425 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

MischiefSC, on 16 June 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

Sincere question - like what?

Pretend for a moment someone got bone weary of the missed potential in MWO and picked up the license after it runs out with a great team and a reasonable budget and wanted to double down on making it work.

What would this look like?

Great question and I will be the third to quote it and answer.

The other two answers were not bad, but didn't really answer directly or fully. Or answered partly right.

One answer was partly that, setting and polish is lacking. That the machines didn't feel like giant war machines and the matches are lacking intensity. That's correct.

Another answer was partly to limit customization and define "roles". That would be a massive step backwards.

My answer is the proposed "energy well" mechanic would address one of the only major gameplay problems, the super high alphas on some mechs, and improve the giant war machine sim at the same time, adding durability and to the combat time per match for each player.

My answer also is, I wouldn't change anything except to speed up the process and continue the way its going slowly adding to the sim like has been done in the past, making mechs go up hills slower or trees that get knocked down, or improving balance and working on game play problems that present themselves.

Also my answer is it would be nice if some attention was put towards including the addition of story/lore/theme and other missing elements.

Edited by Johnny Z, 16 June 2016 - 06:52 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Aresye, on 15 June 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

I think that's what he was getting at. That while MWO has elements that are similar to other shooters such as CS:GO, it isn't even close to a normal FPS in the end, and is already far more forgiving.

If y'all want to incorporate some skill based method of aim deviation, such as crosshair sway, I'm cool with that.

If y'all want to incorporate predictable weapon recoil based off weapon types and hardpoint location, I'm cool with that as well.

If y'all want to incorporate some RNG based aim deviation, in which I miss a dual CERPPC shot I should have hit, and I get rekt because that was the last guy on the other team and we're both cherry red CT, and there is 100% nothing I could have done to predict and adjust to make that shot hit, all for the sake of, "Tabletop," nuh uh. No way bruh.

I get what you're saying, Aresye. The problem, though, is that Energy and Missile weapons don't have recoil. As to adding a skill based "sway" system, I think that is what we're all wanting. CoF is bs and everyone knows it. WoT has it and it works fine because every tank dies to 3 hits, if that many, and people try and fail to peak and pop. The bigger the gun, the slower it is to aim so the cost/benefit is that you kill something in a single hit but you'd better hit with it - artillery is a nightmare but that is a different discussion for a different board.

• I think that movement based, including JJ, sway needs to be a thing. The faster you go (i.e., percentage to your mech's max speed), the more sway you have; could probably be capped at 50% of JJ sway
  
• I think that there needs to be a heat base spread once you get past 50% on your heat scale; in my mind, you increase your target range, and therefor your convergence point, by 10% per 1% above 50% (at 80% heat, your convergence point would be 300% further than if you were at or below 50% heat)
  
• ACs should cause an equal amount of recoil as when you get hit by that same type of AC (Gauss Rifles would obviously be excluded); the recoil would be greater the further from center the AC is located (i.e., arm ACs would cause more and arm ACs where you have a lower arm actuator would cause the most)
  
• I'd also like to see some level of damage reduction tied into sensor and target acquisition - this will piss a lot of people off but today's snipers don't just sit in the world and take snap shots, they base their shots on things like temperature, range, elevation differences, windage, humidity/precipitation, elevation in the world, speed of target, etc. I'm all for putting damage where you aim but there comes a point where sensors in game serve no purpose and PGI has to make up things to attach to the Clan targeting computers when this should be a part of it. I don't want random "Ghost Damage" but I do want to see something that requires actually having an angle on a target to the point where you can utilize sensor information to better your accuracy and damage output.

Thoughts?

[Thunder Child]

1453 R, on 16 June 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

MechWarrior should absolutely be a run-and-gun shooter - if you're in a light or fast medium 'Mech. Run-and-gun, or to be more precise in my language here: the ability to fire accurately whilst on the move and actively attempting to outmaneuver the enemy, is a critical component of virtually any non-assault player's skillset, and frankly even 100% dedicated assault players need to learn how to R&G to some extent. As an infamous video game @sshole once said: "Speed is life. if you go slow, you die." Trying to discourage players from engaging in mobile battle is a fantastic way of ensuring this game dies a quick, ignoble death. If both sides are trying to mostly just sit still and wait for the other team to make the explicit error of moving...well, that's going to be a long, boring, really kinda frustrating game.

We seem to have a different understanding of Run'n Gun. I agree with this entire statement. But to me, Run'n Gun is Halo style play, where you bounce around like a mad rabbit trying to one shot people. Which is fine for Halo. I like Halo. But in MWO, even light playstyles tend to be a little more.... reserved, than typical R&G. I definitely don't want to see WoT corner humping become the ONLY playstyle in MWO. It's already too dominant.

1453 R, on 16 June 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

Predictable Divergence, as I recall, is the gradual deconvergence of your weapons based on multiple external factors to hit near specific regions of an expanding crosshair. It's workable in theory, but also runs into the "this breaks hitreg/HSR" issues that any other dynamic convergence system does, and frankly it's always smacked of committee compromise to me. Levi's a cool guy, don't get me wrong, but having your weapons deconverge, but not deconverge too much, and fire sorta randomly but not actually randomly, but instead at specific regions of your crosshair based on their compass direction from the center of your 'Mech, is...weird. It's an ungainly system in my particular personal view, and once again invokes the issue of the crosshair being a polite request rather than a command. As well, it does the thing most people do with their thing and Predicts the Future(echo, echo, echo....) such that crosshair divergence happens before a large salvo of weapons fire, in order to ensure that accurately putting a large salvo of fire on target is never possible.

I don't think Levi ever mentioned limiting Alpha by preemptive Deconvergence. I know I haven't. It's not intended to prevent Alphas. If you fire off your Alpha while below the threshold, it won't be affected. It's not intended to make accurate fire impossible either. Run at cruising speed, and watch your heat, and convergence won't be an issue. Then open the throttle after firing to get to cover and cool off. It's meant to be a risk/reward balance.

1453 R, on 16 June 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

As for penalties for pushing the 'Mech...sure. Absolutely, let's see how that falls out. But the penalties need to be commensurate with the rewards (i.e. being able to move quickly, or shoot a lot of stuff all at once), rather than being so enormously punitive that doing the thing which triggers the penalties is pretty much always a mistake, in all circumstances.

Pushing a 'Mech hard and having it complain would be a great addition to the game. Pushing a 'Mech hard and having it just fall completely to pieces under you and lose any and all semblance of being a devastating war machine is...a little much.

As I stated, those were ballpark, or initial, values. They may be a little extreme, yes, but they were an example. The actual figures would be tweaked based on what is best for balance. At the end of the day, it's to balance risk/reward. Unload a 100pt Alpha, and you should be in trouble (and yes, 100pt alphas are a thing. I've been in a lance running 100pt Warhawks. They were terrifying).
Running mechs above 60% or so is meant to make them hard to handle. It's in every novel. It's core to TT. But in MWO, it's irrelevant as long as you're below 99%.
That's what we're after. To add a little risk to the reward.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 16 June 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

PPCs should be different. In addition to disrupting ECM carriers, they should also disrupt the HUD, increase heat, and cause target locks to be lost.

But, PPCs should still have recoil because they are effectively coil-guns firing streams of extremely tiny-but-still-massive projectiles. The amount of recoil you'd feel firing a PPC whose total output is 3 kJ would be about the same as what you'd feel from a rifle firing a 7.62 mm lead-core bullet with the same muzzle energy. The rest of what you're talking about is agnostic toward whether or not the PPC has recoil.

Personally? I want the PPCs to be beam-weapons with extremely short durations (<= 0.25 s) that have a short fire-and-forget charge delay (somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5 seconds). Having them disrupt ECM and HUDs at any point with in X meters from the beam UNLESS the target in question also has a PPC (implying they have the shielding necessary to not screw themselves on firing). That would be neat.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 June 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

Its not about the solo players, its just saying that the only situation in which a mech should be allowed to be stun locked, is when multiple people are firing at it.

Well then, I guess we're really looking at things from opposite perspectives.

I'd like to have situations in which members of Blue Team are able to compel Red Team to seek cover due to withering fire while the rest of Blue Team move in for the kill or even just to reposition.

Also, having 1 player from Blue Team doing nothing but stun locking 1 player from Red Team just means they're both not doing any killing. Now whether or not other members of Blue Team take advantage of the situation or members of Red Team try to reverse it is precisely what teams and teamwork are all about.

In other words, I want suppressive fire to be a compelling thing in MWO.

[Thunder Child]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 June 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

But, PPCs should still have recoil because they are effectively coil-guns firing streams of extremely tiny-but-still-massive projectiles. The amount of recoil you'd feel firing a PPC whose total output is 3 kJ would be about the same as what you'd feel from a rifle firing a 7.62 mm lead-core bullet with the same muzzle energy. The rest of what you're talking about is agnostic toward whether or not the PPC has recoil.

Personally? I want the PPCs to be beam-weapons with extremely short durations (<= 0.25 s) that have a short fire-and-forget charge delay (somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5 seconds). Having them disrupt ECM and HUDs at any point with in X meters from the beam UNLESS the target in question also has a PPC (implying they have the shielding necessary to not screw themselves on firing). That would be neat.

I like those PPCs. However, the immunity to PPC distortion would be a really nice quirk for the Awesome.

[Johnny Z]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 June 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

But, PPCs should still have recoil because they are effectively coil-guns firing streams of extremely tiny-but-still-massive projectiles. The amount of recoil you'd feel firing a PPC whose total output is 3 kJ would be about the same as what you'd feel from a rifle firing a 7.62 mm lead-core bullet with the same muzzle energy. The rest of what you're talking about is agnostic toward whether or not the PPC has recoil.

Personally? I want the PPCs to be beam-weapons with extremely short durations (&lt;= 0.25 s) that have a short fire-and-forget charge delay (somewhere between 0.2 and 0.5 seconds). Having them disrupt ECM and HUDs at any point with in X meters from the beam UNLESS the target in question also has a PPC (implying they have the shielding necessary to not screw themselves on firing). That would be neat.

This is 100% right. PPC are essentially beam weapons, exciting particles, then throwing them down range with high velocity creating recoil. I think some are getting PPC's mixed up with plasma weapons.... That's not to say there should be recoil in game for the pilot though.

Example. Turning on a light bulb has no recoil but if that light bulb could burn a hole through the coffee table instantly, the light bulb would most certainly blow when turned on.

Edited by Johnny Z, 16 June 2016 - 07:04 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 16 June 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

Also, having 1 player from Blue Team doing nothing but stun locking 1 player from Red Team just means they're both not doing any killing.

You can do both you know? That's why it could be a problem in MW4.

Mystere, on 16 June 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

I'd like to have situations in which members of Blue Team are able to compel Red Team to seek cover due to withering fire while the rest of Blue Team move in for the kill or even just to reposition.

You can do that without stun locking.....in fact, you can do that now.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 June 2016 - 07:03 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 June 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

The problem with that, is many of the stock mechs have serious overlap, which means a lot of the stock variants need to be redone to be both not crap and be more unique. Not to mention engine sizes should be slightly adjustable. Ditching construction rules gives you a bit more freedom with how to go about that since stock configs will need to be redone anyway.

Carving out a space for mechs isn't as hard. A really easy solution is making flexibility in construction a mech by mech factor so "bad" stock mechs have a bit more flexibility in modification.

Also a better weapon balance format helps a great deal.

Quote

I'm not a fan of the quirkening, I'd rather they hide what mechs need more to be better. It ends up being slightly confusing to players giving them information they really don't need to know.


No, R&R should NEVER be used as a balancing tool in a PvP only game. It makes sense for PvE, but that's it.

Quirks are not balance. I'm looking at "quirks" as self-evident things like hardpoint inflation and obvious performance metrics rather than weapon performance % modifiers and structure bonuses.

I should say "maintenance cost" instead of R&R and say it would be exclusive to FW play.

The idea being that some mechs are more or less expensive to deploy than others and that faction specific mechs are more cost effective to run than others.

So, for example, playing for Kurita and running a Dragon you'll likely make more / match than running a Cataphract.

Not QP or the like but as a facet of FW logistics system. A unit could invest in quality engineering teams and dropships with mech repair bays for a higher per-match profit for members, etc.

[Trauglodyte]

Johnny Z, on 16 June 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

This is 100% right. PPC are essentially beam weapons, exciting particles, then throwing them down range with high velocity creating recoil. I think some are getting PPC's mixed up with plasma weapons.... That's not to say there should be recoil in game for the pilot though.

Example. Turning on a light bulb has no recoil but if that light bulb could burn a hole through the coffee table instantly, the light bulb would most certainly blow when turned on.

PPCs are Plasma Weapons. PPCs deal damage by combining positive and negative ions to create a reaction. Then, through the use of magnetic fielding, it directs that energy to a location. PPCs are, for the lack of a better term, man-made lightning. The reason PPCs don't arc like lightning is because of the magnetics which is why the tier 1 PPC can't fire within 90m is because of the field inhibitor designed to prevent it from arcing back on itself.

So, no, PPCs don't have recoil. There is no projectile and there is no force through which the damage is "thrown".

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 June 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

You can do both you know? That's why it could be a problem in MW4.

I was thinking in terms of players specializing in fire suppression by, for example, loading up on AC2s and LB2-Xs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 June 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

You can do that without stun locking.....in fact, you can do that now.

I know. But what I want are more options.

Edited by Mystere, 16 June 2016 - 07:09 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Trauglodyte, on 16 June 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

PPCs are Plasma Weapons. PPCs deal damage by combining positive and negative ions to create a reaction. Then, through the use of magnetic fielding, it directs that energy to a location. PPCs are, for the lack of a better term, man-made lightning. The reason PPCs don't arc like lightning is because of the magnetics which is why the tier 1 PPC can't fire within 90m is because of the field inhibitor designed to prevent it from arcing back on itself.

So, no, PPCs don't have recoil. There is no projectile and there is no force through which the damage is &quot;thrown&quot;.

You just said yourself its lightning. Even been near a lightning strike? It creates tons of energy before it hits, as in it creates tons of recoil.

Fact of the matter is, both parties have equal, as always. So in theory a PPC that did that kind of damage to its target would have recoil. In practice a lightning strike does way more recoil than damage.... I could be wrong about this but that recoil is actually the sound barrier being broken. I once had jets go super sonic directly above me quite low and its something.

Edited by Johnny Z, 16 June 2016 - 07:22 PM.

[Thunder Child]

Mystere, on 16 June 2016 - 07:07 PM, said:

I was thinking in terms of players specializing in fire suppression by, for example, loading up on AC2s and LB2-Xs.

I tried that once in a Blackjack. It was hilarious, until the enemy turned to find out where the annoying plinking noise was coming from, and I exploded.

I tried it in a KGC with Macro too, and people either got annoyed and called it Hax, or ignored it and vaporised things with pinpoint alphas. Only semi-viable DPS build I've seen are the Dakka-Maulers, or the BlargWhale (Has UAC 20, UAC 10, and three? UAC 5s).

[Mystere]

Thunder Child, on 16 June 2016 - 07:15 PM, said:

I tried that once in a Blackjack. It was hilarious, until the enemy turned to find out where the annoying plinking noise was coming from, and I exploded.

I tried it in a KGC with Macro too, and people either got annoyed and called it Hax, or ignored it and vaporised things with pinpoint alphas. Only semi-viable DPS build I've seen are the Dakka-Maulers, or the BlargWhale (Has UAC 20, UAC 10, and three? UAC 5s).

Now imagine how much more annoyed they would be if the plinking also caused them to miss their shots.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 16 June 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

Carving out a space for mechs isn't as hard. A really easy solution is making flexibility in construction a mech by mech factor so "bad" stock mechs have a bit more flexibility in modification.

Also a better weapon balance format helps a great deal.

Quirks are not balance. I'm looking at "quirks" as self-evident things like hardpoint inflation and obvious performance metrics rather than weapon performance % modifiers and structure bonuses.

Flexibility (like hardpoint inflation) is dangerous though, because that's what lead us to the point were at now, which is why it is just better to redesign the stock config around what role you want it to play or need to be filled. Weapon balance can also only do so much to help with role diversity and making sure mechs fulfill diverse roles.

MischiefSC, on 16 June 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

I should say "maintenance cost" instead of R&R and say it would be exclusive to FW play.

The idea being that some mechs are more or less expensive to deploy than others and that faction specific mechs are more cost effective to run than others.

So, for example, playing for Kurita and running a Dragon you'll likely make more / match than running a Cataphract.

Not QP or the like but as a facet of FW logistics system. A unit could invest in quality engineering teams and dropships with mech repair bays for a higher per-match profit for members, etc.

I don't mind that so much, but talking about it like its a balancer though is silly, I didn't think we had moved beyond that.

Mystere, on 16 June 2016 - 07:07 PM, said:

I was thinking in terms of players specializing in fire suppression by, for example, loading up on AC2s and LB2-Xs.

I know what you were thinking, but UAC5s would be the better option for both. I'd much rather AC2s be made useful outside of just "knock"

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 June 2016 - 07:28 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Trauglodyte, on 16 June 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

PPCs are Plasma Weapons. PPCs deal damage by combining positive and negative ions to create a reaction. Then, through the use of magnetic fielding, it directs that energy to a location. PPCs are, for the lack of a better term, man-made lightning. The reason PPCs don't arc like lightning is because of the magnetics which is why the tier 1 PPC can't fire within 90m is because of the field inhibitor designed to prevent it from arcing back on itself.

So, no, PPCs don't have recoil. There is no projectile and there is no force through which the damage is "thrown".

If that's from a canonical BT source, then I have pity on anybody who cherishes this IP.

That said, PPCs canonically fire ions, which are merely atoms that have either gained or lost an electron, at a target. This gives them a charge which can be acted upon via electromagnetic effects to accelerate them.The magnetic fielding you speak of is provided by the coils I mentioned. Atoms have mass. Ergo, they are projectiles and the PPC is a glorified projectile weapon and there is going to be recoil which will be significant so long as the damage being inflicted is significant due to Newton's Third Law. Particle beams deal damage via kinetic impact and the heating of the impact site (actually heating just under the surface). Depending on target composition, the beam could also trigger the emission of lethal amounts of x-ray radiation and kill the occupants.

Now, unless you want to try to tell me that the Gauss rifle, which operates on very similar principles, has no recoil....

Finally, what you describe isn't even how plasma works.

[MischiefSC]

Trauglodyte, on 16 June 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

PPCs are Plasma Weapons. PPCs deal damage by combining positive and negative ions to create a reaction. Then, through the use of magnetic fielding, it directs that energy to a location. PPCs are, for the lack of a better term, man-made lightning. The reason PPCs don't arc like lightning is because of the magnetics which is why the tier 1 PPC can't fire within 90m is because of the field inhibitor designed to prevent it from arcing back on itself.

So, no, PPCs don't have recoil. There is no projectile and there is no force through which the damage is "thrown".

Well, the lasers and PPC are both pushing huge volumes of power down range. While a megawatt laser may not have a significant recoil a terawatt one would. Especially a 1 second long burn - that's a longer expression than any ballistic recoil would be.

PPCs are generating a discharge of a crap ton of force. Likely much more than a regular weather generated lightning given the 10 damage hit.

Lasers have an impulse but we don't notice them due to a relatively minimal amount of force and brief pulse. A 1 second long burn that will vaporize 9 pts worth or armor (vaporizing functionality 1,000 lbs of steel in 1 second!) is going to generate a recoil.

[Thunder Child]

I remember PPCs had a helluva kick in MW3

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 June 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

Flexibility (like hardpoint inflation) is dangerous though, because that's what lead us to the point were at now, which is why it is just better to redesign the stock config around what role you want it to play or need to be filled. Weapon balance can also only do so much to help with role diversity and making sure mechs fulfill diverse roles.


I don't mind that so much, but talking about it like its a balancer though is silly, I didn't think we had moved beyond that.


I know what you were thinking, but UAC5s would be the better option for both. I'd much rather AC2s be made useful outside of just "knock"

So let me ask you this -

How many roles do you see? Be generous. Suppose you had spent the money to get a great coding team and we're willing to invest in IW as part of a role warfare approach to mech balance.

I'm game with overlap based on flavor.

I confess I'm mostly looking at this from a FW perspective. My inclination is to gently move QP into a Solaris concept and take FW to the next level. There's a lot of interest in a deep and engaging FW environment. While matches can be kept in the 10-30 minute ranges fights over planets should take days to a week and instead of counting clicks off a bar be measure in changing eengagements. Move from securing landing zones to clearing defenses to securing supply lines to clearing objectives, taking POI and culminating in a big day long invasion of the capital with scouting and raids in 4v4 and 8v8 being open the whole time to make the bigger objectives easier.

Add to this merc contracts open to both sides not for X days but specific phases of the campaign with set rewards for how fast/effective it's completed, etc.

Taking a planet should be a big deal and earn a cool decal and cockpit items akin to "campaign ribbons" for meeting certain performance metrics.

In that context mech balance and roles can overlap but vary in flavor. So how would you break those roles up?

[InspectorG]

A. A zero-sum game like Solo MWO favors big alphas because it removes enemies in the fewest steps(moves)
Pure DPS builds can work but only on very coordinated teams utilizing terrain properly

B. Role Warfare could be built if weight classes werent so linearly represented. Example: Ditch the BT mechbuilding rules.
Maybe Assaults should have @400HP for CT/300 for ST coupled with LESS agility (@ 8 seconds to about face, less arm agility)
Assaults get 50-90 damage alphas.
Heavies would be about where they are now but with LESS AGILITY. Outliers like the Summoner could keep the agility with its puny weaponry.
Mediums get an agility buff(slight) and hard hitting culprits like the Stormcrow get structure/armor nerfs(glass cannon)

Lights get more agility. Better utility from MG/Flamer.

C. Ammo ratios can change between weight classes.
1 ton ammo for light = unlimited ammo.
1 ton ammo for Assault could have .75% current depending on chassis.
Tonnage could reflect loading mechanism not just number of bullets.

D. Heat Cap. DHS/HS dont add but perhaps modules can.

Heat penalties.

E. Screw convergence related solutions, PGI said no way. Instead, dire heat penalty could be reticle shake like using JJ.

If you want to stifle alphas AND boating, do so at the Weapon Groups. Simplest solution. Can vary by Variant - roles for chassis can be varied by this.
Implement a 1 second cooldown between group firings, EZ PZ, fixed.

True Alpha = shutdown at 150% heat. Override nets you one extra Alpha and keeps you running at 99% heat but CT health drops to 5HP. Risk much? Can you make it reward?

F. Objectives to supplement B. above.