129 replies to this topic

[NighthawK1337]

Engines have nothing to do with accuracy in a conventional sense. So I disagree with this.
If you want to balance something like that then maybe tweak something that is actually a little bit relevant.

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

that is an option of course, but it comes with 2 major drawbacks. first, it requires a rebalancing of the whole equipment available and second, it will either invalidate lfe before they even arrive or will require another complete rebalance of everything when they arrive.

Pretty sure your idea would bring a lot more balance problems.


The best solution as put forward by others is just allow IS XLs to survive 1 ST destruction, easy peasy, no more adding unnecessary mechanics. Second best solution, introduce LFE and more advanced IS weapons.

Even just tweaking the weapon weights is much more simpler to implement than what you suggested since they can use metrics already there and not implementing a new one(which requires more coding) and gathering data.

Ok lets say that IS tech also becomes as inaccurate as Clan tech, then there's zero sum, Clans will still deal more damage than IS. Assuming IS tech is more accurate than Clan tech, besides being completely BS lorewise, the fact that they already have lower burn duration lasers and pinpoint ACs will make it too unbalanced which will need more changes to the equipment, either make both AC and Lasers behave exactly the same, or make it that both sides have access to the same equipment.

This is the first time I've seen this suggestion BTW.

Personally I'm also adverse to the idea of more luck added. There's already a crit system in place. There's no 100% accuracy in the TT, you're right but then there's also no JJ brawling in the TT, there's no Torso Twisting, there's no Poptarting, which are all bound to skill not luck. Armor values are doubled already. If you want to add Cone of Fire so badly, then maybe you ask the devs to make it so that people can only attack when in formation, facing each other, and no torso twisting like in an actual match in the TT so that everything is bound by luck. Or just spitballing here, wait for the Battletech(2017) game and give that a go?

Edited by NighthawK1337, 22 January 2017 - 03:02 PM.

[Mystere]

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

how about keeping change suggestions on a very basic level with high effects. this way you have an actual chance on achieving something that may even be considered to be useful for the game. because investment vs payout is a thing.
of course one can use alot more things to balance things properly, but if they had the ressources to spare for that, they would have done so allready.

MWO is bland. It is almost completely lacking in flavor. It is "A BattleTech Game" in name only. There is not much diversity in gameplay, especially at the highest levels. The only so-called "diversity" is in the number of Mechs available and not necessarily in their capabilities and general usage. CW is a skeleton and not anywhere it can ever be considered complete, especially if compared against their original goals. The game is as deep as tissue paper.

And finally, the Clan invasion is the absolute worst time period to insist on 1:1 balancing, and just absolutely insane with the claimed objective of doing it at all levels (i.e. Mech [including between classes], weapon, equipment). MWO is literally skin deep -- as in a robot game with BattleTech "skins".

The game needs depth. It needs flavor. It needs diversity. That is what the IP is for. Either use it or junk it completely.

Edited by Mystere, 22 January 2017 - 03:41 PM.

[cazidin]

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

so, lets clean this up a bit.



you didnt read anything in this thread, did you?

I read your initial post, saw where this was going, and published my response. You're going about this in a backwards, indirect way. You want to balance IS XL against C-XL? Fine. You want to balance IS XL against C-XL by nerfing Clan Weapons, which, as per your proposal, would either implement a COF/Convergence system and THAT will never happen and be glad that it doesn't, or by increasing C-ER Laser Durations, C-AC burst durations, SRMs and LRM stream more missiles, etc.

[Cold Darkness]

@ mystere
balance suggestions should not revolve around designing an entirely new game.
id also like for you to give an example for a diverse game at the highest level. by nature, this is essentially an impossible task.

Quote

And finally, the Clan invasion is the absolute worst time period to insist on 1:1 balancing, and just absolutely insane with the claimed objective of doing it at all levels (i.e. Mech [including between classes], weapon, equipment). MWO is literally skin deep -- as in a robot game with BattleTech "skins".

i dare to say that the main problem with any attempt to balance anything in this game is the community. alot more meaningful weight class balancing could be EASILY done by dropping mech agility drastically across the board with the priority of getting heavys and assaults much more sluggish. as for weaponry and equipment, i think it should most certainly be done in the big picture. so yeah, while i do not think that is insane, i do agree with you that their attempt is stupid. for different reasons, though.

@ cazidin
all possible solutions named in this thread need to apply to IS and CLAN to be able to achieve the goal.

@ nighthawk1337

NighthawK1337, on 22 January 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

Engines have nothing to do with accuracy in a conventional sense. So I disagree with this.

the main reason XL engines in TT work is because there is no high accuracy that just shreds them.

If you want to balance something like that then maybe tweak something that is actually a little bit relevant.


a) accuracy is a viable way and VERY relevant for this issue. the whole issue exists BECAUSE of accuracy in the first place.
there are alot of other threads for alot of other solutions, i see no reason to suggest what is currently under discussion in another thread.

Pretty sure your idea would bring a lot more balance problems.

no solution is perfect, but some are easier to fix. this is one of those.

The best solution as put forward by others is just allow IS XLs to survive 1 ST destruction, easy peasy, no more adding unnecessary mechanics.

i allreadystated my thought on what this will do

Second best solution, introduce LFE and more advanced IS weapons.

this is not a solution because the problems are still existing.

Even just tweaking the weapon weights is much more simpler to implement than what you suggested since they can use metrics already there and not implementing a new one(which requires more coding) and gathering data.

afaik they stated once that they do not want to change equipment weight and size.

Ok lets say that IS tech also becomes as inaccurate as Clan tech, then there's zero sum, Clans will still deal more damage than IS. Assuming IS tech is more accurate than Clan tech, besides being completely BS lorewise, the fact that they already have lower burn duration lasers and pinpoint ACs will make it too unbalanced which will need more changes to the equipment, either make both AC and Lasers behave exactly the same, or make it that both sides have access to the same equipment.

IS doesnt need to be as inaccurate as CLANS, they only need to be just inaccurate enough to make the idea work. to give both sides access to the same equipment is like resetting the game to before clans. there are folks happy with that, but it honestly make the game alot less diverse, which like mystere pointed out is not a good thing for a game like this.

This is the first time I've seen this suggestion BTW.

maybe you should read the forum, tinkering with accuracy is a common topic in many threads. they usually dont start with that topic and usually limit themselfs to CoF or convergence, though.

Personally I'm also adverse to the idea of more luck added. There's already a crit system in place.

i dislike unnecessary RNG, too. which is why this thread contains non RNG solutions. just try not to skip 90% of my posts to see them.

There's no 100% accuracy in the TT, you're right but then there's also no JJ brawling in the TT, there's no Torso Twisting, there's no Poptarting, which are all bound to skill not luck.

tabletop is build in turns of very specific timeframes. to think there is no torsotwisting in tabletop just because it is not an active choice by the player would be narrow minded. the same goes for JJ brawling.
poptarting appearently was implemented at some point in time in some kind of special extrarulebook? i think i read something on that matter in the past week somewhere in this forum.

Armor values are doubled already.

what i was refering to when talking about armorvalues was to differenciate specific component health in comparison to other components, not an equal multiplication of all components armor values. i am aware that this was done allready.

If you want to add Cone of Fire so badly, then maybe you ask the devs to make it so that people can only attack when in formation, facing each other, and no torso twisting like in an actual match in the TT so that everything is bound by luck.

appearently, you missed half the arguments of this thread. accuracy nerfing does not need to involve ANY kind of RNG whatsoever. there are MULTIPLE ways to do that without RNG.

Or just spitballing here, wait for the Battletech(2017) game and give that a go?

hello, this is a different genre.

[Besh]

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

Besh, on 22 January 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

I swear this is a conpsiracy .

This guy will shake the tree until he gets his cone of fire solution, then phone his "AutoAim in MW:O" buddies on a scrambled connection : "Guys, MY part of ze Mission = completed!". THEY will promptly start to campaign to take actual aiming out of the Game . The "recently introduced cone of fire related inaccuracy of all ze weppons" being there prime argument .

XD

if i wanted to take actual aiming out of a shooter i would simply suggest to port it to a random console, that would solve the problem alltogether since controlers are unsuited equipment for fps which is usually adressed by adding more or less ridiculous "aiming assist" into console fps.

yes, i am aware that you tried to make a joke. it just wasnt funny.

Tbh, it wasnt meant purely as a Joke .IF for some obscure reason, all weapons in MW:O would become more "inaccurate", you can bet your everything the "autoaim" movement would take off foreal .

I mean, do you read these Forums at all ? Do you kindof follow the Game'S "development" over "the years" at all ? Are you not aware that (almost) the entire Light Class has been nerfed into a dark place beyond oblivion because people simply HAVE PROBLEMS HITTING THEM ?!?!?

No all ze peeple, mind you....but enough to have made enough stirs often enough long enough to move PGI into nerfing Lights dead, one nerf after the other . Really mang, those peeps did NOT stop, until Lights ended up where they are now . You know what the warcry was ? "LIGHTS UNHITTABLE !"

Now tell me Genius, what do you think would happen if weapons REALLY were made "more inaccurate", for whatever reason ? You think ANYTHING would stop a LARGE group of Players from whining about "I can not hit anything, need autoAIM NOEW !!!" ???

On the other hand, do you really think people with really good aim would "suffer" half as bad as the vast majority of players from this "change", or would be prone to come across with stupid demands to counter their newly found inability to hit stuff ?

Really mang, think mang, maybe even before you post .

p.s.: I apologize, I KNOW I am a "difficult" person on occasion(s) ( many, tbh )...thats just 'cos I get very impatient with people's minds and opinions ( aint got no time for BS mang...), nothing personal....

Edited by Besh, 23 January 2017 - 11:30 AM.

[Mystere]

Cold Darkness, on 23 January 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

@ mystere
balance suggestions should not revolve around designing an entirely new game.
id also like for you to give an example for a diverse game at the highest level. by nature, this is essentially an impossible task.

I am working from the (arguable) assumption that MWO is a woefully incomplete game. As such, it's not designing a new game. It's filling in the missing parts.

Frankly, if PGI's current goal is to just keep MWO an arena-based game, then they should just publicly and categorically say so and let's be done with it.

Cold Darkness, on 23 January 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

i dare to say that the main problem with any attempt to balance anything in this game is the community. alot more meaningful weight class balancing could be EASILY done by dropping mech agility drastically across the board with the priority of getting heavys and assaults much more sluggish. as for weaponry and equipment, i think it should most certainly be done in the big picture. so yeah, while i do not think that is insane, i do agree with you that their attempt is stupid. for different reasons, though.

I would not mind at all drastic agility reductions. But I also expect such a change would just cause the forums to burn down in flames.

But then again my sig hints at my reaction to that.

Edited by Mystere, 23 January 2017 - 11:29 AM.

[Cold Darkness]

@ mystere

i see we are on the same page on some things.

and yeah, the game isnt complete. fp can turn into so much more, but it will take alot of time. lets see where it goes, but considering the upcomming mw5 i highly doubt they would add much more battletech to mwo anytime soon, because we get that with mw5 anyways (this is of course only an assumption, too).

@ besh

actually, light mechs would profit the most from the changes, because as i stated, weaponaccuracy doesnt need to be nerfed by applying CoF. there are other reliable mechanics to do so, and those mechanics would not lead to you magically missing your target. they will lead to you spreading your damage on the target more by giving the target more reaction time to spread damage better or ACTIVELY dodge incomming projectiles (you know, making it more reaction based versus moving in hard to read patterns to throw of enemy aim).

there is also no reason to ever implement any form of autoaim to this game because it is not designed for inaccurate controllers.
the changes would also most likely not really effect the below average players much (if at all), because the aim of those players isnt exactly good enough to notice the implied changes to begin with (i am serious here, no offense intended).

also:

Quote

Really mang, think mang, maybe even before you post .

this statement is kind of redundant, because i had adressed most of your concerns in this thread allready. and with this, i may direct this right back at you, good sir.

[NighthawK1337]

I mean accuracy is not tied to the engine. Unless it's a rickety POS that makes the Gyro dry heave.

Introducing LFE is a solution and it's been suggested and discussed by a lot more people. I will give about half the free tonnage from XL while allowing to survive 1 ST loss which adds variety to the options in the game. You want more firepower, go XL, more durability, STD, in the middle, LFE. It is a more viable solution and simpler to implement.

I don't know how you can justify an RNG based solution against a static variable one that's actually closer related to the given problem.

I heard that too. I said "Even that.... etc etc." is simpler to do. I was comparing your suggestion to another more simpler solution that's already been discussed.

Having more equipment to both sides would make the game more diverse by having more options and variety of builds. Most importantly it would add parity to both sides. I don't know how you understood Mystere's statement but I understand diversity as having more options which is what I think he meant not more "segregation" and "difference". People already still pick IS mechs even though it has weaker weapons, I don't think people would stop picking IS mechs just because Clans have access to IS weapons and vice versa. People choose to play mechs because of nostalgia, specific meta, appearance or personal preference. Not just because of the weapons it has access to.

I don't remember the TT having rules that you can only hit right or left side components, that's what I mean by there's no torso twisting. You can hit any component from either front or back or none at all, so yes we can assume that there's no torso twisting from the TT since that's the main goal of torso twisting which is to use up armor on one side first so that you can prevent more important components from being damaged easily. Also shielding.

(Off topic talk, WE REALLY NEED MELEE )

I think you're thinking of "Death from above" where you can jump on top of the enemy mech. I don't think they allow to fire in weapons while in midair to clear the terrain.

Accuracy without RNG? how the hell do you think it is going to be implemented? like tic-tac-toe? where you can only do it in a grid? OK real talk, we've been using Accuracy and Precision interchangeably in this thread and we should set the line.



Accuracy technically is 100% always since firing weapons always is bound to the crosshairs but adding another mechanic to make it so that it does not land exactly there but at a close area is Precision. Having less than 100% Precision is by definition about statistical error and randomness, otherwise you can still predict it, then you basically gained nothing. People will still reliably hit a side torso.

I reread the whole thread, a significant portion of your posts were just asking people if they read the rest of the posts(hyperbole before you point it out, I'm saying that you seem to use that a lot), the rest does not contain a non-RNG implementation of variable Precision, you said SRM spread but that's till RNG, more burn time, that's already there and it's still 100% precision, slower projectiles, that's still 100% precision.

I remember this flash game a while back, It did have cone of fire but what it did was there was a dot circling the cone where the weapon will always hit, is this similar to what you're thinking of as a non-RNG implementation? Well then there's no change since it will still hit predictably. It's impossible to achieve what you want without RNG. People will still stand still for Lasers for the whole burn, they'll still get hit by slow projectile in a specific component.

I was being ironic for you wanting more elements to make the game act more like the TT. I know this is a different game, that's why I said that in the first place. If you want more TT elements that badly, there's always MechCommander, or the successor BattleTech(2017) launching in Q1 2017 which are both a strategic TT style game. This is a first person mech simulator, elements from the TT will not 100% translate well. People play MWO for the experience of piloting a mech with the emphasis on having the skills to pilot one. Not to pray to Jesus/Kerensky/Buddha/Allah/ApacheHelicopterGod every time they fire a PPC like when you're playing a match in the TT.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 23 January 2017 - 03:43 PM.

[Besh]

@Cold Darkness

Longer Beam Time on Lasers does not mean making the weapon "less accurate" . It means making it easier to spread the damage ( and increasing required facetime, which would be a Problem in itself ) . Higher spread on LBX and SRM/LRM does not mean making them "less accurate" . It means making them less precise . Slower projectile speed on a Ballistic ? An IS AC, or a Gauss, would still shoot as accurately as with faster projectile speed .

Picture "C" in above post by NighthawK1337 is the one you want to examine closely . THAT is what happens when a weapon, like for instance a ballistic, is made "less accurate" . You AIM dead center, but your shot goes wide . Given some specifics, the weapon may group a series of shots very precisely...wide off your aim .

I know I know, by now you explained: you did not actually mean "accuracy", but all kinds of mechansims to make it harder for people to pump concentrated damage into one location...but well, initially, you WERE going on about "weapon accuracy", so....

...if you make weapons less accurate, people will be less able to make shots/beams/missiles connect where they want them to . Aiming will become less accurate because the weapons have been made...less accurate .

And that is where people would start asking for a compensating mechanism .

Edited by Besh, 23 January 2017 - 05:49 PM.

[Cold Darkness]

NighthawK1337, on 23 January 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

I mean accuracy is not tied to the engine...

no, but it is tied to the survivability of all engine types from a designperspective. which is what matters.

Introducing LFE is a solution...

no, LFE is not a solution. LFE is supposed to be a sidegrade to standart and XL engines by this games design, not something that makes both obsolete while still being inferior to CXL engines.

I don't know how you can justify an RNG based solution aga....

easy: because as i wrote earlier, there is a shitton of topics about that allready. its not a hard concept to understand. there is no point in opening a topic to discuss something that is discussed in another topic. also: as stated multiple times, there does not need to be RNG involved.

I heard that too. I said "Even that.... etc etc." is simpler to d....

now i am intrigued. how exactly was my solution less simple then the others?

Having more equipment to both sides wo...

you seem to not understand the term "metagame". if you unlock tech for everything youd have even LESS variety then right now. unless you argue that everything that VASTLY underperforms is still counting to variety.

I don't remember the TT having rul...

thats like saying in TT mechs always move in straight lines, because there is no rule for evasive maneuvers (dunno if there is, just pointing out the ridiculousness)

(Off topic talk, WE REALLY NEED MELEE )

a decent suggestion.

I think you're thinking of "Death from abov...

possible. i wouldnt know unless i checked.

Accuracy without RNG? how the hell do you th...

Quote

Although the two words precision and accuracy can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.

you want to differ between words for what reason again? OHHHHHH. so you can read posts out of context easier.
this is not a science journal, no need to be a **** about choice of words.

People will still reliably hit a side torso.

obviously. else the gameplay would feel differently, which is not the goal. the goal is to prevent them from reliably hitting ALL of that damage into that sidetorso.

I reread the whole thread, a significant portion of your posts were just asking people if they read the rest of the posts

for good reason, proven by your post. yet again. im not writing this statement over and over again just for fun, you know?

the rest does not contain a non-RNG implemen....

obviously i will build an argument on whats allready in the game. everything else would be a fuckload of actual work for the people involved. i am aware that SRM spread is currently based on an easily replaceable rng (by firing patterns for example). same goes for LBX and LRM. suddenly RNG is gone. oh ****.
if you do not understand how increasing burn times (which is not equal to increased burn times being there allready [this sentence does not make a lot of sense, since i am not basing my argument on a past build of MWO]) and slower projectilespeed will lower accuracy, while also talking about skill, i have seriously no clue what you assume "skill" is. at all.

I remember this flash game a while ba....

see above (or really almost anywhere in this topic at this point in time). i did not mention CoF as a non rng based method. i mentioned CoF as an acceptable and easy method if it gets the job done. i am also aware that CoF solutions are unlikely to be accepted by alot of people, which is why i mentioned everything in this topic that isnt labeled CoF. thats alot. like, 90% of this thread. its beyond me how people still fail to not see rng in everything i suggest unless they chose to do so.

Well then there's no change sinc....

if you wouldnt be so god damn ignorant to the damn thread, you would have seen by now that is not impossible. as a matter of fact, it might even be VERY EASY TO DO, depending on what skill level you are balancing for (the higher skill level you balance for, the smaller the adjustments you need to do and the less is the impact on lower levels on skill)

People will still stand still for L...

as i wrote earlier in this thread, the issue doesnt really exist with lower skill players anyways, so there is no real need to force a solution for lower skill players. for average skilled players it is quite simple: if you chose to be hit, you deserve to be blown up. the increased facetime is something you chose to do as well as standing still was your choice.

I was being ironic for you wanting more elements to make the game act more like the TT.

i do not think you know what irony is.

I know this is a different game, that's why I said that in the first place. If you want more TT elements that badly, there's always MechCommander, or the successor BattleTech(2017)

not quite sure how you get the idea that battletech would a successor to mechcommander, since again, different genres, but whatever. i also think that you mistake me with mystere.

This is a first person mech simulator, elements from the TT will not 100% translate well. People play MWO for the experience of piloting a mech with the emphasis on having the skills to pilot one. Not to pray to Jesus/Kerensky/Buddha/Allah/ApacheHelicopterGod every time they fire a PPC like when you're playing a match in the TT.

actually, this is the exact reason why this thread exists. to keep this as a battletech based mech simulator and not a dumbed down version of itself, which so many people unknowingly ask for. like you for example, see my comment on LFE suggestion.
on a side note: even if people dont give pgi alot of credit (sometimes for good reasons), they did actually a really good job in getting stuff from the tabletop into the game without people actually realising that they are in the game at all. like the heatcapacity. people just dont get why heatsinks add capacity (i am not implying that they are balanced very well, though) when the reason is actually really obvious. i think the main issue is with peoples expectations to find implementations of mechanics like in the older MW games, despite those mechanics not necessarily being better.

@ besh

sorry mate, not gonna bother with your post. all relevant information is in the quoted post above this section of this post, please read it there instead. nothing personal, i just dont feel like writing it twice in a single post.

[CK16]

All weapons need to be on a Cone of fire...also would make T comps more valuable (smaller cones, faster aim time ect) only having can accuracy nerfed would be BAD! We already have a huge disadvantage to the IS in PPFD and this would make it so bad (IS would cleave us in half literally). I agree having an accuracy nerf would be nice, something to do with your speed and time still ect. Kind of like world of tanks, but not that bad, like medium mech accuracy ect across the board.

[Besh]

@Cold Darkness:

Just so that you ( hopefully ) understand ; your suggestions have NOTHING to do with weapon accuracy . SO please, get off your goddamn high horse trying to school people, get your terminology straight, and change the Thread Title .

Not saying some of your suggestions a brutally, stupidly bad rly ( though some are, you'D understand when thinking through the impact on gameplay ), just saying at least use the correct words for what you are trying to say . And stop talking down to people who actually know what the terms you use mean .

Nothing personal mate .

Edited by Besh, 24 January 2017 - 02:09 PM.

[Cold Darkness]

thats ok besh, i dont mind it.

something to think about:

my changes do NOT affect precision. why? because everything outside of CoF is possible without involvement of RNG which means the precision is always at 100% for every weapon, except the machineguns, which are still using a CoF right now. my suggestions do not affect that and hence precision is not the correct term by definition.
now here comes the fun part: for your point of view, my changes do not affect accuracy either, because all weapons are perfectly accurate in this game in most (not all, not gonna distract you with an explanation for when it is not the case) situations.

how funny. both terms are not applicable in this environment from a scientific point of view. but accuracy WILL be understood by anyone reading the posts to get the context. this is because it will work as a synonym.

it is also quite interesting to be blamed on not thinking about the impact on gameplay, when there is only one counterargument based on a realistically possible impact on gameplay.
and since i can be sure that you didnt even notice it: it was mentioned that such changes could potentially lead to players resorting to brawling to circumvent changes to accuracy (argument by Sjorpha)

on the other hand, you are here since the beginning continuously going on about rng and autoaim when rng is not the focuspoint of most of the thread and autoaim not even being related to the topic at all.

tl;dr:
am i supposed to write "balancing XL Differences with Weapon Skill-floor increase" and expect that you would understand what the topic is about instead?

[NighthawK1337]

Cold Darkness, on 24 January 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

on the other hand, you are here since the beginning continuously going on about rng and autoaim when rng is not the focuspoint of most of the thread and autoaim not even being related to the topic at all.

You were going on about isXL vulnerability from ST loss and how

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 04:48 AM, said:

the way i see it, ANY mechanic to reduce accuracy would be a helpful addition to the game. i also do understand the argument that people feel like they should always have absolute accuracy at their hand, because pvp usually feels bad with big rng involved. but BIG deviations are not required to implement such a mechanic. SMALL deviations would allready bring BIG results, without feeling punishing.

from your original post. So yeah you did mention RNG "since the beginning" .

Also

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

id really like a dynamic cof, though. even though that will most likely hit deaf ears. again.

Why do I feel like your go to defense is to "Read the rest of the posts" or "That's not my argument" even though people who responded clearly done so?

Moving the goalpost quite a lot there.

That picture I showed, literally is the scientific point of view in accuracy and precision. That's how scientists, mathematicians, engineers(like me) do it.

The changes you said like SRM/LBX spread does not affect precision? I'd like to direct you again to the picture, precision deviations IS the correct term. I'd agree with the laser burn and projectile velocity though.

Cold Darkness, on 24 January 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

tl;dr:
am i supposed to write "balancing XL Differences with Weapon Skill-floor increase" and expect that you would understand what the topic is about instead?

Probably. But then you'd have gotten different pushbacks, for one most of the things you said is already there and already giving the clan enough trouble as it is.

You suggested adding another mechanic but did not specify what, and since you went on about accuracy(supposed to be precision) the only other mechanic for that is CoF so it would receive the same response.



So yeah I'll ask again, how would you go about adding a mechanic increasing the skill-floor of these weapons without relying on RNG? Because I don't remember you suggesting a NEW mechanic in ADDITION to the game.

[Cold Darkness]

NighthawK1337, on 24 January 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

You were going on about isXL vulnerability from ST loss and how
from your original post. So yeah you did mention RNG "since the beginning" .

i also did not denie suggesting RNG as solution in this thread, what i did was presenting a non RNG based solution as an alternative, because of you guys obsessing with RNG. which you chose to ignore the whole god damn time, constantly going back to RNG.

Also
Why do I feel like your go to defense is to "Read the rest of the posts" or "That's not my argument" even though people who responded clearly done so?
Moving the goalpost quite a lot there.

that was stupid on my part, i should have asked to not just read it, but trying to understand what i wrote instead of ignoring it.

That picture I showed, literally is the scientific point of view in accuracy and precision. That's how scientists, mathematicians, engineers(like me) do it.

The changes you said like SRM/LBX spread does not affect precision? I'd like to direct you again to the picture, precision deviations IS the correct term. I'd agree with the laser burn and projectile velocity though.

i did proceed to answer this by mentioning using firing patterns instead of RNG. this removes deviation from where projectiles go, since whenever you repeat the action under the same conditions will yield the exact same result (btw, this leads to a funny implication). aside from that, there was never a need to split the terms, as i quoted for you, because this is not a science or research based thread, making the terms interchangable for the purpose of this thread.

Probably. But then you'd have gotten different pushbacks, for one most of the things you said is already there and already giving the clan enough trouble as it is.

you might have missed how IS got bashed for the past month. aside from that, this argument is invalid, because if it was valid, this thread would not exist. i also only got one pushback in this thread, which was the only realistically possible counter argument i pointed to earlier. aside from that, people tried to "math" an argument, which is ridiculous, considering that said math was based on 2 factors (by the same person btw). outside of that, i have to deal with you, an "engineer". not only is there no necessity to write that you are an engineer because this has no value on the topic >at all<, you also failed to notice your lack of credibility, because of your anonymity.

You suggested adding another mechanic but did not specify what, and since you went on about accuracy(supposed to be precision) the only other mechanic for that is CoF so it would receive the same response.

see above somewhere in this post. outside of that, you could start using the term accuracy as a synonym, like it is clearly meant in this thread. because outside from static measurements, there are alot of factors also associated with the term in a gaming environment.

So yeah I'll ask again, how would you go about adding a mechanic increasing the skill-floor of these weapons without relying on RNG? Because I don't remember you suggesting a NEW mechanic in ADDITION to the game.

there is no need for a new mechanic, but i am fine with any new mechanic they chose to implement, if it will achieve the goal.

[NighthawK1337]

Cold Darkness, on 25 January 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

that was stupid on my part, i should have asked to not just read it, but trying to understand what i wrote instead of ignoring it.

Here you go again. You really like moving the goalposts.
"You did not understand it"
"You didn't read it"
"That's not my argument"
etc. etc.

People disagreeing with you doesn't mean that they didn't understand it, often it just means that people think that "Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad". I would've made a meme but I've spent all the effort I have in reserve.

Cold Darkness, on 25 January 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

did proceed to answer this by mentioning using firing patterns instead of RNG. this removes deviation from where projectiles go,

You didn't mention any firing pattern before. Serious. I've re read the whole thread 4 times.

The closest one is this which you just mentioned that others have discussed but didn't go to

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

so, lets clean this up a bit.

you didnt read anything in this thread, did you?

how about keeping change suggestions on a very basic level with high effects. this way you have an actual chance on achieving something that may even be considered to be useful for the game. because investment vs payout is a thing.
of course one can use alot more things to balance things properly, but if they had the ressources to spare for that, they would have done so allready.

exactly, this is one of the major options that can be made use of. by increasing burntimes with smaller damage ticks for lasers, more spread on srm/lbx/lrm, more projectiles with uacs and possibly cof or much slower projectiles on gauss/ac/ppc across the board on ALL weapons, alot of issues with the game could be solved. the big offenders that could actually be problematic would obviously be the single projectile weapons.

as other people mentioned allready, cof is not the only way to make weapons less accurate. there are the current mechanics as stated above, as well as the past convergence (which is most likely not comming back because of hsr or something) as well as the often suggested static torso hardpoints. there are alot more possibilitys to achieve the goal without actually going into rng-based solutions. not that id mind it if cof would be an endresult. like i said, im fine with any decent mechanic if it gets the job done

if i wanted to take actual aiming out of a shooter i would simply suggest to port it to a random console, that would solve the problem alltogether since controlers are unsuited equipment for fps which is usually adressed by adding more or less ridiculous "aiming assist" into console fps.

yes, i am aware that you tried to make a joke. it just wasnt funny.

lets keep this simple.
in an ideal world, the mechs would end up more or less stripped at the end anyways. the argument is obviously that this is HARDER TO DO with an IS xl mech. once you get past the point of reliably instakilling the IS XL mech, it is virtually as robust as a clanmech, given slight structurequirks on the side torsos (read: the current ones are propably good enough to achieve that goal or might even be to much on some mechs).
i am aware that not every battle will turn out like that, because not every player has equal skill in twisting vs aiming. however, id like to point out, that the issue is mostly in the above average players, because the average players aim bad enough to strip your mech even when you arent twisting at all. sounds harsh, but you know that its propably true even for many tier 1 players.

id really like a dynamic cof, though. even though that will most likely hit deaf ears. again.

moving the goalposts again. So when you said want dynamic CoF, it's actually just static hardpoint?
Come on have some dignity. At least acknowledge what you said in the past. When we said "RNG is bad hurr durr" you just fold over and say "That's not what I said" or "You didn't understand it" or "You didn't read it" because you couldn't defend it? You've been saying that to everybody that disagrees with you.

That being said, a firing pattern would just make precision go to a static value below 100%, probably 0%, which would garner more ire from player since a firing pattern for say, lasers will be annoying to hell. since you can't fire all your weapons at the same target. Sure precision won't change from 100% but that's if you measure it from the pattern, not the crosshair where people would actually measure the deviation it since it's the aiming point.
There's no RNG but then that will result to people asking for what Besh said.

Yes it was necessary to split the terms because using accuracy as a synonym for what Accuracy + Precision does will affect both. While your intent was just to change precision.

I didn't say that IS wasn't getting bad rap. I said YOU DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING NEW BESIDES THE TITLE. MOST OF THE THINGS YOU DISCUSSED ARE ALREADY THERE OR BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE. Caps so as to let that sink in.

I acknowledged that accuracy was used with precision interchangeably and I set the line as to differentiate the two and show the effect of having less that 100% precision.

And all the salt flows through... I just put in "like me" and you go on to a rant because math has no place for your argument right? math isn't welcome here? Sure you just can't take my word for it being an engineer. I don't expect you to. I didn't submit my CV to this thread, just a passing mention because it was how math is done by us. But then you and have to go to a rant about it, it had a whole paragraph dedicated to it.

It is impossible to balance a game without math.

Others have already countered your argument, more people than me said that there are better ways to balance, there isn't just one. Kinda focused on my posts aren't you? Why, because I'm dissecting everything you say? You dissected my reply quite thoroughly.

If there's no need for a new mechanic, then the whole thread is pointless, why did you even start it? to discuss "BALANCING XL DIFFERENCES WITH WEAPONACCURACY" ok, a new mechanic isn't necessary, but then LBX/SRM spread? long burn times? lower velocity?


This thread's existence isn't a validation for your argument, that's circular reasoning. The systems already in place already reduce the ability of clans to consistently put all damage in one component. The biggest disparity is about weight, clans can pack more equipment because there is no downside to getting a clan XL. If IS can use the XL without the penalty, they'll be able to pack firepower on par consistently. That's where the difference lies. If the IS doesn't die to an ST loss, then they'll be able to match Clans toe to toe since every IS mech would fit XLs and pack enough firepower to do so on top of the quirks.


Making ACs and Lasers do a firing pattern is bad, it's even worse than having an RNG. It negates the whole reason for Aiming, at least in CoF there is a significant chance that you'll at least shoot in the vicinity of the crosshairs, while firing patterns, only 1 will be at the crosshair at most, while the rest as missing because it is forcibly aimed at a distance, again ending up as Besh said. Durability balancing for the XL behavior difference is the most feasible solution since it has the least variables as with Occam's Razor.



I took the liberty of highlighting important parts that you said since I think you're the one not reading what you post.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 25 January 2017 - 04:16 PM.

[Cold Darkness]

NighthawK1337, on 25 January 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

Here you go again. You really like moving the goalposts.
"you did not understand it"
"You didn't read it"
etc. etc.

considering that you read the whole thread 4 times, missing things FOUR TIMES, how exactly are that wrong statements?

You didn't mention any firing pattern. Serious. I've re read the whole thread 4 times.

yes i did. and since you might find it on your 5th read, i will point out that it was late in the thread, but that doesnt quite matter, since i allready stated multiple times beforehand that RNG was unnecessary, which implied it heavily anyways. i wont quote it for you, though, because it would bloat the posts even more.

The closest one is this which you just mentioned that others have discussed but didn't go to

static torso hardpoints are a different concept.

moving the goalposts again.

sigh

That being said, a firing pattern would just make precision go to a static value below 100%, probably 0%, which would garner more ire from player since a firing pattern for say, lasers will be annoying to hell. since you can't fire all your weapons at the same target.

i guess i should not expect you to not make a stupid assumption when you stated that you didnt bother to read the bit about firing patterns. so here again: fixed patterns can be used for spread weapons to eliminate RNG on them. this means firing patterns for every single mounted weapon, not for all weapons as a whole. that would be stupid.

Sure precision won't change from 100% but if you measure it from the pattern, not the crosshair where people would actually measure it since it's the aiming point.

congratulations, i see it was worth it to not point at this one point earlier, since the great engineer now actually wrote that this is indeed an accuracy based method BY HIS OWN DEFINITION. did you even realise that you wrote this?

Yes it was necessary to split the terms because using accuracy as a synonym for what Accuracy + Precision does will affect both. While your intent was just to change precision.

and here is the answer to that question: no you didnt realise it. some great engineer you are.

I didn't say that IS wasn't getting bad rap. I said YOU DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING NEW BESIDES THE TITLE. MOST OF THE THINGS YOU DISCUSSED ARE ALREADY THERE OR BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE. Caps so as to let that sink in.

it does not matter if i only suggest things that are ingame allready, because i suggest using those existing mechanics and tweaking them to fit the goal. but hey, i also DID make SEVERAL suggestions for NEW things to go along with it, which you conviently ignore. again.

I acknowledged that accuracy was used with precision interchangeably and I set the line as to differentiate the two and show the effect of having less that 100% precision.

and you did so for what reason again? you build an argument out of it, which i used for my own argument which no longer contained a need for RNG and thus precision was no longer a viable basis for your posts after that initial one.

And all the salt flows through... I just put in "like me" and you go on to a rant because math has no place for your argument right? math isn't welcome here? Sure you just can't take my word for it being an engineer. I don't expect you to. I didn't submit my CV to this thread, just a passing mention because it was how math is done by us. But then you and have to go to a rant about it.

math is welcome. you did not provide math, the other persons "math" was so simplistic that it did serve any purpose as an argument. if you do math, do it seriously. if you do not do it seriously, stop wasting time on it. if you are an engineer and considered that bit as math, you would be a danger for whomever ends up with whatever you are working on.
unless, of course, you just took the word math out of context (because you propably missed that "math" 4 times) to make it fit your comment better.

Others have already countered your argument, more people than me said that there are better ways to balance.

and i have brought up arguments against those arguments, because this is a discussion and that is what a discussion is about. the one thing that i did not bring up an argument against, i did acknowledge and that is because that argument (gameplay could change to alot more brawling to circumvent effects of changes) would require actual testing and not just theorycrafting about it. i also pointed out that "better ways to balance" are discussed in other threads and have no relation to this topic. and YOUR suggestion was to implement LFEs, which would do exactly nothing to the survivability of XL engines. wow.

Kinda focused on my posts aren't you?

obviously i am focused on your posts, since you kind of slowed down the progression of the topic and when the other guy did another post, he posted the stuff you did with other words, which is why i directed him to my answer to your post.
so, whom else should i "discuss" with?

Why, because I'm dissecting everything you say?

ohhhh, so THATS what you are about. and i thought you simply forced arbritary rules onto this thread that will allow you to repeat the same comment over and over despite it being irrelevant after the first time, because i adressed your argument. it just so happens that you chose to ignore that and hardlined on that one argument for a whole page.

If there's no need for a new mechanic, then the whole thread is pointless, why did you even start it? to discuss "BALANCING XL DIFFERENCES WITH WEAPONACCURACY" ok, a new mechanic isn't necessary, but then LBX/SRM spread? long burn times? lower velocity? hah.

do you REALLY wish for me to comment this bit?

since this ******** is killing the thread (and propably has finished doing so allready), i will stop responding to your posts unless they contain an argument that will further the discussion in some way.

[NighthawK1337]

Cold Darkness, on 25 January 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

since this ******** is killing the thread (and propably has finished doing so allready), i will stop responding to your posts unless they contain an argument that will further the discussion in some way.

It's DOA in the first place.

[LordNothing]

NighthawK1337, on 23 January 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

I mean accuracy is not tied to the engine. Unless it's a rickety POS that makes the Gyro dry heave.

Introducing LFE is a solution and it's been suggested and discussed by a lot more people. I will give about half the free tonnage from XL while allowing to survive 1 ST loss which adds variety to the options in the game. You want more firepower, go XL, more durability, STD, in the middle, LFE. It is a more viable solution and simpler to implement.

I don't know how you can justify an RNG based solution against a static variable one that's actually closer related to the given problem.

I heard that too. I said "Even that.... etc etc." is simpler to do. I was comparing your suggestion to another more simpler solution that's already been discussed.

Having more equipment to both sides would make the game more diverse by having more options and variety of builds. Most importantly it would add parity to both sides. I don't know how you understood Mystere's statement but I understand diversity as having more options which is what I think he meant not more "segregation" and "difference". People already still pick IS mechs even though it has weaker weapons, I don't think people would stop picking IS mechs just because Clans have access to IS weapons and vice versa. People choose to play mechs because of nostalgia, specific meta, appearance or personal preference. Not just because of the weapons it has access to.

I don't remember the TT having rules that you can only hit right or left side components, that's what I mean by there's no torso twisting. You can hit any component from either front or back or none at all, so yes we can assume that there's no torso twisting from the TT since that's the main goal of torso twisting which is to use up armor on one side first so that you can prevent more important components from being damaged easily. Also shielding.

(Off topic talk, WE REALLY NEED MELEE )

I think you're thinking of "Death from above" where you can jump on top of the enemy mech. I don't think they allow to fire in weapons while in midair to clear the terrain.

Accuracy without RNG? how the hell do you think it is going to be implemented? like tic-tac-toe? where you can only do it in a grid? OK real talk, we've been using Accuracy and Precision interchangeably in this thread and we should set the line.



Accuracy technically is 100% always since firing weapons always is bound to the crosshairs but adding another mechanic to make it so that it does not land exactly there but at a close area is Precision. Having less than 100% Precision is by definition about statistical error and randomness, otherwise you can still predict it, then you basically gained nothing. People will still reliably hit a side torso.

I reread the whole thread, a significant portion of your posts were just asking people if they read the rest of the posts(hyperbole before you point it out, I'm saying that you seem to use that a lot), the rest does not contain a non-RNG implementation of variable Precision, you said SRM spread but that's till RNG, more burn time, that's already there and it's still 100% precision, slower projectiles, that's still 100% precision.

I remember this flash game a while back, It did have cone of fire but what it did was there was a dot circling the cone where the weapon will always hit, is this similar to what you're thinking of as a non-RNG implementation? Well then there's no change since it will still hit predictably. It's impossible to achieve what you want without RNG. People will still stand still for Lasers for the whole burn, they'll still get hit by slow projectile in a specific component.

I was being ironic for you wanting more elements to make the game act more like the TT. I know this is a different game, that's why I said that in the first place. If you want more TT elements that badly, there's always MechCommander, or the successor BattleTech(2017) launching in Q1 2017 which are both a strategic TT style game. This is a first person mech simulator, elements from the TT will not 100% translate well. People play MWO for the experience of piloting a mech with the emphasis on having the skills to pilot one. Not to pray to Jesus/Kerensky/Buddha/Allah/ApacheHelicopterGod every time they fire a PPC like when you're playing a match in the TT.

i like to think of accuracy being the thing directly in your control, your ability to aim. precision on the other hand represents all those environmental factors outside of your control that cause shots to deviate no matter how much you try to keep the weapon platform completely immobile. precision may be controlled indirectly however, by choice of position and environment, or whether or not you are moving.

only real problem i think is that hsr demands that everything be more or less deterministic in order to function properly, and i think its more of a hitscan problem, since lbs and srms are working as intended. like when you use your jump jets, your crosshair shakes all over the place, but when you fire your lasers just stays on one random vector the whole time and doesn't wobble like it should. also why we have instant actuators in the mech arms and no real physics beyond rudimentary hit detection.

elite dangerous had that clever little feature where its crosshair is on a complex but deterministic wobble that makes it hard to predict at any point in time (it looks like a rotating infinity symbol, which would be easily to define mathematically at any point in time). of course that just means you have to time your shots to line up with the point in time when your croshair is most centered. something like that may help. it could even be line a 10 second set of per-randomized noise vectors at about quarter second intervals that just keeps looping and would be time aligned with the server. psr would just use the current timestamp to look up the right vector (or interpolate between the two closest vectors) and know perfectly well what should be happening at your end. you could even use multiple sets and the rng can change the index so each 10 seconds gets a random noise pattern. the server wont need to track a huge backlog of crosshair positions for every player since its only concerned about one small data set for everyone.

*e hsr, not psr.

Edited by LordNothing, 25 January 2017 - 07:10 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

LordNothing, on 25 January 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

i like to think of accuracy being the thing directly in your control, your ability to aim. precision on the other hand represents all those environmental factors outside of your control that cause shots to deviate no matter how much you try to keep the weapon platform completely immobile. precision may be controlled indirectly however, by choice of position and environment, or whether or not you are moving.

only real problem i think is that psr demands that everything be more or less deterministic in order to function properly, and i think its more of a hitscan problem, since lbs and srms are working as intended. like when you use your jump jets, your crosshair shakes all over the place, but when you fire your lasers just stays on one random vector the whole time and doesn't wobble like it should. also why we have instant actuators in the mech arms and no real physics beyond rudimentary hit detection.

elite dangerous had that clever little feature where its crosshair is on a complex but deterministic wobble that makes it hard to predict at any point in time (it looks like a rotating infinity symbol, which would be easily to define mathematically at any point in time). of course that just means you have to time your shots to line up with the point in time when your croshair is most centered. something like that may help. it could even be line a 10 second set of per-randomized noise vectors at about quarter second intervals that just keeps looping and would be time aligned with the server. psr would just use the current timestamp to look up the right vector (or interpolate between the two closest vectors) and know perfectly well what should be happening at your end. you could even use multiple sets and the rng can change the index so each 10 seconds gets a random noise pattern. the server wont need to track a huge backlog of crosshair positions for every player since its only concerned about one small data set for everyone.

That's basically what Accuracy and Precision is.

That mechanic is almost exactly like the flash game I mentioned but different in shape. Like you said it's still possible to get around that. I think adding more RNG is bad, but current RNG for LBX and SRMs are I think necessary.

I don't have Elite Dangerous yet since for some reason I keep missing steam sales, I'll check it out then. It looked rad.

I noticed that laser JJ behavior too. Especially useful to know in a Nova. Personally I think they should just remove it since it doesn't really do anything, you can still redirect lasers or fire PPFLDs if you know exactly where it is. Otherwise, since all our shots go the the crosshair, we can say that our system as of now is fairly accurate and precise.


That's true about PSR, that's why I dislike RNGs.
Having more random variables makes PSR less effective than it already is (Which is not a whole lot).
Considering that we already get people getting matched 2-3 tiers different.

We should focus more on controllable variables, like you said. Personally I'd go with equipment focused balancing, not a mechanic centered one. For instance having reduced precision while moving I think would hurt Brawlers a lot more than Snipers so I think that would incentivize more static gameplay.

If we have to go with a mechanic centered one,(something new) I'd say that reducing map size(as to preserve speed while being to cover more distance) and reducing acceleration across the board, so that lights won't expoit it by jittery movement. This will make it easier for a whole team to get closer to brawl while making it harder for snipers to camp, IS gets to make use of their less facetime weapons and durability quirks more since they're not being damaged from far away bit by bit, reducing the effectivity of clan's weapons.

Although this might have a lot of unintended consequences. I like lights too so I'd prefer not indirectly nerfing them.

Also maybe a Hitbox rebalancing?

Edited by NighthawK1337, 25 January 2017 - 05:47 PM.