41 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

Davers, on 24 August 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

PGI envisioned a game where players would actively target components of enemy mechs. A cone of fire would defeat that purpose and be counter to their vision.

How many games have cones of fire on single shot weapons? CoF is commonly used in games with rapid fire weapons, where it takes very few bullets to kill an opponent. Yet, in those same games there are usually single shot, highly accurate sniper rifles. That's what we have in MWO- sniper rifles, CoF SRMs, and lasers that sorta act like a combination of the two with the beam duration often hitting multiple components.

if my memory serves for single shot weapons that don't impose a restriction they have CoF. The pistol and the sniper rifle used whilst moving are not perfectly accurate.

The sniper rifle is only accurate when you're still and your field of vision is limited.

With a CoF it might be that the pinpoint accuracy would still be there but only if you're not moving and not on high heat. So you'd still have your sniper rifle.

[davoodoo]

Davers, on 24 August 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

And for what it's worth, mechs died MUCH quicker in TT even with random hit locations than they do in MWO.

Dont forgot to mention x2 armor and the fact that tt mechs didnt twist or the fact that single player controlled multiple mechs and could easily coordinate fire.

Then also compare how many of those quick deaths were favor of rngesus and how many of quick deaths in mwo have nothing to do with luck...

Edited by davoodoo, 24 August 2016 - 07:41 AM.

[Davers]

davoodoo, on 24 August 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Dont forgot to mention x2 armor and the fact that tt mechs didnt twist or the fact that single player controlled multiple mechs and could easily coordinate fire.

Then also compare how many of those quick deaths were favor of rngesus and how many of quick deaths in mwo have nothing to do with luck...

I think we are in agreement...?

[Geminus]

Davers, on 24 August 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

PGI envisioned a game where players would actively target components of enemy mechs. A cone of fire would defeat that purpose and be counter to their vision.

How many games have cones of fire on single shot weapons? CoF is commonly used in games with rapid fire weapons, where it takes very few bullets to kill an opponent. Yet, in those same games there are usually single shot, highly accurate sniper rifles. That's what we have in MWO- sniper rifles, CoF SRMs, and lasers that sorta act like a combination of the two with the beam duration often hitting multiple components.

I see what your saying. However, PGI bought the right to use intellectual property with established values and an established fan base. Part of the established values is that computer systems of the mechs are NOT capable of pin point aim and heat makes it worse. This is the definition of cone of fire when translated into a FPS. The majority of the problems that have risen in this game, all the forum complaints, all the issues that makes PGI unhappy, all stem from the divergence from that concept.
Its like removing the speed limits and then scratching your head and wondering why everyone is speeding. And then trying to remake the roads so that its harder to speed.

[davoodoo]

Davers, on 24 August 2016 - 07:42 AM, said:

I think we are in agreement...?

On what, that afk put against enemy lance will die under 5s at hands of even most incompetent players despite double armor and alphas reduced by ghost heat??

Cause this is proper comparison to tt... 0 torso twisting, no lag and 0 problems with hit registration, 50% armor, mechs coordinated by single person assuring perfect "teamwork", lack of sufficient cover, effective heat sinks allowing for bigger alphas than we ever had in gh and now in ed(up to 4 times as big as ed allows)

But lets compare ttk to something which tried to emulate tt rules and didnt allowed precise fire like mechwarrior 1-4 where ttk is times higher than in tt and mwo which proves it does work and making comparison to tt a nonargument...

Edited by davoodoo, 24 August 2016 - 08:12 AM.

[Geminus]

Davers, on 24 August 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

And for what it's worth, mechs died MUCH quicker in TT even with random hit locations than they do in MWO.

Davers, this is an excellent point. But lets look at intent and the value of playing the game. The fun factor. In TT one round is 10 seconds. All that damage is traded in 10 seconds. But how long in the real world does it take to play those 10 seconds? Several minutes. So I do understand doing things to prolong the battles in FPS land. If the matches were over in 60 seconds or less, we loose the fun. This is another translation from TT to FPS. So I DO get the need to prolong the fighting, but lets do it intelligently.

Lets separate our feeling from Cone of fire and heat scale and energy draw, and the system of having gerbils on board that power the weapons through the force, or what ever is coming next. Lets take a stone cold logical look.

I understand that PGI has their own feelings on how they want things to go down. They have to understand that there is a player base out there that needs to be happy, mostly happy, not everyone can be 100% happy. And there are 2 camps, the old school hardline fans of the intellectual property, and the new players. They need to attract new without loosing the old.

So. They say the intent is to have a match that lasts x amount of minutes. To do this we need to slow down damage done. Players will make builds that allow them to do damage the most effectively. It would be stupid otherwise. No one is going, Awww yeah, I'm taking this dire wolf and putting in 3 machine guns and 2 er small lasers and 1 flamer and 2 AMS and 1 streak 2 and 1 SRM 6 and 1 LRM 15 and 1 AC2 and 1 AC 20 and an ER large laser.
Its not happening. Human nature is to build a mech that does the best damage possible in the play style that is fun to that player. An intelligent player is going to specialize a mech, and then do something to round it out some, in my opinion.

( we don't need to create systems to penalize players for ultra specialized builds. The over specialization is its own weakness. A catapult with 6 SRM 6s and no other weapons just handed you the recipe for its kryptonite. The quad ERPPC mech with no close range defenses just whispered the secret in your ear.)

So now in the translation from TT to FPS, PGI has intentionally (based on their vision) shunned the established built in checks and balances. They are now spending the last 3 years going, why are their no checks and balances? So , if we make this hotter, and this colder, and this have more cooldown, and this less, and this explode and this half the range, and this only work on full moons.... etc etc. Until they finally manage to balance a pyramid updside down. And it will stand on its point for 30 seconds, until new mechs, or maps, or someone builds something new. Because that is what the game is about. Building a mech that suits you.

So is it easier to stand the pyramid on end, for years, implementing ghost heat, and energy draw and constantly changing weapons values, or is it easier to implement one new mechanic that changes all of it. One new mechanic that addressees the very things that you are trying to fix?

Pretend its not cone of fire. Pretend its the "ultima widget".
Would you rather they constantly tweak and change and remake the same weapons over and over, or would you rather just put in the ultima widget and polish it up?

Edited by Geminus, 24 August 2016 - 08:05 AM.

[Davers]

Geminus, on 24 August 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

Davers, this is an excellent point. But lets look at intent and the value of playing the game. The fun factor. In TT one round is 10 seconds. All that damage is traded in 10 seconds. But how long in the real world does it take to play those 10 seconds? Several minutes. So I do understand doing things to prolong the battles in FPS land. If the matches were over in 60 seconds or less, we loose the fun. This is another translation from TT to FPS. So I DO get the need to prolong the fighting, but lets do it intelligently.

Lets separate our feeling from Cone of fire and heat scale and energy draw, and the system of having gerbils on board that power the weapons through the force, or what ever is coming next. Lets take a stone cold logical look.

I understand that PGI has their own feelings on how they want things to go down. They have to understand that there is a player base out there that needs to be happy, mostly happy, not everyone can be 100% happy. And there are 2 camps, the old school hardline fans of the intellectual property, and the new players. They need to attract new without loosing the old.

So. They say the intent is to have a match that lasts x amount of minutes. To do this we need to slow down damage done. Players will make builds that allow them to do damage the most effectively. It would be stupid otherwise. No one is going, Awww yeah, I'm taking this dire wolf and putting in 3 machine guns and 2 er small lasers and 1 flamer and 2 AMS and 1 streak 2 and 1 SRM 6 and 1 LRM 15 and 1 AC2 and 1 AC 20 and an ER large laser.
Its not happening. Human nature is to build a mech that does the best damage possible in the play style that is fun to that player. An intelligent player is going to specialize a mech, and then do something to round it out some, in my opinion.

( we don't need to create systems to penalize players for ultra specialized builds. The over specialization is its own weakness. A catapult with 6 SRM 6s and no other weapons just handed you the recipe for its kryptonite. The quad ERPPC mech with no close range defenses just whispered the secret in your ear.)

So now in the translation from TT to FPS, PGI has intentionally (based on their vision) shunned the established built in checks and balances. They are now spending the last 3 years going, why are their no checks and balances? So , if we make this hotter, and this colder, and this have more cooldown, and this less, and this explode and this half the range, and this only work on full moons.... etc etc. Until they finally manage to balance a pyramid updside down. And it will stand on its point for 30 seconds, until new mechs, or maps, or someone builds something new. Because that is what the game is about. Building a mech that suits you.

So is it easier to stand the pyramid on end, for years, implementing ghost heat, and energy draw and constantly changing weapons values, or is it easier to implement one new mechanic that changes all of it. One new mechanic that addressees the very things that you are trying to fix?

Pretend its not cone of fire. Pretend its the "ultima widget".
Would you rather they constantly tweak and change and remake the same weapons over and over, or would you rather just put in the ultima widget and polish it up?

Well we aren't talking about Ultima widgets here.

Increasing ttk because players are forced to be innacurate won't make players happy. Long range weapons that are only useful when fired up close is bad.

There are plenty of consequences for CoF especially when dealing with targets of different sizes like we have in MWO. CoF would be make light mechs unhittable at range. Lasers and srms would dominate (assuming you could lead them back on a target) and ppcs and ballistics would be abandoned. Who would use something as hot as an erppc if you knew the shot wouldn't go where you aimed it?

Take away player's ability to aim, regardless of their skill, and you end up with nothing but face hugging srm fights. And that sounds boring to me.

[Geminus]

And there is more then one way to implement cone of fire. It has been stated that PGI envisioned the ability to do pinpoint damage, which is fine, but now every tweak and every adjustment has been an attempt to lessen the being done by pinpoint fire.

First off, the cone doesn't have to be that drastic, and different weapons can have different degrees of cone. A gauss and a PPC are sniper type weapons, it would make sense that they have a little tighter cone, especially at range. The cones of these weapons can have a flatter angle, a cone for something like an AC 20 could open up faster the farther away the target.

But we don't want the PPC and gauss firing at the same point with the same pin point accuracy, so this is where some different things could be done. They don't have to both be using the same cone of fire. They could both have nice tight cones that result in a reasonable amount of aim accuracy, but they each have their own independent cone of fire. So maybe you aim dead center mass on an atlas at 600 meters, you fire both the gauss and the PPC, the gauss hits the upper left of its cone, but still inside the CT, and the PPC hits the far right of its cone, just missing the CT and striking RT.

Also, each mounting area could have its own cone of fire. The right arm would be a cone and the left arm another one. So even if you ran a PPC in each arm, fired at the same time, with a decently tight cone of fire, they could still hit different places. This adds yet ANOTHER layer of depth the mechbay. I not only have to consider weight, and heat, and crit, and ammo, I have to consider where I am placing it on my body so that I can have my PPCs "sync up".

Davers, on 24 August 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

Well we aren't talking about Ultima widgets here.

Increasing ttk because players are forced to be innacurate won't make players happy. Long range weapons that are only useful when fired up close is bad.

There are plenty of consequences for CoF especially when dealing with targets of different sizes like we have in MWO. CoF would be make light mechs unhittable at range. Lasers and srms would dominate (assuming you could lead them back on a target) and ppcs and ballistics would be abandoned. Who would use something as hot as an erppc if you knew the shot wouldn't go where you aimed it?

Take away player's ability to aim, regardless of their skill, and you end up with nothing but face hugging srm fights. And that sounds boring to me.

And this is all tweakable. You find the balance point on one mechanic. You find the point where the weapons are reasonably accurate for what their intended roll is, but just inaccurate enough to make them not always hit where you want them.

And with my above example, you can make the accuracy penalty of the cone subtle, but more noticeable when firing multiple weapons types or weapons mounted on different points of the body. Hell, you could make the cone damn near non existent, as long as you are firing one weapon system at a time, with a small pause between shots. Fire more than one type of weapons, cone starts opening up. Fire multiple of the same type, cone starts opening up.

So lets apply this to popular build. Dual gauss dual PPC on an assault mech.

Your standing still, you fire a single gauss. its nearly pinpoint. so close you cant really see the difference. You fire dual gauss at the same time, then they each fire on an independent cone of fire. You fire one ppc, cant see the difference. Fire 2 and they both fire on independent cones.
Mount both PPC in the same arm and fire them linked, the cone is slightly smaller then if they were each in a different arm.
Fire one PPC while moving, you see the cone open up. Fire one PPC while hot, you see the cone start to open up.

The cone doesn't have to turn each weapon into a shotgun. But it allows an adjustable mechanic to prevent all the woes that PGI is trying to correct.

I think that this is a viable idea.

Edited by Geminus, 24 August 2016 - 08:38 AM.

[Wardan]

At first I was against the CoF idea. I was thinking about each shot I took going wild somewhere, but as I kept reading I think that what the OP is suggesting installing is starting to make sense to me. A system where the CoF is, in an ideal state, nearly identical to present shot placement. But instead of an invisible heat penalty or an energy draw system of penalties, things are kept in check via the CoF principle. "Boating" as it would, would cause the CoF to expand showing the effect. As would pop tarting and multi gauss multi ppc sniping. I dropped away from MWO after ghost heat, I only check in sporadically, but I would play again to check out this mechanic, seems worth a go.

Edited by Wardan, 24 August 2016 - 10:18 AM.

[gloowa]

We don't need cone of fire. Same effect will be eachieved by removing weapon convergence at all - set it to infinity, all weapons fire parallel to each other, damage gets spread - no more pinpoint alphas, no more doublegauss instakills on IS light side torsos, no need for ghost heat or energy draw.

[Geminus]

Interesting.... now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if convergence was turned off, would that not mean instead that the weapons would simply shoot straight ahead of their "true" facing?
And if that were the case, it would be a blank application across the board, cone would enable a tunable mechanic to the game. PGI would be able to allow greater accuracy in some cases and reduced accuracy in others, giving them measure of control over the mechanism.

[Wild Cat]

Regardless of PGI will ever dare to make the step toward CoF or not, I do be lieve it's the solution to a great deal of our problems they are trying to fix/bandage with yet another game mechanic.

During Beta weapons mounted on arms need a short amount of time to line up there shots, not just the CT catching up with were the arms were aiming at, can't recall what the mechanic was called, but I believe we still have a skill that improves on this, yet the mechanic was removed ages ago, possibly even during beta.

It had more or less the same effect as CoF, if you didn't gave your arms sufficient time to line up the shot, your aim would not be accurate and damage would be spread out more or even miss it's mark. I never understood why it got removed, I considered it to be a good system.

Edited by Wild Cat, 24 August 2016 - 01:36 PM.

[East Indy]

When comparing tabletop BattleTech to MechWarrior Online, the correct analogy between Heat Scale/Energy Draw is not the 30-point heat bar, but two six-sided dice.

Random locations in the tabletop game offer decent enough verisimilitude (~48% to hit any one of three torso locations from the front) but distribute damage to maintain a moderate game pace.

When you take a game in which multiple heavy weapons can be mounted and remove any ruleset controlling how many can be fired and at what . . . it's like poker without a hand limit, a race without a starting gun, etc.

Possibilities for a live-action game are cone-of-fire, recoil or an overdraw penalty. Pick one, or else you have a broken game.

[Geminus]

Yes. The translation from dice to FPS is where the issue arises. The weapons are balanced and tested in dice format. Implementing a cone system allows a return to the already tested values, eliminating the complaints and issues in play currently.

[Navid A1]

Naive OP... You think PTS is for testing things?

PGI uses PTS to showcase stuff that are going to get on live server shortly.... an to do some damage control if there is an outcry.

[50Calibur]

davoodoo, on 24 August 2016 - 01:50 AM, said:

Also in fluff, ppc generated recoil and so did every ballistic.
http://www.sarna.net...rojector_Cannon
"Despite being an energy weapon, it produces recoil."

Its not lore breaking to suggest that firing multiple recoil generating weapons throws aim off especially hard which naturally would counter ppfld alphas...

I LOVE the recoil idea, that would put those ACs on an equal playing field! And have PPCs recoill as well, That's GENIUS!!!!

VERY SIMPLE FIX, and IT MAKES SENSE!

They already have the "shaking" mechanic in the game when you get hit, why NOT when you fire (just like in real life).

Edited by 50Calibur, 24 August 2016 - 05:31 PM.

[Geminus]

I think that the recoil and cone go hand in hand. And then you get another level of trade off for using that ultra ac

[Vincent Quatermain]

Geminus, on 23 August 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

Last time I met with some serious abuse, I'm hoping to keep this civil and open minded.

Have you considered that the prior abuse might be related to the quality of the ideas?

Geminus, on 23 August 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

The work of balance and weapons values has all ready been done for us in battletech,

Uh, no. The TT system is just as broken, just as full of garbage stock builds and power creep in later mechs and weapon systems. Only 3025 tech was remotely balanced.

Geminus, on 23 August 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

Where we run into a problem is translating those values from a system where rolling dice determines hit location, vs aiming with a mouse and clicking a button. In this translation between mediums problems are created.

This is true. But then you say . . .

Geminus, on 23 August 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

But mech speed penalties and targeting penalties should absolutely be put in and could be a huge check and balance on builds and combat behavior. Implementing this into the heat scale would be a huge step in the right direction.

Maybe the speed penalties could work, although I worry about it being just as opaque to the user as Ghost Heat, which would make Energy Draw superior. However, targeting penalties are a bad idea only made worse by your advocacy of Ghost Aim:

Geminus, on 23 August 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

So, lets address the pinpoint damage. How? Cone of fire.

Nope. PGI tried it, found it exacerbated netcode issues, and abandoned it. There is also the problem that Ghost Aim basically counters pinpoint damage by adding random numbers and/or having your targeting reticle lie to you. If you want random to-hit rolls, there's a Battletech game coming that will be more your speed.*

As Davers pointed out, Cone of Fire is used in games where targets are easy to kill to prevent high RoF weapons from killing a bunch of people in succession. In MWO, a recoil mechanic would just favor pinpoint alphas even more. What you are proposing is fundamentally different from these mechanics, and makes the game no longer an FPS.

Now I don't think your thread needs to be moved, however. But that's because we don't need this silly Ghost Aim nonsense cluttering general discussion anymore than it already does.



* I will totally play that game too, but for a different experience.

Edited by Vincent Quatermain, 24 August 2016 - 06:36 PM.

[Hyzoran]

I think an improved solution to ED is for each type of weapon system to have it's own limiting factors.

For Example:

Energy Weapons: ED as currently implemented, except: Instead of draining Energy increasing heat, Insufficient energy will reduce damage (and subsequently heat generation) of fired weapons in the amount of available energy vs energy requirement of the weapon. > (Current/Required * Damage[or Heat, for Heat gen] )
This would keep lasers as mostly a contingency weapon unless firing is efficiently distributed. Laser-centric builds would still be viable for accurate bursts of damage.

Ballistic Weapons: Optionally Self-correcting(Automatic re-orientation following fire) Recoil and a pre-replicated seed(to prevent netcode issues) CoF for Ballistics under high-heat. ( P_rotation = HeatMultiplier[HeatLevel, from 0.0-1.0] * RandomRotation(Pitch,Yaw)[Each being randomly decided between 10-20 degrees, depending on weapon and tweaks] )

Gauss could also be effected by ED (Since it is dependent on energy generated by the mech)

If this random value is generated first on the server and then replicated to the client, I dont see how this can cause netcode issues? PSR would know the velocity and orientation of the projectile on both client and server anyway, the starting rotation would just have been tweaked a bit.

Missiles: Launch Tubes: Firing more than a given amount of missiles will result in more being fired off in a continuous pattern rather than all at once.

All of these would keep player-accuracy as a factor but limit boating and pin-point damage effectiveness and delegate it to situational use only (Which is how boating or alpha-striking should be imo)

Edited by Hyzoran, 25 August 2016 - 03:13 PM.

[Ialdabaoth]

CoF + having Clan TC's reduce CoF (instead of their current bonuses) would make so. much. sense.