179 replies to this topic

[Andross Deverow]

Well,

I guess my thought is that the AC 20 should be a little more tuff than it is at the moment. It honestly cant take much damage before it gets wrecked. At least it doesnt explode like the gauss rifle does after only taking 3 damage.. LOL!

Regards

[Mackman]

MustrumRidcully, on 13 February 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

No.

Losing a side torso is not a random event. It's a precisely predictable consequence of getting shot there.
Losing the AC/20 before you lose the side torso - that's a random event.

Mustrum's Alternate non-Random Critical Hit System
When a hit location is reduced to 80 %, 60 % or 30 %, the largest functioning item in that hit location suffers a crit and is damaged, unless it was already damaged, then it's destroyed.
Weapons are disabled for 5 seconds and are damaged. The weapon's cooldown doubles.
A second hit destroys the weapon (Sometimes this may trigger special rules). Damaged Heat Sinks operate at 1/2 dissipation rates. Gauss Rifles and Ammo Bins do not get damaged, they instantly explode.

At 80 %, 50 % and 20 % hit points, the second largest functioning item in that hit location suffers a crit.
At 70 %, 40 % and 10 % hit points, the third largest functioning item in the hit location suffers a crit.
If there is no third or second largest functioning item, the crit goes to the largest functioning item.

Mustrum's Optional non-Random Through-ARmour Critical Hit System
When the armour at a location is lowered below 50 %, the largest functioning item in that hit location suffers a crit.

Mustrum's Take on "Crit-Seeker" weapons
Crit-Seeker weapons simply deal 50 % extra damage against structure.

Mustrum's Limited Random Critical Hit System
Whenever a hit location loses 10 % of its max hit points, one random item (randomization depends on the hit location) in that hit location takes a crit.

No more tracking of item hit points. More predictability. If you really want randomization, you can sitll have it. Also, gradual effects for crits.

Oh my gosh, that is brilliant.

[Volthorne]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Perfect reason why people don't listen to you, is because you don't make sense, and people know how to counter it, they tell you how, and yet people ignore it. Oh yes, your analogy also holds true to AMS, so AMS and that 1 ton of ammo makes me sacrifice weapons and armor, oh I should probably say LRMs and AMS is OP right?

Uh, my analogy made perfect sense, and it was actually applicable, considering its the same situation we have now but phrased so people understand it. "Equipping TAG" is not a viable counter (especially on 'Mechs like the Catapult, where we need every single bit of defence acquirable to offset our massive cockpit hitboxes), and you damned well know it.

Also, that crap you spouted about the AMS makes no sense (even with my ridiculous reading comprehension skills I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say, something about AMS and weapon slots?), and has nothing to do with the topic at hand (which, interestingly enough, has nothing to do with the topic of the thread).

EDIT: there was a thread around here somewhere in which a pretty freaking awesome idea was put forward. Will go looking for it.

Edited by Volthorne, 13 February 2013 - 12:46 PM.

[Fut]

Tennex, on 13 February 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

not using 1/3 of the game's weapon system is required to adapt. yet they still claim ECM is not OP. do these people hear what they are saying.

butl lets counter a 1.5 ton item with teamwork! Voicechat and TAG!!!

Although I agree that ECM needs a bit of a tweak, I find it infuriating when I see people claiming that it completely negates all LRM use. Seriously, it drives me nuts.

I drop in an HBK-4J quite often, and it's always as a solo pug player. When ECM came out, I threw a TAG onto my 'Mech. It took a little while to adapt at first, but now-a-days ECM is no longer a "problem" for me. Either I TAG the ECM-Runner myself (love watching an Atlas eating my LRMs volley after volley because they don't seem to realize that it's possible for people to get a hard missile lock on them), I wait until I see the little TAG icon (from somebody else, obviously) before I launch missiles at them, or I find other appropriate targets to go after. Sure, ECM is a bit of an annoyance, but it's nothing that can't be worked around if you're willing to put in the extra effort - and trust me, LRMs are still a viable weapons system if you are willing to work for it.

Anyhow... What was this thread about again???

Andross Deverow, on 13 February 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

I guess my thought is that the AC 20 should be a little more tuff than it is at the moment. It honestly cant take much damage before it gets wrecked. At least it doesnt explode like the gauss rifle does after only taking 3 damage.. LOL!

Really?
What do you expect to happen to a normal firearm (ACs) when they get hit by something like a Laser? The weapon (AC) itself was never meant to deflect/absorb damage, it's meant to be hidden neatly behind tonnes of armor. Once bullets, lasers, missiles, whatever-it-is-that-ppcs-are breach through the armor it shouldn't take much for the systems beneath to be damaged and destroyed. Whether it's actuators, sensors, ammo, or weapons taking crit damage, you've got to keep in mind that none of those things were designed to take any damage at all.

Edited by Fut, 13 February 2013 - 12:57 PM.

[zverofaust]

I am glad to see this topic of discussion exploding so quickly! It's unfortunate there are so many troll posts though, I'll try to get around to reporting them all so we can keep this thread on-topic and as constructive as possible.

Quote

Everything feels fine to me. But how is this related to Atlai with AC/20s again?

The AC/20 build of Atlas is simply the most glaring example of this flawed game design in that they are little more than walking targets whose primary armament -- the AC/20 -- is easily rendered void by pretty much everything. And once the AC/20 is destroyed, it becomes a 100 ton walking lump of coal with the armament of a Light Mech.

Quote

While were at it, lets get rid of this whole "Mech Destroyed" mechanic. It totally brings the match to an end for me and breaks my immersion.

If you're going to completely skip over the entirety of my post to spew some ham-fisted idiom, why bother?

Quote

Any weapon can be disabled if it takes damage. What makes the 20 so easy to knock out is the amount of space it takes up. So how again is this imbalanced? Put a machine gun or an ac5 or a couple for that matter.

So your idea of adapting to this crippling dynamic is to simply not use the AC/20? That is in essence the problem.

Quote

I can't take this thread very seriously because you are just mad that you are losing your AC/20 and can't DAKKA DAKKA any moar. Stop losing your AC/20 maybe?

I can't fault you for derailing off the topic, but this "suggestion" is outrageously unintelligent.

Quote

Oh, he did. Zvero was one of the most famous flamers/haters/spammers on the MWLL forums. He was always bitching about what he doens't like and/or how he leaves the game. Over months. In game he was famous as well for insulting other players and starting his usual 'this is all BS' topics...

Wait, what? Are you high? I barely posted on the MWLL forums, and that was 3 years ago. I'm honoured that you apparently hold me in such high esteem but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Quote

So let me get this straight.
If a component or weapon gets damaged, you think is should only be slightly damaged but still function at a reduced rate?
I disagree.
If you fire a rifle with a damaged barrel or chamber you run the risk of having it explode

Sorry, but arguments that degrade into "it's realistic" hold no place in a discussion about the finer points of competitive multiplayer online gaming. Any and all arguments about realism (or adhering to irrelevant rules from a game in a completely different medium) take a backseat to gameplay value.

Quote

Getting your weapons blown off or the ability to do so is awesome, and adds a deeper layer to gameplay.

Both for meta, and actual in game.

I don't know about you (actually I do) but I took the time to point out why the current implementation of equipment damages does not add any complexity or multi-layer aspects to gameplay (and in fact alluded that it detracts from gameplay) and how my suggestions would add the intended tactical depth. Care to elaborate on your proclamation in response to those points? Did you even actually read the post? Or just skim the headlines and formulate an adorably inept response?

Quote

haha.. random damage.. hahahahahaha.. he wants this to be like Call of duty where you can get hit by bullets and lose zero of your combat capability until your health meter = 0.

Haha I'm going to drop the "Call of Duty" title as a proxy for my actual argument, because I don't really have one, hahaha!

Quote

OP arguments are poor at best.

Sorry but diatribes about loyally adhering to utterly irrelevant rules, made for a completely different and unrelated (except in name) tabletop game system, for a competitive multiplayer quasi-sim/shooter is literally the definition of poor argument, and belongs alongside "it's realism!" in the trashbin of constructive gameplay discussion.

[zraven7]

Fut, on 13 February 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Although I agree that ECM needs a bit of a tweak, I find it infuriating when I see people claiming that it completely negates all LRM use. Seriously, it drives me nuts.

I drop in an HBK-4J quite often, and it's always as a solo pug player. When ECM came out, I threw a TAG onto my 'Mech. It took a little while to adapt at first, but now-a-days ECM is no longer a "problem" for me. Either I TAG the ECM-Runner myself (love watching an Atlas eating my LRMs volley after volley because they don't seem to realize that it's possible for people to get a hard missile lock on them), I wait until I see the little TAG icon (from somebody else, obviously) before I launch missiles at them, or I find other appropriate targets to go after. Sure, ECM is a bit of an annoyance, but it's nothing that can't be worked around if you're willing to put in the extra effort - and trust me, LRMs are still a viable weapons system if you are willing to work for it.

Anyhow... What was this thread about again???

Agreed. ECM is over rated. Honestly, the most irritating thing it does to me is makes it so I can't seem my team mates.

[zverofaust]

Quote

Just started gaming yesterday eh, many games have some kind of randomness.

This is completely correct and one of the few responses worthy of a proper response.

Randomness obviously does occur in pretty much every game ever made, but that randomness is usually within the confines of a predictable system, and is designed and implemented to allow or encourage players to adapt to its existence.

Case in point, bullet spread. It exists in basically every shooter ever made and affects the exact angle at which your bullet is fired, affecting your overall accuracy.

But it is far from binary or stringent or limiting. The player can perform different actions or make decisions that alter this dynamic feature; standing still reduces bullet spread compared to running; crouching reduces it more; going prone reduces it the most; firing in bursts reduces it even further; and so on and so forth.

But that said, not everyone goes prone and fires in bursts every time they shoot at an enemy player; critical tactical decision-making comes into play with every pull of the trigger as players make snap-decisions about how or when they should fire, and this decision-making process adds a great deal to the tactical nature of the game.

No such dynamic exists for a destroyed weapon in MWO. When it's destroyed, it's destroyed; there is no fork in tactical decision-making at this point, only acceptance of an unavoidable event.

Quote

The competitive crowd is doing well enough with RHOD and no one is complaining.

No one is complaining because no one is playing this game save for Mechwarrior fans. MWO has already been largely passed up by the greater gaming community who stick with more consistent gameplay experiences like World of Tanks, War Thunder or DotA clones because they offer a better experience to both casual gamers who like to pick-up-and-go and have fun, consistent games, and competitive players who rely on gameplay consistency and predictability in order to legitimize victories and defeats that rely on player skill and not dicerolls.

Thanks to everyone for the great discussion, keep it going!

[Volthorne]

Everyone NEEDS to read this (especially you, zvero): Critical System Health Suggestion

If need be I will quote this as many times as necessary.

[OneManWar]

In canon tabletop ANY weapon takes ANY crit hit from ANY weapon and it is destroyed, plain and simple. The life of a weapon as it is exists pretty much because of the way lasers work. If you could scrape a laser across someone and crit destroy all their equipment it would be too powerful, so they added a bit of health to negate that. Gauss as it stands, even with 3 hp, can withstand a regular crit from an SRM, whereas in TT it would have blow 100% of the time when sneezed on.

[Bryan Kerensky]

Volthorne, on 13 February 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Uh, my analogy made perfect sense, and it was actually applicable, considering its the same situation we have now but phrased so people understand it. "Equipping TAG" is not a viable counter (especially on 'Mechs like the Catapult, where we need every single bit of defence acquirable to offset our massive cockpit hitboxes), and you damned well know it.

Also, that crap you spouted about the AMS makes no sense (even with my ridiculous reading comprehension skills I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say, something about AMS and weapon slots?), and has nothing to do with the topic at hand (which, interestingly enough, has nothing to do with the topic of the thread).

EDIT: there was a thread around here somewhere in which a pretty freaking awesome idea was put forward. Will go looking for it.

Equipping TAG is a viable counter, I think people are mistaking that I think ECM is where it should be. No it is not, that I will agree with. However, I do take issue when people ***** and moan when clearly there is something that they can do about it. As for the every bit of defense for a catapults head hit box, experience tells me your best defense is not standing still for too long and showing your center torso too often.

As for the analogy. Your example indicates a loss of something (tonage/a weapon slot) for a counter. The same applies for AMS, but instead of taking up a weapon slot, it takes up more tonnage with ammo.

[zverofaust]

Volthorne, on 13 February 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Everyone NEEDS to read this (especially you, zvero): Critical System Health Suggestion

If need be I will quote this as many times as necessary.

That suggestion appears only to add a bit of (unecessary) complexity to determining when a weapon is destroyed rather than dealing with the gameplay rammifications of permanent equipment destruction. Therefore it is rather irrelevant to this conversation.

OneManWar, on 13 February 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

In canon tabletop --snip

Quoting rule declarations from a 30 year old rulebook designed for a turn-based tabletop strategy game and trying to apply them to a 2013 competitive multiplayer online sim/shooter is simply a bad idea. Quite possibly worse than using realism as the basis for an argument.

[OneEyed Jack]

Mackman, on 13 February 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

I'm fine with permanent destruction. But can people really say that the AC20 shouldn't be a bit more durable? As it is, it's almost guaranteed to be disabled as soon as the armor is breached, This leads to a hugely disproportional amount of wasted tonnage in ammo and the component itself.

MustrumRidcully, on 13 February 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Tell me, why does an AC/20 need to be more easily destroyed than 4 Medium Lasers that deal the exact same damage, have instant-hit and the same range, that only cost you 4 tons, instead of 14.

I know why it might be fair in the table top game. That 20 damage in one single blow was just murderous, and those 4 medium laser would have spread their damage like mad across the enemy mech. But this isn't the table top game, as people like to tell me. THis advantage doesn'T exist. Those 4 medium lasers hit exactly the location you're aiming at, just as the AC/20 does. As a bonus, it comes with explosive ammo.

They are doing a full pass on all destroyable equipment and giving them individualized hit points, or whatever they call it. Since the devs seem very intent on maintaining the flavor of TT, and in TT a crit always destroyed the component (aside from engines and gyros) I wouldn't imagine any will be much more difficult than the AC20 currestly is, if at all. On the other hand, small, logically fragile components like MLs will probably be much easier to knock out if they take a hit.

MustrumRidcully, on 13 February 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

IF you don't hold your laser steady, the damge will spread. If you don't calculate the lead properly, the AC/20 deals no damage at all. I am nots aying the difficulties are exactly equal, but they are similar enough that I consider it a wash. In fact, considering that convergence usually works against you when you lead, I'd say the AC/20 may have a disadvantage.

Maybe, but a AC20 does all the damage to a single location every single time it hits. An AC20 will destroy a component (gear, not location) every single time it crits. Lasers also waste plenty of damage. Not holding your aim steady, which can be very difficult against a good opponent in a reasonably maneuverable mech, can not only spread out damage, but make some, most or even all of it miss entirely. Or they can torso roll, which is... slightly less useful vs ballistics. There's also heat to think about and convergence issues if the lasers aren't all in the same location.

I find the size and tonnage of ballistics to be just fine.

As far as the OP, I've never understood the argument that "other games do it such-and-such way." If people wanted to play a different game, for the most part they wouldn't be playing this one. There's already a million carbon-copy FPS games out there. The success of this game is dependent on making this game good, not trying to steal away established player-bases from other games by making those games with a different skin.

[Bryan Kerensky]

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

I am glad to see this topic of discussion exploding so quickly! It's unfortunate there are so many troll posts though, I'll try to get around to reporting them all so we can keep this thread on-topic and as constructive as possible.

The AC/20 build of Atlas is simply the most glaring example of this flawed game design in that they are little more than walking targets whose primary armament -- the AC/20 -- is easily rendered void by pretty much everything. And once the AC/20 is destroyed, it becomes a 100 ton walking lump of coal with the armament of a Light Mech.

Much obliged. However, I still have my SRMs and most of the other atlas variants possess something in extra energy weapons to back up that AC/20, quite formidable I might add. Also, it gets destroyed because people will go for it anyway, random or not, it is the most glaring danger of an Atlas although, the DDCs triple SRMs might make a case for that. Most people won't look up to see if they've destroyed the component and will simply shoot your side torso until it is completely gone from your mech.

But as I understand it your problem is of how random it is (which means I will ignore the the topic sentence). I personally have no problem with it, primarily because given that the the components such as gauss and AC/20 will be knocked out even with Mustrum's proposed reforms.

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

No one is complaining because no one is playing this game save for Mechwarrior fans. MWO has already been largely passed up by the greater gaming community who stick with more consistent gameplay experiences like World of Tanks, War Thunder or DotA clones because they offer a better experience to both casual gamers who like to pick-up-and-go and have fun, consistent games, and competitive players who rely on gameplay consistency and predictability in order to legitimize victories and defeats that rely on player skill and not dicerolls.

This is largely because MWO hasn't done a particularly great job at marketing, and also because the other titles broker familiarity and lastly because the other titles are not listed as being in beta, not because of the randomness of shooting someone's dual LBXs out.

The skill you speak off would be to avoid getting hit too often in the side torsos, I'll give an example of torso twisting in an atlas to use the arms as shield and to spread the damage out.

[OneManWar]

So an Atlas without its AC20 is a walking lump of coal? Does that mean my 2 large lasers and 3 SRM 6's are not still scary to you? Show me a light that sports weaponry like that. That's still almost 60 DMG. 60 dmg is still scary.

[Volthorne]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Equipping TAG is a viable counter, I think people are mistaking that I think ECM is where it should be. No it is not, that I will agree with. However, I do take issue when people ***** and moan when clearly there is something that they can do about it. As for the every bit of defense for a catapults head hit box, experience tells me your best defense is not standing still for too long and showing your center torso too often.

As for the analogy. Your example indicates a loss of something (tonage/a weapon slot) for a counter. The same applies for AMS, but instead of taking up a weapon slot, it takes up more tonnage with ammo.

Oh, believe me, I know exactly how to best pilot a Catapult, however that wasn't my point. When AMS was introduced, LRMs were a little bit out of line, and taking one was a pretty good idea (it still is, except now you take one to knock down SSRMs). Was it necessary? Not really. Did it help? Yes. Was there any other downside to taking one, aside from ammo and tonnage requirements (post hardpoint separation, that is)? No.

ECM threw that whole concept of trade-offs out the window. Instead of making it harder for LRMs to be used as effectively, it forces you to either use a TAG or not use LRMs (the first is bad for Catapults, due to very little backup weaponry slots and exposing large hitboxes, and the second requires using a different chassis altogether - unless you have a K2 or A1, Catapults are typically not good for anything but boating LRMs, and even the K2 and A1 have their own set of problems if you build them as brawlers). Teamwork is an acceptable substitute for TAG, but if it requires a premade (oh boy, the evil premades again!) team to counter a single item, then it's clearly not balanced properly.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your viewpoint, I just want you to try and look at things from a different angle (two heads are better than one and all that other crap). I'll settle for civilly agreeing to disagree, and get back to the proper topic, if that's okay with you.

[zverofaust]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

But as I understand it your problem is of how random it is (which means I will ignore the the topic sentence). I personally have no problem with it, primarily because given that the the components such as gauss and AC/20 will be knocked out even with Mustrum's proposed reforms.

It's not so much of "how random it is" but how the results are conveyed from a gameplay perspective, and attempting to proto-balance it based solely on tweaking the % chance of it occuring does nothing to alleviate the fact that random chance is still dictating a crucial game-changing event for the player.

[Volthorne]

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

That suggestion appears only to add a bit of (unecessary) complexity to determining when a weapon is destroyed rather than dealing with the gameplay rammifications of permanent equipment destruction. Therefore it is rather irrelevant to this conversation.

Then you didn't read it properly. Go back and read it again. Or do you honestly not want AC/20s to have a reason to be picked over 4 MLas? It's okay to admit that you're trying to be a controlling jerk wad that has no concept of game design, you know.

[zraven7]

OneManWar, on 13 February 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

So an Atlas without its AC20 is a walking lump of coal? Does that mean my 2 large lasers and 3 SRM 6's are not still scary to you? Show me a light that sports weaponry like that. That's still almost 60 DMG. 60 dmg is still scary.

Yeah, 60 damage is my Jenner. Like, all of it. Your Atlas might as well have a "Raid!" can paint scheme.

[Bryan Kerensky]

Volthorne, on 13 February 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Oh, believe me, I know exactly how to best pilot a Catapult, however that wasn't my point. When AMS was introduced, LRMs were a little bit out of line, and taking one was a pretty good idea (it still is, except now you take one to knock down SSRMs). Was it necessary? Not really. Did it help? Yes. Was there any other downside to taking one, aside from ammo and tonnage requirements (post hardpoint separation, that is)? No.

ECM threw that whole concept of trade-offs out the window. Instead of making it harder for LRMs to be used as effectively, it forces you to either use a TAG or not use LRMs (the first is bad for Catapults, due to very little backup weaponry slots and exposing large hitboxes, and the second requires using a different chassis altogether - unless you have a K2 or A1, Catapults are typically not good for anything but boating LRMs, and even the K2 and A1 have their own set of problems if you build them as brawlers). Teamwork is an acceptable substitute for TAG, but if it requires a premade (oh boy, the evil premades again!) team to counter a single item, then it's clearly not balanced properly.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your viewpoint, I just want you to try and look at things from a different angle (two heads are better than one and all that other crap). I'll settle for civilly agreeing to disagree, and get back to the proper topic, if that's okay with you.

Since you do admit to the other counters to ECM, whether you or I feel they are justified or not, then I will agree that it is settled since this means that you have understood my points and have taken them into account, thus it is a difference of opinions in which I feel is rather pointless to argue over.

I shall match your civility.

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

It's not so much of "how random it is" but how the results are conveyed from a gameplay perspective, and attempting to proto-balance it based solely on tweaking the % chance of it occuring does nothing to alleviate the fact that random chance is still dictating a crucial game-changing event for the player.

Random chance always has a way of dictating some sort of crucial event, in war here or in real life. My point is that it is not as big a deal as you seem to make it up to be. Arguably, it is not the most refined system, but the randomness and the fact your AC/20 will be shot out, is something that can prevented through, as I said earlier skillful piloting and position/ situation awareness.

Edited by Bryan Kerensky, 13 February 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[Praehotec8]

Sorry, OP, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Location based damage and component destruction is possibly THE coolest mechanic in the game. You can focus fire to target regions to achieve particular results, or spread your damage evenly for a different outcome. Should there be degrees of damage before total loss of a component? Maybe, but it seems unnecessary, and I doubt it is something that will be implemented. Bottom line, don't tell me you don't feel all fuzzy inside when watching that Atlas's arm fall off after you chewed through his side torso? If you don't then you need to find another game or knitting, because....giant stompy robots are all about knocking each other's parts off!