1063 replies to this topic

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

Nope, you still don't get it. At all. As of this moment, right now, without any further posting on my part, my claim of having shown your posts to be full of racial bias and sexual innuendo is just as valid as your claim of having shown Mchawkeye's posts to be irrational. And you don't understand why, clearly.

Please both of you stop. You both disagree with each other. We get it.

Please discuss productively (and politely) or don't post in the thread. It's been a very useful discussion thread and I'd dislike having it locked.

[Pht]

Connatic, on 25 February 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Isn't that what I said? You aim instead of rolling dice. I think you are just splitting hairs here. "You" or the "Battlemech", it doesn't matter.

... I think we are using the same word but with different meanings.

The pilot indicates to the 'mech what it should try and aim its weapons at...

The 'mech than calculates where to physically point the weapons to hit what the pilot has indicated;

Than the 'Mech physically points the weapons where the 'Mech calculated it should point them in order to...

...Hit what the pilot was indicating.

That's how it works in the lore and how it should "work" in the MW video game genre.

As it has been done so far in the MW video games, there is NO simulation of the 'Mech's capability to do what it does in this setup.

[Doc Holliday]

Pht, on 25 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

... I think we are using the same word but with different meanings.

The pilot indicates to the 'mech what it should try and aim its weapons at...

The 'mech than calculates where to physically point the weapons to hit what the pilot has indicated;

Than the 'Mech physically points the weapons where the 'Mech calculated it should point them in order to...

...Hit what the pilot was indicating.

That's how it works in the lore and how it should "work" in the MW video game genre.

As it has been done so far in the MW video games, there is NO simulation of the 'Mech's capability to do what it does in this setup.

That's how you think it should work in the video game genre. Thankfully, PGI is better at designing video games than you are. And that's not saying much.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 25 February 2013 - 08:30 PM.

[FupDup]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

What you call "very useful discussion", I call an attempt to get PGI to completely ruin the game. You might be able to see why I really couldn't care less if it it got locked. You want cone of fire, CoD and Battlefield are out there, waiting for you. No need to get that garbage foisted on this game as well.

Well, realistically speaking this "attempt" is fairly fruitless because the game is already in open beta. "Beta" in gaming these days means nothing more than that the core foundation of the game is already set-in-stone and there's just some content + bugfixing to do before labeling it as "full release." If PGI wanted to do any of the ideas mentioned in this thread, they would have done so a looong time ago.

No matter how good or bad their reasons are, the people arguing in this thread for the game to do a 180 and change direction completely are wasting their energy. It simply is unrealistic to expect PGI to flip-flop the game this far in; especially when they're such a small, under-funded studio.

Edited by FupDup, 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

FupDup, on 25 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Well, realistically speaking this "attempt" is fairly fruitless because the game is already in open beta. "Beta" in gaming these days means nothing more than that the core foundation of the game is already set-in-stone and there's just some content + bugfixing to do before labeling it as "full release." If PGI wanted to do any of the ideas mentioned in this thread, they would have done so a looong time ago.

No matter how good or bad their reasons are, the people arguing in this thread for the game to do a 180 and change direction completely are wasting their energy. It simply is unrealistic to expect them to flip-flop the game this far in, especially when they're such a small, under-funded studio.

I sincerely hope you're right.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

What you call "very useful discussion", I call an attempt to get PGI to completely ruin the game. You might be able to see why I really couldn't care less if it it got locked. You want cone of fire, CoD and Battlefield are out there, waiting for you. No need to get that garbage foisted on this game as well.

You're clearly trolling.

I specifically stated I want a mechanism to minimize weapon convergence which breaks the damage model. I specifically said I would be happy with any solution that would accomplish that. See #2 of my original post.

You disagree. I get it. Thanks for your input.

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Insanity, on 25 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

You're clearly trolling.

I specifically stated I want a mechanism to minimize weapon convergence which breaks the damage model. I specifically said I would be happy with any solution that would accomplish that. See #2 of my original post.

You disagree. I get it. Thanks for your input.

Not trolling. I absolutely despise spread patterns on a weapon that should be precise. And you made it pretty clear that cone of fire is what you really want. I can copy and paste the applicable parts of your original post if you like.

But you're right, I do disagree with your entire premise. I don't think it's a problem at all. LRMs are the single most-complained-about weapon in the game, and they have a huge spread pattern with no convergence at all - exactly what you seem to want for all other weapons. Most people seem pretty darn content with how well non-missile weapons are working right now.

[Pht]

FupDup, on 25 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Well, realistically speaking this "attempt" is fairly fruitless...

In the short run, maybe; game developers tend to come from the gaming community... so, In the long run, no.

Quote

... because the game is already in open beta. "Beta" in gaming these days means nothing more than that the core foundation of the game is already set-in-stone and there's just some content + bugfixing to do before labeling it as "full release." If PGI wanted to do any of the ideas mentioned in this thread, they would have done so a looong time ago.

Just might be true.

Edited by Pht, 25 February 2013 - 08:40 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Not trolling. I absolutely despise spread patterns on a weapon that should be precise. And you made it pretty clear that cone of fire is what you really want. I can copy and paste the applicable parts of your original post if you like.

Apologies. In my original post, the part I was referring to was #3:

Quote

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.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 25 February 2013 - 08:43 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Insanity, on 25 February 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Apologies. In my original post, the part I was referring to was #3:

Yes, I realized that. Right where you say Cone of fire is your favorite. You follow it up by insisting that the developers must "add weapon spread or be prepared to suffer MW4-type grouped weapon balance problems indefinitely to the detriment of the game and its longevity."

Weapon spread is completely different from "minimizing convergence". The former specifically means (in a video game) that some of your shots are deliberately intended to deviate from where you're aiming, the latter can mean something as simple as taking your weapons extra time to converge upon the precise spot you're aiming at, which would mean if you fire prematurely they'll simply fire wide in a precisely-determined manner - something that could be compensated for by a good pilot.

All that being said, you're still trying to solve a non-existent problem.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 25 February 2013 - 08:50 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

Yes, I realized that. Right where you say Cone of fire is your favorite. You follow it up by insisting that the developers must "add weapon spread or be prepared to suffer MW4-type grouped weapon balance problems indefinitely to the detriment of the game and its longevity."

And thus far, they have. As I predicted.

Quote

Weapon spread is completely different from "minimizing convergence". The former specifically means (in a video game) that some of your shots are deliberately intended to deviate from where you're aiming, the latter can mean something as simple as taking your weapons extra time to converge upon the precise spot you're aiming at, which would mean if you fire prematurely they'll simply fire wide in a precisely-determined manner - something that could be compensated for by a good pilot.

A good pilot can also compensate for cone of fire by:

1. Not firing groups of weapons.
2. Minimizing the cone by keeping heat low.
3. Minimize the cone by moving slowly or stopping before taking a careful alphastrike.
4. Firing a limited number of weapons to minimize CoF bloom.

Skill would be a part of this mechanism, just as it is in every other shooter than employs it.

Quote

All that being said, you're still trying to solve a non-existent problem.

The preponderance of boat-based alpha-strike reliance builds (including my most effective 'Mechs) and the resulting balance issues that are the constant source of much angst (by hundreds of people who play) appear to support my position.

I agree that your position is equally valid and that we disagree. Thanks again for your input.

PS: Your version of 'cone of fire'/convergence where things slowly 'converge' to pinpoint at a speed based on factors like heat, speed, # of weapons would be a perfectly reasonable alternative to my proposal and I'd be just as willing to try that out. Anything is better than the current system.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 25 February 2013 - 09:10 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Insanity, on 25 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

And thus far, they have. As I predicted.



A good pilot can also compensate for cone of fire by:

1. Not firing groups of weapons.
2. Minimizing the cone by keeping heat low.
3. Minimize the cone by moving slowly or stopping before taking a careful alphastrike.
4. Firing a limited number of weapons to minimize CoF bloom.

Skill would be a part of this mechanism, just as it is in every other shooter than employs it.



The preponderance of boat-based alpha-strike reliance builds (including my most effective 'Mechs) and the resulting balance issues that are the constant source of much angst (by hundreds of people who play) appear to support my position.

I agree that your position is equally valid and that we disagree. Thanks again for your input.

None of my top mech builds could be considered a "boat". (My double AC20 cat could be considered a "boat", but it's not one of my best mechs.) My Flame is one of my favorites (and one of my most effective), and it's got two large lasers, two medium, and one SRM6. I regularly top my team in damage and kills with it.

People boat weapons because they think that's what will be most effective. In my experience, that's generally not the case. Whenever you boat any one particular type of weapon, you leave yourself with gaping weaknesses to be exploited - and that's why your problem is nonexistent. If you see people boating a weapon, determine what the weakness is and punish them for using a bad mech build.

Edit: here's one more example of how boating leaves you inferior. Hunchback 4P. Most people just load up mediums and roll. I find one large laser in the left arm and small lasers elsewhere to be more effective overall. You get more DPS at close range in the long run because of less heat, but you also have some long range damage to go with it. And if your right torso gets ripped off, you're not immediately gimped.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 25 February 2013 - 09:13 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

None of my top mech builds could be considered a "boat". (My double AC20 cat could be considered a "boat", but it's not one of my best mechs.) My Flame is one of my favorites (and one of my most effective), and it's got two large lasers, two medium, and one SRM6. I regularly top my team in damage and kills with it.

I agree in principle, but if you look at the competitive teams, they use optimized boats and force engagement at the range that will best fit their loadout.

Doing otherwise (ie: mixed configs) means that you lose most engagements at OpFor's optimal range if but have an advantage if you can choose the 'opposite' of what the enemy wants to do... and you're flexible. Unfortunately, flexibility has a cost in terms of damage efficiency.

Quote

People boat weapons because they think that's what will be most effective. In my experience, that's generally not the case. Whenever you boat any one particular type of weapon, you leave yourself with gaping weaknesses to be exploited - and that's why your problem is nonexistent. If you see people boating a weapon, determine what the weakness is and punish them for using a bad mech build.

Agree. If they let you do that, then I agree you win. But if you don't... they'll crush you. And if they bring a MIX of boats... some dedicated snipers, some dedicated infighters, you lose at both ends of the spectrum. That's what most smart teams do.

Quote

Edit: here's one more example of how boating leaves you inferior. Hunchback 4P. Most people just load up mediums and roll. I find one large laser in the left arm and small lasers elsewhere to be more effective overall. You get more DPS at close range in the long run because of less heat, but you also have some long range damage to go with it. And if your right torso gets ripped off, you're not immediately gimped.

Agree... again... in theory... and in non-competitive games.

[Doc Holliday]

I'll admit, I've never been involved in competitive gameplay in MWO.

That being said, I'm pretty good at taking limited experience and extrapolating from it to intuit what would happen in other slightly different situations I've not directly experienced.

Even in an 8-man team, you still need individual mechs to have flexibility, if for no other reason than because of heat. You're never going to be able to dictate engagement range 100% of the time, which means if everyone's boating you're always going to have some mechs standing around doing nothing, while depending on a couple other "optimized" mechs to take care of the business at hand. So in theory, you'd only ever be using the heat resources of a few mechs at a time, while the others go to waste. Granted, that's oversimplified, but I'm fairly certain it would still prove to be the case to some extent.

Give me some examples of how you think boat builds would be too powerful in competitive gameplay, and I'll explain why I disagree. That is, of course, if you care at all about my input.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 25 February 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

I'll admit, I've never been involved in competitive gameplay in MWO.

I strongly recommend trying out some competitive play. Our unit used to be decent in the MW4 planetary leagues (circa 2000) and we're slowly ramping back up into MWO. Starting to do more 8s now that we've pulled our old guys out of their other games and ground them through the trial 'Mechs.

Quote

Even in an 8-man team, you still need individual mechs to have flexibility, if for no other reason than because of heat. You're never going to be able to dictate engagement range 100% of the time, which means if everyone's boating you're always going to have some mechs standing around doing nothing, while depending on a couple other "optimized" mechs to take care of the business at hand. So in theory, you'd only ever be using the heat resources of a few mechs at a time, while the others go to waste. Granted, that's oversimplified, but I'm fairly certain it would still prove to be the case to some extent.

Partially true... but keep in mind, there is a meta-game that goes on. Two months ago, almost all competative 8s were running close infighters due to ECMs effects. Those infighters maximized the ability to get close and then crush people with dedicated boats/infight builds. Splatcats, DDCs with 3xSRM+AC20..., dual AC20 cats, and lots of RVN-3Ls. With ECM, you could dictate the engagement range easily and then optimize your boats for that environment.

Now, with the changes to PPCs (heat) making the 3-6PPC boats more heat viable and the addition of Alpine (and the other maps coming) I expect that the meta will quickly shift towards balanced sniperPPC heavy lances with some short/mid range backup in the form of either AC20 or GR Cats. I could be wrong, but that's the likely new meta.

Quote

Give me some examples of how you think boat builds would be too powerful in competitive gameplay, and I'll explain why I disagree. That is, of course, if you care at all about my input.

So, given the above, how would you propose to counter an 8 man lance of one LRM boat, 2-3 ERPPC/PPC snipers, 2-3 mid-range support (AC20boats/maybe a Splat) and 2-3 RVN-3L (the defacto required scout 'Mech)?

A mixed config lance will be dominated at all ranges... because individuals 'Mechs that get exposed will eat 10+ PPCs while returning only 1-2... and your 'Mechs will explode. If they close, the infighters engage and the snipers fall back and then provide support... again, dominating.

It's just the way the game works. It worked in MW4. It will work the same in MWO.

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Insanity, on 25 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

Partially true... but keep in mind, there is a meta-game that goes on. Two months ago, almost all competative 8s were running close infighters due to ECMs effects. Those infighters maximized the ability to get close and then crush people with dedicated boats/infight builds. Splatcats, DDCs with 3xSRM+AC20..., dual AC20 cats, and lots of RVN-3Ls. With ECM, you could dictate the engagement range easily and then optimize your boats for that environment.

Now, with the changes to PPCs (heat) making the 3-6PPC boats more heat viable and the addition of Alpine (and the other maps coming) I expect that the meta will quickly shift towards balanced sniperPPC heavy lances with some short/mid range backup in the form of either AC20 or GR Cats. I could be wrong, but that's the likely new meta.

That's not boating, that's just abusing ECM.

HRR Insanity, on 25 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

So, given the above, how would you propose to counter an 8 man lance of one LRM boat, 2-3 ERPPC/PPC snipers, 2-3 mid-range support (AC20boats/maybe a Splat) and 2-3 RVN-3L (the defacto required scout 'Mech)?

A mixed config lance will be dominated at all ranges... because individuals 'Mechs that get exposed will eat 10+ PPCs while returning only 1-2... and your 'Mechs will explode. If they close, the infighters engage and the snipers fall back and then provide support... again, dominating.

It's just the way the game works. It worked in MW4. It will work the same in MWO.

Well first, of course you have to have a couple RVN-3Ls, that's a given, and those aren't boats. Since you didn't specify, I'm going to assume the following in your example:

1 - LRM boat
2 - sniper boats
3 - mid-range support boats (say two AC 20 boats and one splatcat)
2 - 3L scouts

I see something like this destroying that with relative ease.

2 - 3L scouts
3 - large mechs (big heavy mechs or assaults) with combination of something like this: 1x LRM 20, 1-3 sniper weapons, and the rest of the weapon capacity filled with medium or large lasers
3 - medium to heavy mechs with a combination of large/medium lasers as well as one or more of the following: SRMs/SSRMs, short to medium range ballistic weapons

Right at the start, LRMs should be considered useless because of ECM cover. That leaves the snipers and large lasers to duke it out at long range initially. While large lasers don't have the range of true snipers, they can still help in most such situations. So while you've got two snipers taking all the heat from PPCs, I've got that spread out over 3 mechs with true sniping weapons and a few more helping with large lasers. You've also got 6 targets to worry about, while I've only got two. At some point, one team or the other is going to concede the sniping battle because it's not going their way, and take cover, forcing the other team to close the gap to continue the fight. Either way, while your AC20 cats and splatcat are trying to get in close enough to use their deadly weaponry, they get severely weakened or outright killed by the longer-range weapons I still have left on my team.

Even on a well-coordinated team, I just don't see any scenario where boat builds are truly more effective than a well-coordinated team of more flexible mechs.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 25 February 2013 - 10:47 PM.

[Critical Fumble]

What's really funny about pinpoint convergence is that PGI passed up a golden opportunity to add more importance to teamplay and tactics in the name of "player skill".

Borrowing from Insanity, the first shot is ALWAYS on target - this is good as it allows for sniping and discourages needless exposure as well as playing the game like it was Prince of Persia. The issue with going all-out alpha strike is that you don't have an integrated rangefinder anymore. Your targeting computer guesses at where the target is, but will be wrong by a set percent for a while until it can calculate just where the target is. A teammate with a better idea of where the target is helps others adjust more quickly.

Suddenly, TAG is actually useful, seeing as its a rangefinder in a world without a free one in every mech. It gives C3 a place in the game as well.

[HRR Insanity]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

That's not boating, that's just abusing ECM.

The ECM allows you to dictate range. You then use massive boats (AC20x2, Splatcat, etc) to do massive alphastrikes to single panels killing 'Mechs nearly instantly. That's boating and it wouldn't work if you couldn't make all the weapons hit the same spot. Yes, even with weapon spread/convergence it would still be somewhat effective because you'd be in close range, but Splatcats and other boats are most effective when ALL the missiles hit one panel... that shouldn't be possible with any sane form of weapon convergence/spread fix.

Quote

Well first, of course you have to have a couple RVN-3Ls, that's a given, and those aren't boats. Since you didn't specify, I'm going to assume the following in your example:

1 - LRM boat
2 - sniper boats
3 - mid-range support boats (say two AC 20 boats and one splatcat)
2 - 3L scouts

I see something like this destroying that with relative ease.

2 - 3L scouts
3 - large (big heavy mechs or assaults) mechs with combination of something like this: 1x LRM 20, 1-3 sniper weapons, and the rest of the weapon capacity filled with medium or large lasers
3 - medium to heavy mechs with a combination of large/medium lasers as well as one or more of the following: SRMs/SSRMs, short to medium range ballistic weapons

/shrugs/ Sure.

Quote

Right at the start, LRMs should be considered useless because of ECM cover. That leaves the snipers and large lasers to duke it out at long range initially. While large lasers don't have the range of true snipers, they can still help in most such situations. So while you've got two snipers taking all the heat from PPCs, I've got that spread out over 3 mechs with true sniping weapons and a few more helping with large lasers. You've also got 6 targets to worry about, while I've only got two. At some point, one team or the other is going to concede the sniping battle because it's not going their way, and take cover, forcing the other team to close the gap to continue the fight. Either way, while your AC20 cats and splatcat are trying to get in close enough to use their deadly weaponry, they get severely weakened or outright killed by the longer-range weapons I still have left on my team.

Even on a well-coordinated team, I just don't see any scenario where boat builds are truly more effective than a well-coordinated team of more flexible mechs.

I'd be happy to demonstrate how quickly your snipers would explode, but unfortunately we can't run sandbox matches to test these things out. Suffice it to say that the moment one of your guys popped their 'Mechs out of cover, it would be either completely cored out (ie: only internals left) or dead (headshot most likely). Even if it survived to close range, it would be an easy one-hit kill for any of the infighters. As for 'taking cover'... a good team employing multi-PPC snipers would not close range. They would maneuver laterally to continue sniping and force you to try to rush them. At which point you would again be in large amounts of trouble because you're either taking fire or trying to hide... neither of which will be be a winning long-term strategy.

This TheoryWarrior doesn't mean anything though. Why don't you ask around the competative teams that are playing in RHOD (please note, I'm not one of them due to the issues noted above) or lots of 8-man experience (I've played enough to know what I see when encountering competent opponents and what WE run) how many are running mix-range configs on their 'Mechs?

I would be... more than slightly surprised to find anything but dedicated boat platforms (on which a few might have some 'backup weapons'... like the 4PPC+2SRM6 Stalker) which rely on pinpoint convergence. 40-60 damage to a single point at up to 800m is ... very difficult to deal with.

Critical Fumble, on 25 February 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

What's really funny about pinpoint convergence is that PGI passed up a golden opportunity to add more importance to teamplay and tactics in the name of "player skill".

Borrowing from Insanity, the first shot is ALWAYS on target - this is good as it allows for sniping and discourages needless exposure as well as playing the game like it was Prince of Persia. The issue with going all-out alpha strike is that you don't have an integrated rangefinder anymore. Your targeting computer guesses at where the target is, but will be wrong by a set percent for a while until it can calculate just where the target is. A teammate with a better idea of where the target is helps others adjust more quickly.

Suddenly, TAG is actually useful, seeing as its a rangefinder in a world without a free one in every mech. It gives C3 a place in the game as well.

Very interesting concept. TAG as another way to 'reduce the spread/improve convergence'. I like.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 25 February 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[blazarian]

So agreed.

+100

Ps. This is a partial reason why some of my buddies are quitting MWO.

Edited by blazarian, 25 February 2013 - 11:12 PM.

[Kyrie]

I would like to try a system that would base weapon accuracy off of heat:
0-25% heat: As it works currently, no penalties.
26-35% heat: 5% reduction in the pinpoint convergence.
36-45% heat: 10% reduction in the pinpoint convergence
46-55% heat: 15% reduction.
56-65% heat: 25% reduction
66-99% heat: 40% reduction.