAID MWO WAS NOTHING LIKE ANY OTHER MW TITLE BEFORE IT OR LIKE TT WITH REGARDS TO ARMOR/INTERNALS) /end rant

Okay, dude, you need to calm the F*** down.

Instead of flying off the handle like some little kid who just got told he can't have ice cream or something, you should have done what I did and calmly provide visual evidence to back up your claim.

So instead, I'll do it for you.

https://youtu.be/u8rZVI3-CgQ?t=190

You are correct, MW4 did not operate at TT values as seen here with the Hellspawn.

Satan n stuff, on 09 May 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

So you compare it to the one other MW game that also had massively increased armor and internal structure? That's one way to "prove" a point.

MW3 has tabletop everything, but weapon cooldowns were reduced IIRC.
I would have to check what the original had, I have it installed in DOSBox.

And here we have evidence as far as how MW3 operated.

So, 4 out of the 5 MW games I'm aware of operated pretty much strictly on TT values, 80% seems enough of a blanket covering to me.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alan Davion, on 11 May 2016 - 08:01 PM, said:

Instead of flying off the handle like some little kid who just got told he can't have ice cream or something, you should have done what I did and calmly provide visual evidence to back up your claim.

Or maybe you should double check facts before making blanket statements, considering that is what started this (well that and your insistence I was wrong). Is MW4 the only one? Probably, but that still doesn't mean you can make blanket statements especially when you were responding to someone talking about that very game.

If you were gonna call him on MW4, call him on the fact 4 Gauss in that game was actually better than 4 Gauss in this game since they did even more damage, it just didn't ever have the DPS (which was lower overall in MW4).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 May 2016 - 07:04 AM.

[GurpGork]

I think it is a problem because one wrong move and you will get nearly decimated if not outright destroyed. You can play a smart game the whole round, poke, shoot, position, etc. Keep whittling down the enemy, while keeping yourself in really good shape.

Then turn one wrong corner, or linger out of cover for literally .5s too long, and boom its over.

I have been piloting mostly mediums as of late. So I'm usually forced into a small to medium sized alpha (in comparison to whats currently run). You can play like a pro and make the most of it. But that ONE wrong move into an alpha, and your done. Whereas if alpha's weren't so huge. You could manage to survive 1-2 alpha's at different points in the match and still have a chance to live and be a contributor later on.

The problem is if you don't play nearly perfect, It's basically over at the first big alpha.

Which makes TTK to seem very low at times.

[Karl Streiger]

GurpGork, on 11 May 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

I think it is a problem because one wrong move and you will get nearly decimated if not outright destroyed. You can play a smart game the whole round, poke, shoot, position, etc. Keep whittling down the enemy, while keeping yourself in really good shape.

Good point - so you are talking about the Window of Engagements. This is interesting because if you just consider two, more mechs shooting at each other it doesn't matter much if you split the Alpha into 1 or 4 volleys with short breaks.
But considering the WoEs...you can have instant damage (Poptarting) or you need some time to deliver the full damage. But you are also exposed to enemy fire.

The shorter the WoE the harder it should be to inflict damage.
Gauss is a perfect example with its speed its very simple to place a shot. Because of charge the WoE is larger.
You can have a much shorter WoE with a Gauss, but you also need more skill for the timimg starting the charge without target visible.

I don't have a clue how you want to implement it but - it should like this:

WoE in sec	damage
0	20
1	30
2	40
3	50
4	60

Maybe it would be a good idea to have a "general" modification of the weight classes

Weight Class	Alpha Mod	Heat Cap Mod	Heat Diss Mod
Light	0.8	0.8	1.3
Medium	0.9	1	1.1
Heavy	1	1.1	0.9
Assault	1.2	1.3	0.8

Edited by Karl Streiger, 11 May 2016 - 10:35 PM.