53 replies to this topic

[Christophe Ivanov]

The problem I see with heat degrading where you shoot is Friendlies getting hit and possibly killed. Don't think anyone would want this to happen. Just sayin

[Gretik]

Christophe Ivanov, on 31 July 2018 - 10:08 AM, said:

The problem I see with heat degrading where you shoot is Friendlies getting hit and possibly killed. Don't think anyone would want this to happen. Just sayin

I wasn't suggesting a drastic change in accuracy, if you're trying to snipe through the gap between friendlies at enemy targets at the limit of ERLL and Gauss optimal range - you're doing it wrong anyway - it's not like your friends and your targets are just going to be sitting still.

[HammerMaster]

Lore BattleTech Heatscale DOES effect accuracy.
Incoming aneurysm from alpha pukes

Edited by HammerMaster, 31 July 2018 - 08:19 PM.

[HammerMaster]

Christophe Ivanov, on 31 July 2018 - 10:08 AM, said:

The problem I see with heat degrading where you shoot is Friendlies getting hit and possibly killed. Don't think anyone would want this to happen. Just sayin

Good. You're doing it wrong. You suffer consequences.

[Gretik]

HammerMaster, on 31 July 2018 - 06:25 PM, said:

Lore BattleTech Heatscale DOES effect accuracy.
Incoming aneurysm from alpha pukes

The potential aneurysm is why I suggested a swerving reticule, not RNG cone of fire. Plus you can still alpha, but if you build for max damage over sustained fire, your subsequent alphas will suffer more than a more heat efficient build (fewer weapons, more heatsinks). I kind of get peoples preference their shots aren't ruined by luck, though I'd be happy with bloom or such personally.

[HammerMaster]

Gretik, on 01 August 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

The potential aneurysm is why I suggested a swerving reticule, not RNG cone of fire. Plus you can still alpha, but if you build for max damage over sustained fire, your subsequent alphas will suffer more than a more heat efficient build (fewer weapons, more heatsinks). I kind of get peoples preference their shots aren't ruined by luck, though I'd be happy with bloom or such personally.

Been calling for bloom return and it continues to elicit aneurysms.
I did see Konniving stating it wasn't possible anymore which is a shame.

[Gretik]

I have no idea what is and is not possible with the system, given whatever changes they've had to make to implement their current versions - but I'd hope they're willing to entertain anything that is possible even if it's difficult.

[SilentScreamer]

El Bandito, on 31 July 2018 - 06:22 AM, said:

Instead of making the cursor sway like a drunkard, just make it a CoF, where heat and sustained fire can affect it. Perhaps even speed, as well.

I have played games with CoF and strongly dislike it. Lack of CoF is one of the features that keeps me in MWO rather than competing wargames (World of Warships).

I suggest a sliding-scale weapon damage reduction for mechs running up the heatscale would be a better solution.

I do not think heatscale is really a current issue. Peek&Poke energy builds can be blasted to bits by a proper ballistic or missile builds. IF current weapon "balance" changes significantly my opinion would change as well.

[Quxudica]

Running hot for an extended amount of time should affect accuracy, speed and maneuverability as your mech's systems start to fail. The 100% heat threshold should be the point you have to worry about killing yourself, but you should have to worry about the effects of heat well before that. I'd say around the 80% mark. One of the biggest mistakes MWO ever made was having a heat system that literally only has a binary penalty. Certain chassis could run hotter for longer or have a higher threshold before penalties start to kick in but running hot should be incredibly detrimental even before you cross the 100% threshold.

Quote

I have played games with CoF and strongly dislike it. Lack of CoF is one of the features that keeps me in MWO rather than competing wargames (World of Warships).

I suggest a sliding-scale weapon damage reduction for mechs running up the heatscale would be a better solution.

I do not think heatscale is really a current issue. Peek&Poke energy builds can be blasted to bits by a proper ballistic or missile builds. IF current weapon "balance" changes significantly my opinion would change as well.

Heat scale is the games single largest problem and arguably the systemic mechanical root of everything wrong with the game.

The point behind heat-caused CoF is that it promotes skill and encourages the pilot to either avoid crossing the threshold that causes CoF in the first place, or makes the pilot make a judgement call on if doing so is still worth it. Personally I think Alpha strikes should create a CoF based on number and caliber of weapons fired simultaneously. You can dump your 50~90 point alpha if you want but doing so is going to bathe the target in fire, not focus the entire salvo into one perfect pixel on top of creating heat that is something you seriously need to consider (instead of just hitting "O" once and forgetting about the mechanic almost entirely, which is basically what experienced pilots are able to do in the current system).

Edited by Quxudica, 01 August 2018 - 04:17 PM.

[SilentScreamer]

Quxudica, on 01 August 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

Running hot for an extended amount of time should affect accuracy, speed and maneuverability as your mech's systems start to fail. One of the biggest mistakes MWO ever made was having a heat system that literally only has a binary penalty. Certain chassis could run hotter for longer or have a higher threshold before penalties start to kick in but running hot should be incredibly detrimental even before you cross the 100% threshold.

I think the difficulty lies more in a heat scale that doesn't over-penalize heavy weapons like ER PPCs. The source material (Battletech) is turn-based. If you generate 15 heat and your mech has 10 doubles you are golden. In real-time (MWO) you get 15 heat instantly and it takes time for your mech to get back to zero. That can be a real problem for say a Warhammer 7S which has no issues firing 2 ER PPCs in tabletop but would be crippled doing the same in MWO.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I've been considering a different take, why not test vastly different variables, to see more permutations (restricted by known TT values)? Meaning a lower base stat on the average weapon, and so variants could gain a greater assortment of Skill variables.

Judgement of a 'Skill' based aim system with the Cryengine seems compatible with an adjustment to stats to Weapons, while allowing existing systems to stay and evolve as needed, with new Skill Nodes that certainly seem possible to at least test.

In other words, using a different translation of base Weapon Stats, and then giving a new set of Skill Quirks to existing mech variants (and 8/8 Pod Clan builds) to compensate as needed.

The idea being that some mechs with say an AC/20 or LRM/20 | MRM 30 has a souped up auto-loader system for intense combat negotiations, in part to express the uniqueness and/or rarity of such gear between mech variants.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Gretik, on 31 July 2018 - 04:33 AM, said:

I've recently returned to MWO and I was surprised by how seriously and personally people have taken recent and proposed changes. I can see that there are issues and that there are a wealth of conflicting ideas over how to rectify the issues. So I'll throw my two cents in, for what it's worth - I hope someone from PGI can give it a glance as I still love the game and I want to see it succeed. (Ignoring PSR and matchmaking balance, as I think the community is pretty agreed on the proposed solutions.)

The big consternation seems to be large, accurate alphas. Why not incorporate a table top mechanic that applies fairly to all 'Mech chassis, encourages less min-maxed builds and doesn't impact brawlers anywhere near as heavily as it does stand off builds?

My suggestion is a scaling accuracy debuff, proportional to your heatscale. In table you you suffer a gunnery penalty as your heat rises. This can be blamed on heat expansion warping weapon mounts, heat haze and smoke interfering with sensors and sensitive electronics struggling to cope with thermal overload.

In practice, I'd suggest this take the form of a wandering crosshair - similar to MASC but smoother and more even with larger sweeping loops rather than a seizure inducing stutter. To keep it balanced for LRM and ATM's, I'd suggest losing locks over a certain threshold and making acquiring lock take longer as heat builds up.

Gauss rifles already have an inherent inaccuracy, charge time and recoil, that can be overcome with skill. A strong but relatively predictable motion of the crosshairs would still be managed with a skilled and steady hand, but repeated high alphas at range without cooling down will become less effective.

Light and medium 'mechs that rely on hit and run, or getting into knife fighting range would be relatively unaffected as long as the crosshair sway is smaller than "Arc of 'Mech" at point blank range. Brawlers will get a better chance to close, but high heat brawlers will still suffer slightly. LRM 'mechs will just need to throttle their fire more to manage their heat.

This doesn't require a change to ghost heat. I'd also suggest allowing targeting computers to reduce crosshair sway. Encouraging tonnage to be spent on something other than more weapons.

and the Piranha has no problems with all this and is the King or build with less Heatdriving Weapons (gauss )

each Light with SRMs can ignored CoF ..The Target is big enough in 100m

and Alpha problem ? what the Diference by hitting from 7 Large Lasers from 7 Mechs in from a good Fireline and from different Directions ..or 6 Large Lasers by bad Position from one Mech ? ..last its most the Error from the Player ...Alphakills most a Problem of bad Gameplay and Position without Team thats supported the Player by Brawl or bad Timing .
Most Players died in Alphas while the Players not will waiting for the right Time ..Instantaction and Many Kills in Mind bring a playstyle with high Risk and Problems with Alphas..Tactical Awarness ist the best Solution against Alpha...to many Players will a Winbutton for his own Playstyle and not learn to handle the Mechanics.

Its not the Trashnovels or the TT ..Pen&Paper D&D or PC Chevalier playing is differnet to a LARP Roleplaying Game and both very different to a Real Swordfight.

Most mechanics from Boardgames only for Boardgames ...cheese is not a Medival Battle simulation

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 02 August 2018 - 02:25 AM.

[Gretik]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 02 August 2018 - 02:11 AM, said:

and the Piranha has no problems with all this and is the King or build with less Heatdriving Weapons (gauss )

each Light with SRMs can ignored CoF ..The Target is big enough in 100m

and Alpha problem ? what the Diference by hitting from 7 Large Lasers from 7 Mechs in from a good Fireline and from different Directions ..or 6 Large Lasers by bad Position from one Mech ? ..last its most the Error from the Player ...Alphakills most a Problem of bad Gameplay and Position without Team thats supported the Player by Brawl or bad Timing .
Most Players died in Alphas while the Players not will waiting for the right Time ..Instantaction and Many Kills in Mind bring a playstyle with high Risk and Problems with Alphas..Tactical Awarness ist the best Solution against Alpha...to many Players will a Winbutton for his own Playstyle and not learn to handle the Mechanics.

Its not the Trashnovels or the TT ..Pen&Paper D&D or PC Chevalier playing is differnet to a LARP Roleplaying Game and both very different to a Real Swordfight.

Most mechanics from Boardgames only for Boardgames ...cheese is not a Medival Battle simulation

Really not sure where to start with this. High damage, pinpoint accurate alphas are an issue. Your example of 7 large lasers from 7 'mechs compared to 6 large lasers from 1 'mech doesn't make sense, because if running 6 large lasers is viable, you're going to run into 7 'mechs each firing 6 large lasers.

I agree that getting out of position can and should result in your 'mech getting crushed, but if each 'mech in the firing line can repeatedly fire devastating alphas it limits the ability of their opponents to stage a breakout. With my suggested change, each 'mech could fire their alpha and absolutely annihilate the first 'mech or two that leaves cover - but then their ability to continue the engagement will suffer dramatically allowing their opponents to close. Currently, leaving cover to try and close the distance favours the defender greatly.

And as for the rest of your rant, tactics from the board game, D&D and LARP still cross over into games (and even into actual fights). Really simple stuff, like "don't get separated from your allies" and "don't engage the enemy at a range or in circumstances that favour their weapons instead of your own". I'm not sure how your dislike of novels and roleplaying games supports your desire to keep MWO a point and click adventure.

[Akillius]

Edustaja, on 31 July 2018 - 06:56 AM, said:

Heat affected accuracy would actually encourage huge alpha peek and hide gameplay.

This is why heat must cause 'mechs to slow down.
And the higher the heat the slower movement and slower turning speed.
Most players would quickly learn doing an Alpha strike could have a big cost.
Yes it'll slow light mechs as it should... (and I play lights the majority of the time).

Heat scale should affect accuracy so its more random, same as how MASC usage works.

As for ammo explosions with higher heat...
+ Sure at 100% filled red bar then a random chance of ammo explosion.
+ But seems silly and excessive below about 90% filled red bar.
So I'll say leave ammo explosions out, or only at 100% heat (=shutdown/override).

Yes heat scale that affects accuracy and slows movement/turning/torso means a new game style.
Where equipping more heat sinks, fewer weapons, and shooting fewer weapons becomes the norm.
And I foresee more usage of gauss/autocannon/MGs until out of ammo, then switching to lasers.
+ Expect a handful of the loudest to scream about how they can't cope with the difference.


PGI just add that heatscale system to current MWO game system, then put on PTS and I'll join asap!

Edited by Max Rickson, 02 August 2018 - 09:35 AM.

[Gretik]

Ditto, would test!

[Spheroid]

Look I will visually explain to everyone why this is a bad idea.

I have two screenshots of a target Cicada. One at HLLAS range and another at ER LLAS range. The letter Z represents a recticle drift pattern that would spread across the entire body.

Any system that represents fixed angular error royally screws over ranged builds.

Edited by Spheroid, 02 August 2018 - 12:04 PM.

[Gretik]

Spheroid, on 02 August 2018 - 12:00 PM, said:

Look I will visually explain to everyone why this is a bad idea.

I have two screenshots of a target Cicada. One at HLLAS range and another at ER LLAS range. The letter Z represents a recticle drift pattern that would spread across the entire body.

Any system that represents fixed angular error royally screws over ranged builds.

That could be rephrased as, "it disproportionately affects ranged builds that choose to emphasis their firepower over their heat efficiency (and therefore accuracy)". If the accuracy debuff only affects above a certain threshold, say 50%, long range snipers will need to stay below 50% to optimise their damage. Running hot will become more effective as the range closes, because of the reason you've outlined - but again I don't think that is a problem - it will encourage closer ranged brawling builds.

[SilentScreamer]

Spheroid, on 02 August 2018 - 12:00 PM, said:

Look I will visually explain to everyone why this is a bad idea.

I have two screenshots of a target Cicada. One at HLLAS range and another at ER LLAS range. The letter Z represents a recticle drift pattern that would spread across the entire body.

Any system that represents fixed angular error royally screws over ranged builds.

Gretik, on 02 August 2018 - 02:28 PM, said:

If the accuracy debuff only affects above a certain threshold, say 50%, long range snipers will need to stay below 50% to optimise their damage. Running hot will become more effective as the range closes, because of the reason you've outlined - but again I don't think that is a problem - it will encourage closer ranged brawling builds.

I personally think MWO would be worse off if CoF is implemented; here is why:

After long-range direct fire is ruined by CoF mechanics, pilots will switch from PPCs, Large Lasers and Autocannons to guided LRMs. LRMaggedon part 2.

I also think brawlers are just fine; yes it sucks to play Polar Highlands boating SRMs, but no worse than having your team crawl into the HPG basement when you are boating LRMs. If you min/max, you will be at a disadvantage at some maps.

[Mystere]

SilentScreamer, on 02 August 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

I personally think MWO would be worse off if CoF is implemented; here is why:

After long-range direct fire is ruined by CoF mechanics, pilots will switch from PPCs, Large Lasers and Autocannons to guided LRMs. LRMaggedon part 2.

And which is why a deterministic convergence-based solution is superior to CoF.

Edited by Mystere, 02 August 2018 - 03:05 PM.

[Gretik]

Which is why I suggested that lock on weapons should suffer above the threshold also, by intermittently losing lock and taking longer to acquire new locks. The idea isn't to prevent long range fire, it's to penalise prioritising alpha/throw weight over sustainable and heat efficient weapon combinations. You could still snipe at long range with a couple of ERLL, but what you couldn't do is repeatedly fire several ERLL and ERML and expect to perform as well as the pilot who chose to just keep picking away at you with careful, deliberate long range fire whilst staying under the accuracy debuff threshold.

The idea is not to shitcan whole swathes of playstyles, it's to **** can putting all of your weapons onto mouse 1 and then clicking until the enemy go away or you run out of cool shots.