50 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

Shooters are, and do have to be, balanced around the player's ability to do max damage in a single shot (as we've already conceded it's the most powerful way to engage, and it's the method we'll be naturally drawn to as soon as our skills and competitiveness allow). What was so controversial about it?

This one really doesn't have to be. In BT/MW, unlike other shooters, we have an array of weapons all available at once, we have individually destructible components instead of health (regenerating or not).
I don't get the part about "as soon as our skills allow", as it does not take more skill click once than it does to click multiple times and still be as accurate.

[zagibu]

The "alpha strike" comparison with other shooters just shows that Gyrok does not even have the slightest grasp on MWO's gameplay mechanics.

[XtremWarrior]

zagibu, on 28 August 2016 - 04:15 AM, said:

The "alpha strike" comparison with other shooters just shows that Gyrok does not even have the slightest grasp on MWO's gameplay mechanics.

No i think he's just from the part of MWO's population that want the game to be more like CoD/Battlefield/etc;
the problem being that most players come to MWO precisely because it's not at all like generic FPS games.

[BigJim]

Hotthedd, on 28 August 2016 - 04:13 AM, said:

This one really doesn't have to be. In BT/MW, unlike other shooters, we have an array of weapons all available at once, we have individually destructible components instead of health (regenerating or not).

I agree it doesn't have to be balanced overall so that Alpha'ing is the most powerful method; For instance, PGI could purposefully make DoT weapons more powerful "per projectile" than single-shot weapons.

Similarly, they could (not saying they should, but they could) introduce a "diminishing returns" mechanism, that means that additional weapons alpha-fired after the first contribute less damage than their base stats to the overall alpha. So the first ML does 5 dmg, the second does 3.5, the thrid does 1.75 and all others do 0.75, if fired in a single alpha.

These are all hypothetical ways that the game could be balanced so that a player who alpha-fires in combat is not more automatically powerful than a player who chain-fires his weapons, or uses a DoT weapon.

However, we must recognise that if PGI did intervene in such a way, it would be an act of balancing the game around the fundamental fact that the alpha style is, all things being equal, more powerful.

So yeah, games don't have to be that way, but they have to balanced around that inconvenient truth if you don't want them to be that way.

Hotthedd, on 28 August 2016 - 04:13 AM, said:

I don't get the part about "as soon as our skills allow", as it does not take more skill click once than it does to click multiple times and still be as accurate.

I just mean that it's harder to land hits with a single-shot weapon than it is to gain a hit with a rapid-fire, damage over time, area-effect, or group of weapons chain-fired.

Consider the Chain-gun, Pusle Rifle, Rocket Launcher (if splash-firing) or Flak Cannon vs the Shock Rifle or Sniper Rifle in UT99, UT2k3/4/UT3 etc...
Shock/Sniper masters do require more skill, but in turn they're much more powerful, even in close-quarters (assuming they're skillful enough - sadly I was only approaching that good in my UT days, I was never a hitscan master).

So too, the Gauss in MWO - Harder to master than most other weapons, but without major nerfing on PGI's part to give other weapons a chance - really, really powerful.

Not calling single-shot leet 360-noscope ninjas the thing we should all look up to (my god no, where's the fun in that!?), but it's a real thing that it's harder to master, and gives an advantage in combat.

Or take the equivalent example from Quake, CoD, hat-shooter online, whatever..



To bring it back to MWO, and taking range et-al out of the discussion, if a player in MWO has the skill to really work his heat, and master the art of riding that heat-threshold, an all-alpha, all the time player will generally beat me, if I'm dutifully waiting on my weapons to chain fire, or recycle one at a time, or whatever - again, other factors being equal.


So if/when we get good enough, and if we really want to *win* a given match, we'll gravitate to these strongest (some say tryhard) methods naturally. 'Course messing about with friends, who gives a damn? But that's why I said when our skills *and* our competitiveness is riled-up enough.


So yeah, don't take my post as doing a Kevin Costner and diving into the bullet of Gyrok's Whitney Houston, but I just don't think it was that controversial point for him to make.

*EDIT* Speelig n' gramorr

Edited by BigJim, 28 August 2016 - 09:02 AM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

While a bit late to the party I am still laughing at the idea of "alpha striking" with my home's biggest piece of ordinance since that would actually blow away roughly half my house. An Alpha Strike would be more of in say CoD where you pulled out your primary and secondary in either hand (like the gunzerker in Borderlands 2) and fired both at once, which in CoD and Battlefield would be terribly inaccurate, an inherent balancing mechanic to make high alpha strikes you know, require skill and time to pull off. While in MWO we have no inaccuracy, we have pinpoint DoT weapons (lasers which are like SMG's), we have Gauss (which is a sniper rifle), PPC's (rocket launchers due to slow speed but high alpha), and then various AC's which are more like a shotgun or grenade launcher.

But, yes, Alpha Strikes in all games actually do have a draw back, if you are doing a snap shot alpha strike like you can with perfect accuracy in MWO you don't have that in any other game, your aiming reticle expands or behind the scenes your cone of fire expands. So, yeah, sure you may be technically alpha striking all the time in other games, with a single weapon, but, you have penalties for doing so without taking time to slow down and aim. Or you can spray and pray while moving at maximum speed. Oh hey look another trade off MWO doesn't have compared to most arena shooters. Either way, I didn't want an arena shooter when it came to MWO, hell it isn't one now despite the older maps like Canyon Network and HPG that make it almost an arena shooter (and old frozen city). So if we are going to go the route of alpha strikes all the time, lets make it so moving at running speed (max speed) instead of walking gives a major accuracy penalty like using jumpjets or masc does. Lets have walking give a small penalty while standing still lets us have our current pinpoint accuracy.

Then again PGI is allergic to Cone of Fire setups and that is what shake should do.

[SamsungNinja]

Hotthedd, on 28 August 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

Are you firing all of your equipped weapons at once? If so, it is by definition an Alpha strike.

MW:O does not have that balance, for two reasons:
1. There is no heat scale. 0% heat is effectively the same as 99% heat.
2. Instant perfect precise accurate convergence allows multiple weapons of the same type to basically be used as one mega weapon.
So, there is literally no downside to Alpha/Group fire. Therefore, it is the only way to play most builds.

Balancing around DPS makes no sense when DPS is not the optimum play style. Alpha/Group fire is always better.

A longer downtime is good, but as long as you can deliver all of that damage to one spot, and still move as if you were at 0% heat, it is not enough of a trade-off.

Fast moving and Hard hitting and with zero adverse effects from heat or accuracy is a combination that renders every other play style ineffective.

If spiking your heat does not also bring negative effects, then heat is really no longer a factor.

And this is why group fire accuracy needs to be looked at.

The cA/C vs. cUA/C issue isn't one because of any of those factors (which DO need to be looked at), it is because of raw damage, especially with group fire.

You're so off-base in your pedantic reply, that I'm just shaking my head in awe. I would respond, but I really don't think you can grasp this one. It's beyond your powers of comprehension, clearly.

I'll just say that you jumped the shark when you said that a striker/flanker renders every other playstyle ineffective, when those builds are typically ~300m builds. Yeah, I'm mean when I'm in your face--but I trade that for being completely ineffective at range.

If you're not willing to consider all contributing factors to balance, then you're building a straw man argument. Which, in so doing, reduces this entire discussion to a circle-jerk.

[BigJim]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 28 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

But, yes, Alpha Strikes in all games actually do have a draw back, if you are doing a snap shot alpha strike like you can with perfect accuracy in MWO you don't have that in any other game, your aiming reticle expands or behind the scenes your cone of fire expands. So, yeah, sure you may be technically alpha striking all the time in other games, with a single weapon, but, you have penalties for doing so without taking time to slow down and aim.

Hard to read but solid point. Only thing is, you've joined the equation half way through.

Those games that have reticle bloom are indeed balanced around the factors this thread is about - that reticle bloom is a mechanism introduced by the developers.
It's not a law of nature that came out of the big-bang, it's a concious decision made by devs, to put a slight reign on that playstyle (among other reasons they may have).

So, it is a prime example of a dev balancing around the fact that (what we would in this game call) Alpha striking is more powerful, other factors being equal.

Ps; For what it's worth; I think and have always thought a reasonable reticle bloom could really do good work in MWO, but that's another discussion alltogether!

Edited by BigJim, 28 August 2016 - 09:11 AM.

[Hotthedd]

SamsungNinja, on 28 August 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

You're so off-base in your pedantic reply, that I'm just shaking my head in awe. I would respond, but I really don't think you can grasp this one. It's beyond your powers of comprehension, clearly.

Ah yes, the ol' ad hominem. The first and most basict reply of those who have no valid argument against a point.
We'll just call that point conceded, shall we?
"All" means all, even if that is only one.

SamsungNinja, on 28 August 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

I'll just say that you jumped the shark when you said that a striker/flanker renders every other playstyle ineffective, when those builds are typically ~300m builds. Yeah, I'm mean when I'm in your face--but I trade that for being completely ineffective at range.

I'll just say that perhaps you read waht I said too fast and it didn't register. What I said was that without either precision or quantifiable heat consequences, that Alpha/Group fire is always better than the alternative.

SamsungNinja, on 28 August 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

If you're not willing to consider all contributing factors to balance, then you're building a straw man argument. Which, in so doing, reduces this entire discussion to a circle-jerk.

These are the contributing factors to balance that I am willing to consider as it applies to weapons:
Tonnage
Heat
Damage
Projectile speed
Application (spread/PPFLD/DoT/burst fire)
Critical space
Weapon duration
Weapon cooldown
Weapon range
Lock-on mechanics

I firmly believe that with these ten variables, that individual weapon balance can be achieved. However, the trick is to not make firing those weapons combined into a single weapon too OP. Diminishing returns on accuracy and/or a graduated heat scale addresses that.

[Hotthedd]

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

These are all hypothetical ways that the game could be balanced so that a player who alpha-fires in combat is not more automatically powerful than a player who chain-fires his weapons, or uses a DoT weapon.

Having a sliding scale for damage would work, but it is more complicated that I believe to be necessary.

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

However, we must recognise that if PGI did intervene in such a way, it would be an act of balancing the game around the fundamental fact that the alpha style is, all things being equal, more powerful.

Exactly my point. PGI has been balancing from a sustained DPS standpoint for individual weapons, but only limiting Alpha/Group fire with heat. Unfortunately when 99% heat is the same as 0% heat, it is not an effective balancing tool.

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

So yeah, games don't have to be that way, but they have to balanced around that inconvenient truth if you don't want them to be that way.

Yep. That is what I was saying.

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

I just mean that it's harder to land hits with a single-shot weapon than it is to gain a hit with a rapid-fire, damage over time, area-effect, or group of weapons chain-fired.

Okay. But what I was saying is that it is easier to land all of your shots on one component (which is the most effective way to play) when you have multiple weapons aimed and fired with one click.

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

To bring it back to MWO, and taking range et-al out of the discussion, if a player in MWO has the skill to really work his heat, and master the art of riding that heat-threshold, an all-alpha, all the time player will generally beat me, if I'm dutifully waiting on my weapons to chain fire, or recycle one at a time, or whatever - again, other factors being equal.

Unless he is a potato, or has severe lag issues, he will always win that contest.
That is the point. To be competitive, there is only one way to do it. He has the dual advantage of more damage to one component, and less face-time. There literally is no drawback. Riding the heat threshold is incredibly easy.

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

So if/when we get good enough, and if we really want to *win* a given match, we'll gravitate to these strongest (some say tryhard) methods naturally. 'Course messing about with friends, who gives a damn? But that's why I said when our skills *and* our competitiveness is riled-up enough.

Some may say tryhard, some just call it easier-mode. Wouldn't it be cool if both methods had their pros and cons?

[BigJim]

Hotthedd, on 28 August 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Some may say tryhard, some just call it easier-mode. Wouldn't it be cool if both methods had their pros and cons?

Oh yeah, I agree - and it seems that once the vitriol of this thread (not accusing you per-se, but Gyrok-threads tend to attract vitriol like WD40 attracts grime! ) is put to one side, we see eye to eye.

However, my intervention in this thread was that just about everything you & I discussed is self-evidently true.
The OP took that logic one (maybe half a) step further and stated that pretty much all shooters are, and by nature have to be, balanced around that same concept, but inexplicably he attracted a bunch of anger like a fart salesman at a lift-expo...

I just wanted to point out (with less fuel on less flames) that it wasn't a controversial point. At least to me.

Edited by BigJim, 29 August 2016 - 01:23 AM.

[Gyrok]

BigJim, on 28 August 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

Oh yeah, I agree - and it seems that once the vitriol of this thread (not accusing you per-se, but Gyrok-threads tend to attract vitriol like WD40 attracts grime! ) is put to one side, we see eye to eye.

However, my intervention in this thread was that just about everything you & I discussed is self-evidently true.
The OP took that logic one (maybe half a) step further and stated that pretty much all shooters are, and by nature have to be, balanced around that same concept, but inexplicably he attracted a bunch of anger like a fart salesman at a lift-expo...

I just wanted to point out (with less fuel on less flames) that it wasn't a controversial point. At least to me.

WOW!

A sensible person who thought about what I said and looked at it objectively.

I do not care what anyone in this thread says, you, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.