1063 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Inertiaman, on 08 January 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

Not exactly seeing everyone pile in the ERPPC's or ERLL's etc either.

Damage Falloff = Further range of standard weapons = bad design

[Tolkien]

Hi there, wanted to chip in that I more or less agree with the original poster, though I wanted to point our that as far as I can recall MPBT3025 approached the problem by having grouped weapons (or even rapid fired weapons of the same type e.g. 4x medium lasers on a jenner) automatically go to random hit locations.

Another reason we will always have trouble with cheese/boat builds is due to the different fire speeds of different weapon systems. In tabletop an AC20 a medium laser and an SSRM6 had the same range envelope and would often be grouped together. In MWO they've added the detail of having projectile travel speeds which is cool and a nice immersion touch, but it makes grouping those systems effectively damn hard. If you are aiming at a fast moving target you have to aim at 3 different places and for different durations to make the trio hit your target!

Finally we have customization. As long as customization is allowed, combining the above reality about diverse systems being harder to combine than multiple copies of the same system with players able to suss out tiny advantages of certain systems over others, and we have a nice recipe for boats

To agree with the original poster while also putting up a different point of view, I love customization but think the game would be better off without it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Inertiaman, on 08 January 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

Not exactly seeing everyone pile in the ERPPC's or ERLL's etc either.

I wanted to stay with the most egrigious examples, before I get some smart behinds in here and say "Yeah, but I am using ER PPCs all the time and do well, you should just L2P". I've had to much of those.

[Erasus Magnus]

Jetfire, on 07 January 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

There are 2 parts to this and with them included the game would have a lot more depth.

1. Only fully articulated arms can have adjustable to target convergence. Torso and Up/Down only arms should fire at a fixed convergence of the weapons maximum effective distance. The reason being that these items are not all mounted on individual articulated gimbals. This makes where you mount weapons important as it will affect the spread. Center of mass weapons on the torso like the Centurions lasers have no convergence issues as they are mounted dead center on the reticules.

2. Cone of Fire. Just because I point a reticule at something does not gaurantee a hit. There needs to be an inclusion of some inaccuracy due to simple slop in the system. The tech who lines up your weapons will not get it 100%. Try sighting in a real rifle. The faster you move the more vibration and uncertainty. The more heat, the slower your targeting computer can keep up.

That said, modules and equipment should be able to improve accuracy and heat proof the targeting computer.

as far as i know, torso mounted weapons have adjustable target convergence, since the smaller weapons like lasers and mgs are often built into ball joint-like turrets that have some degrees of firing angle, and even big guns like the torso mounted gauss rifles of the fafnir arent fixed into the torso, but are mounted on an apparatus that can move the weapon system a few degrees in every direction. these 2-5 degrees are enough to adjust these weapons to the reticule.

there are a lot of artworks which show these ball jointed torso weapons. but unfortunately i cannot prove my statement about the big guns, i dont know anymore, where i read about this.

[MrPenguin]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

• Large weapons are not powerful (Single AC20 = not dangerous)

Oh god, my sides!

Edited by MrPenguin, 08 January 2013 - 04:42 AM.

[MrPenguin]

TexAss, on 08 January 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

When will you TT addicts realize that you are in a minority here.

Never. Just ignore them.

[BerryChunks]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

On June 17, 2012, I posted a thread (http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1) stating that the Developer’s on-going attempts to balance weapons without some mechanism of weapon spread (cone of fire, convergence, etc) were doomed. And by extension, the game itself was likely doomed to suffer terrible weapon/armor balance.

During this thread the Devs indicated that a solution (weapon convergence, even if this is a non-optimal solution) would be implemented that would address this issue. They asked me to wait.

I promised I would wait.

I have waited more than six months.

The Devs are continuing to balance (or unbalance) weapons. But they haven’t bothered implementing their favored solution (weapon convergence) and as I predicted, we are seeing the predicted progression of cascading problems related to groups of weapons being pin-point accurate:

• Significant deviations from BattleTech canon for weapons (ML, LL, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, etc) including damage/heat making individual weapons weak relative to armor
  
• Armor doubled exacerbating the individual weapon weakness
  
• Hardpoints significantly limiting customization (not ideal, but tolerable)
  
• Large weapons are not powerful (Single AC20 = not dangerous)
  
• Need groups of small weapons to be effective, single ML or SL is basically worthless vs. doubled armor, especially with heat nerf to MLs
  
• Mechs are generally nerfed because small weapons are nerfed (MGs, SLs, MLs, etc) combined with hardpoints.
  
• Grouped weapons dominate the field (2xGR, 2-4xPPC, 3-6xLL, 9xSL, 2xAC20, 4xAC2, 3xUAC5) because individual weapons are weak compared to groups of weapons and vs. double armor.
  
• Constant struggles when implementing and balancing new ‘Mechs/variants/weapons (new ‘Mechs need to be hardpoint nerfed to prevent unbalanced grouped weapon configurations such as 3xGR mechs... though they’re coming via CBT canon). The Stalker with it’s 6LL/6PPC is just the most recent issue.

In brief, without weapon spread, BattleTech weapon, critical, internal structure, and armor models can not and will not be balanced in a MechWarrior game. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. If you have a system where you can add more than one weapon of a given type to a ‘Mech and shoot them with pinpoint accuracy, you have effectively created WeaponX2. Or WeaponX5. Or whatever multiplier is appropriate. If I can combine 8 Medium Lasers into a ‘super-laser’ that hits for 8-times the damage due to pin-point accuracy and convergence, the weapon/armor model will ALWAYS be broken. Doesn’t matter if it’s lasers, PPCs, Gauss, or ACs.


The only way to fix this is to modify the behavior of weapons fired in a group vs. those fired singly. Keep in mind here, I’m not asking for ‘dice-based’ gaming. I’m not asking for CBT or death. I’m asking for sanity. This is a pure mathematical argument on damage (D) from a number of weapons (n).

D < D*n where n > 1

Groups of weapons are ALWAYS more effective than a single weapon of that type. Always. This is why people boat weapons. It’s because it’s the smart thing to do.

However, this is a FIXABLE problem.

Therefore, I, again, call upon the Developers to fix this. Implement some version of weapon spread. Implement weapon convergence. (the current 2-target recticle thing doesn’t do anything). Implement SOMETHING before it is too late. If you move out of Open Beta without even trying this, you will have failed to adequately test and explore the game development space. This game deserves a chance to be tested with weapon spread for weapons fired in groups or in rapid succession. And if we go much further into Open Beta (or full launch), I very much doubt that there will be a chance to go back and try weapon spread in the future.

Beta is the time for this to happen. Please, give us a chance to test this. MechWarrior with a cone-of-fire could be an amazing game. You could balance heat effects on weapons (as is intended in classic BattleTech), you can balance groups of weapons, you can adjust for movement (walking vs. running vs. jumping), knock, and everything else we’ve wanted. You just have to give it a chance. There is a reason that most combat simulation games use cone-of-fire. It works. It simulates actual effects of combat. But even weapon convergence would help. Almost anything would help.

Except tweaking individual weapons.

Whack-a-mole balancing will always lead to the ‘next-best’ weapons/loadout/’Mech being made ‘best’. That’s what’s going to happen when they tweak the hardpoints on the K2 or adjust the Guass, or whatever. My guess is that LLs or PPCs will become the ‘next best’, but I guess we’ll see.

If weapon spread in some fashion isn’t implemented, all you’ve done is update the graphics on MW4 weapon balance. This is a fine thing, but it’s not the ‘best’ it can be.

I’ll be happy to answer questions and clarify anything that is unclear. Before responding, keep the following issues in mind:

1. While I would like CBT values, that’s not the point of this post. The proposed fix has the side-effect of allowing CBT values, but does not require them. It only allows you to balance single weapons vs. groups of weapons. The benefit of the fix is that it allows us to actually simulate CBT. Thus... MechWarrior.

2. Because single weapons fired sufficiently apart (subject to balance, probably 0.5-1 second gap to prevent macroing) are NOT subject to weapon spread (read the above carefully), this idea does NOT make the game into a random number generator. If you fire one weapon at a time, you are still pin-point accurate. Good gunnery still matters, the proposed solution just allows you to use big weapons to maximum effect. If you fire groups, then you suffer the consequences (as intended by the fix).

3. There are lots of other ways to implement a variation on weapon spread (e.g., MPBT:3025 dropped damage on weapons fired together). Cone of fire is my favorite, but I just want one of them implemented. Pick one.

Developers, I warned you in June 2012. I’m warning you again now. Add weapon spread or be prepared to suffer MW4-type grouped weapon balance problems indefinitely to the detriment of the game and its longevity.

Insanity

Edit: Fixed formatting.

Have you noticed that grouped weapons are a problem, vis a vis mass PPC or mass SRM or Mass AC/20, yet then say limiting weapons is a problem?

Most CANON mechs have 3-4 weapons and are based on size of mechs.

[CypherHalo]

Sorry OP, not 100% clear what you're getting at here. Here's what I will say, just my opinion. One, it is disappointing how the big weapons seem to lack the punch they had in, say MW4. It's been years but I seem to remember large lasers being a lot more effective. In this game they generate so much heat that it just often doesn't feel worth it.

I really don't mind the hardpoint system and if anything would actually like more limits by adding in "slot sizes" for the hardpoints. This would eliminate the Gausscat entirely by making it impossible to mount Gausses in slots meants for a lighter weapon like the machine gun.

I don't mind the weapons group-firing. That's how it was done in MW4 and I really liked it as a control scheme. Considering the sheer number of weapons you can mount on these mechs and how many are effective at different ranges, I always felt that group firing was a great control scheme. I would just have to agree that it seems the big weapons don't have enough punch and instead it seems everyone is just carrying around tons of MLs.

[Danipenn]

I don't know what most, if not all, apart from the OP, is raving about.

The situation is simple:

There is no sense whatsoever, FPS or TT game, that a set of weapons would all hit on the same exact spot when fired together. You don't need to be a FPS or a TT aficionados...you just have to use good sense.

8 pages to discuss this...OMG!

Piranha games needs to solve this weapon inbalance ASAP.

[idle crow]

It be the death of ridge/hill sniping. You can't exactly come over and take 6 seconds to line up and fire 6 PPC on a Stalker.

It also doesn't really solve weapon boating. It just shifts it in a different direction. Instead of a 9 ML Hunchback you be better off with something that does equal damage in 2-4 weapons instead of 9.

Slow firing chain fire weapons would be the meta of the game well anything fast firing would only hamper you aim.

[Taiji]

Danipenn, on 08 January 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

There is no sense whatsoever, FPS or TT game, that a set of weapons would all hit on the same exact spot when fired together. You don't need to be a FPS or a TT aficionados...you just have to use good sense.

Oh, this is like a creationist argument. Very funny. Well done!

Edited by Taiji, 08 January 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Shismar]

Sorry OP, this is not TT Battletech and never will be and never should. The developers made that clear.

I am certain there will be adjustments to how weapons work in the future. Some general, some specific. But the goal should never be to get closer to TT rules just for the sake of getting more TT. They should be for the general improvement of gameplay and enjoyment of Mechwarrior Online.

If a TT mechanics works for MWO, fine, I am all for that. If not, screw it.

[Tolkien]

Shismar, on 08 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Sorry OP, this is not TT Battletech and never will be and never should. The developers made that clear.

I am certain there will be adjustments to how weapons work in the future. Some general, some specific. But the goal should never be to get closer to TT rules just for the sake of getting more TT. They should be for the general improvement of gameplay and enjoyment of Mechwarrior Online.

If a TT mechanics works for MWO, fine, I am all for that. If not, screw it.

I don't think he was saying the game should dogmatically stick to tabletop just for the sake of staying close to tabletop. Tabletop after all has some terrible problems like rolling dice for an hour to figure out what happened to 2 mechs during a round of combat. That said the abstraction from dice roller to FPS/simulator does produce some problems, including having your weapons go from random hits on a table to directed fire. It's nice in that skill is rewarded, problematic in that now the devs have to balance how mechs "look", and mechs with a big profile are at a disadvantage.

E.G. cicada to hunchback the mass is only 25% higher but a hunchback is a way way bigger target, and therefore way easier to hit. Add to that that he has his biggest/best/most weapons in a torso that is hard to miss.... These are fun new problems/adventures for this game to deal with.

On top of that the there's the difference of weapons stacking. On tabletop weapons like SRMs, AC20 and medium laser all had the same range envelope so were just as easy to use on any target, or in any combination. In MWO we will always have the motivation to boat multiples of the same system since you have to aim at 3 different places for 3 different weapons to hit the same fast moving or distant target. Again I think this is another reason he's worried about boating of systems. Again tabletop isn't perfect, but the FPS/Sim is going to expose a lot of interesting problems.

Problems that when layered on top of each other along with customization etc. make me worry that it might be a serious pain to keep it in balance.

[Kotrin]

Very interesting thread.

No surprise laser boat stalkers are the flavor of the month

Anyone disagreeing with the OP and claiming everything is fine, please consider the following:
Will you prefer fielding...
- one AC20 with 2-3 tons of ammo (7 heat, 20 dmg, 16 tons, 12 crits) or
- 4 Medium Lasers with 5 heat sinks (7 heat, 4x5 dmg, 9 tons, 9 crits) ?

Personal taste and hardpoints aside, the second option is better any day because of weapon convergence.

A cone of fire would be a great improvement to the game. Most FPS have one and it totally makes sense.

The cone of fire should be related to throttle, damage received, and most important of all, heat.

Instead of introducing extra cone of fire for grouped weapon, it would be better to consider the heat of each towards the group. For example, if you group a LL and 2 ML and fire them while at zero heat, the LL takes precendence (let's say it's the most powerful weapon of the group) then ("then" means 0.05 seconds later here) the first ML fires with some cone effect because of LL heat, then (again "then" means 0.05 seconds later) the last ML fires with an additional cone effect because of LL + previous ML heat. You could even see your Cone of Fire circle expand or shrink accordingly on screen.

Heat management would mean something again (now 99% heat? Who cares!)

Movement would be meaningful again (unless in a brawl, it's difficult to aim)

Large guns would be meaningful again (instead of being dropped for arrays of lasers if hardpoints allow)

[Lexeii]

Kotrin, on 08 January 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

- one AC20 with 2-3 tons of ammo (7 heat, 20 dmg, 16 tons, 12 crits) or
- 4 Medium Lasers with 5 heat sinks (7 heat, 4x5 dmg, 9 tons, 9 crits) ?

Personal taste and hardpoints aside, the second option is better any day because of weapon convergence.

... so the single AC20 shot isn't convergent? Edit: in the sense of hitting one location
crit/weight arguments maybe (although they get kind of balanced with hardpionts, personal taste... )

on the contrary, with the laser u have to stay at the same location for some time, while the AC20 delivers dmg immediately to one location...

Edited by Lexeii, 08 January 2013 - 06:39 AM.

[MrPenguin]

Kotrin, on 08 January 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Personal taste and hardpoints aside, the second option is better any day because of weapon convergence.

If you don't account for skill. Which is where most arguments like this start falling a part.

What you're essentially saying, either intentional or not, is that 4 mediums lasers is better then an AC/20 not because of actual stats or raw power. But because lasers hit where you point.

In a turn based, dice roll based game. Yes, this would be the case. But this isn't a turn based, dice roll game. Player skill is the largest factor, and ignoring it is a massive mistake.

But, you said "Not accounting player skill". You failed right there at video game balance. Players skill is THE most important factor here. Not the least. Your weapon stats should reflect player skill, not the other way around. Harder to use weapons should reward you more then lower skilled weapons. Hence why anyone who knows how to use an AC/20 will absolutely destroy anyone with 4 medium lasers every single time.

4 Medium lasers are DoT weapons. Meaning to do the full 20 dmg, you need to hold your laser on that single spot for the entire duration. Most people simply cannot do this. An AC/20 is a 1 hit weapon. It does damage instantly on contact. Of course, its harder to aim then medium lasers. But its much easier to do full damage with it on single mech parts.

Of course, considering that the forum community honestly thinks SSRM should be incredibly powerful I doubt any of you think that skill should be rewarded at all. Thank god PGI has no interest in turning this into a dice roll game or the monstrosity which was MW4 online.

Edited by MrPenguin, 08 January 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Roland]

I think most of you folks are just talking past each other, as folks are prone to doing every time this subject is brought up. However, I'll address this point:

Quote

Anyone disagreeing with the OP and claiming everything is fine, please consider the following:
Will you prefer fielding...
- one AC20 with 2-3 tons of ammo (7 heat, 20 dmg, 16 tons, 12 crits) or
- 4 Medium Lasers with 5 heat sinks (7 heat, 4x5 dmg, 9 tons, 9 crits) ?
Personal taste and hardpoints aside, the second option is better any day because of weapon convergence.

I was actually discussing this with Insanity last night... I tend to run the AC20 all the time on my hunchback. Compared to a 4P, I actually prefer my 4G.

Looking at those numbers, you say, "But why? The Medium lasers are obviously better!"

And based on those numbers, they are... but those numbers leave out a key point, which is that the AC20 will do all of its damage to a single spot, whereas the lasers will spread damage over the discharge period. This makes the AC20 much more effective for things like killing fast moving light mechs.

So, in some ways, my preference for the AC20 actually does show that weapon spread has the potential to influence weapon usage... the same goes for my preference for the PPC, or other ballistic weapons.

However, when it comes to lasers, I will almost always take medium lasers over large lasers, unless I'm hardpoint constrained... Because, since they both do DoT, a bunch of medium lasers is BETTER than a single large laser... there is a slight range advantage to the large laser, but for the most part the mediums are a better investment, because they just become a big large laser.

We saw this a lot earlier in the beta, and the devs responded by nerfing the medium laser... prior to that, the game was pretty dominated by 4P's running around with a boat of small or medium lasers.

We saw the same thing in MW3, where the game was centered around putting as many medium lasers onto your mech as possible, to make the uber voltron medium laser mech.

Then in MW4, they nerfed the medium laser to uselessness, in order to prevent that issue... which made folks switch to "put as many LARGE lasers on your mech as possible".

Ultimately, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't give a crap about Battletech, and I don't think the balance of weapons is really totally hosed up. But at the same time, I recognize that there is some issue that really focuses on developing large alpha-strike loadouts... anyone who played MW4 recognizes this, because we did the same thing in that game for years.

Folks should realize though that I don't think you guys are really as far apart as you think.

[MustrumRidcully]

MrPenguin, on 08 January 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

If you don't account for skill. Which is where most arguments like this start falling a part.

What you're essentially saying, either intentional or not, is that 4 mediums lasers is better then an AC/20 not because of actual stats or raw power. But because lasers hit where you point.

In a turn based, dice roll based game. Yes, this would be the case. But this isn't a turn based, dice roll game. Player skill is the largest factor, and ignoring it is a massive mistake.

But, you said "Not accounting player skill". You failed right there at video game balance. Players skill is THE most important factor here. Not the least. Your weapon stats should reflect player skill, not the other way around. Harder to use weapons should reward you more then lower skilled weapons. Hence why anyone who knows how to use an AC/20 will absolutely destroy anyone with 4 medium lasers every single time.

4 Medium lasers are DoT weapons. Meaning to do the full 20 dmg, you need to hold your laser on that single spot for the entire duration. Most people simply cannot do this. An AC/20 is a 1 hit weapon. It does damage instantly on contact. Of course, its harder to aim then medium lasers. But its much easier to do full damage with it on single mech parts.

Of course, considering that the forum community honestly thinks SSRMS should be incredibly powerful I doubt any of you think that skill should be rewarded at all. Thank god PGI has no interest in turning this into a dice roll game or the monstrosity which was MW4 online.

I think you are missing part of the argument.

Imagine you had the choice between an AC/20, an AC/10 with 2 Medium Lasers, and 4 Medium Lasers.

If you use the AC/20, it's heaver than the 4 medium lasers all things considered (that means ammo, heat sinks, and the weapon itself). You need to lead with the AC/20. The 4 Mediums you would need to keep the target under your reticule for 1 second. Which is more difficult? I'd say holding the target is easier, since at least you are directly pointed to it.

If you use the AC/10 and 2 Medium Lasers, this weapon config will also be heavier. In addition to that, the AC/10 needs to be lead, and the medium lasers require you to keep your reticule on the target. The result is - this is even more difficult to play than a single AC/20 or 4 Mediums. You can basically not fire t hese weapons together, which means you must spend time aiming each individually. That is likely to lower oyur overall damage output as you spend more time aiming rahter than shooting, and if you only have a short window of opportunity, you might even not get half your shots in.


So, convergence encourages boating not just because weapon stats were designed under the assumption that there was no convergence, combining different weapon types also causes you to do more work.

[Wintersdark]

MrPenguin, on 08 January 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Oh god, my sides!

when the OP said AC/20's weren't dangerous, the context was relative to a similar weight/critical allocation of smaller weapons. It's FAR better to take, say, 5 medium Lasers and a couple heat Sinks than an ac20, at about half the weight, higher damage, and similar heat profile and higher damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

MrPenguin, on 08 January 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

If you don't account for skill. Which is where most arguments like this start falling a part.

What you're essentially saying, either intentional or not, is that 4 mediums lasers is better then an AC/20 not because of actual stats or raw power. But because lasers hit where you point.

In a turn based, dice roll based game. Yes, this would be the case. But this isn't a turn based, dice roll game. Player skill is the largest factor, and ignoring it is a massive mistake.

But, you said "Not accounting player skill". You failed right there at video game balance. Players skill is THE most important factor here. Not the least. Your weapon stats should reflect player skill, not the other way around. Harder to use weapons should reward you more then lower skilled weapons. Hence why anyone who knows how to use an AC/20 will absolutely destroy anyone with 4 medium lasers every single time.

4 Medium lasers are DoT weapons. Meaning to do the full 20 dmg, you need to hold your laser on that single spot for the entire duration. Most people simply cannot do this. An AC/20 is a 1 hit weapon. It does damage instantly on contact. Of course, its harder to aim then medium lasers. But its much easier to do full damage with it on single mech parts.

At balancing 4 meduims v AC20. The two side by side when all is said and done should do exactly the same amount of damage PER ALPHA. One pull of the trigger should have both 20 point weapon groups doing 20 points of damage. One shot from 4 mediums should be equal to the damage produced by one AC20 round.

Laser convergence is not affected by wind, ballistic drop or any of those other factors, it is an unwavering beam of light, I can easily see a group of lasers some 1000 years in the future being able to hold a grouping of a 2" diameter.