179 replies to this topic

[Ghost_19Hz]

Dang OP, if you hate that, wait til you see the constantly resurrected thread about how "Cone of fire" is a good thing and should be in the game. You'll want to do unspeakable things to those people.

[Bryan Kerensky]

Khobai, on 13 February 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

I understand that. I was trying to enlighten the people that don't grasp the difference between aiming and random hit locations and the profoundly negative impact it has on mech survivability.

The point is, if the center torso can get hit more in MWO, then the center torso should be way better armored. And its not. It still uses the same tabletop armor values that assume its only being hit 20% of the time which is completely wrong.

The armor values have been doubled. As stated earlier, because we are in a mech sim we also have the opportunity to maneuver. You should not be presenting your front torso, or indeed any part of your mech to an enemy for a protracted amount of time, even in the mighty Atlas. Torso twisting or circling or using cover or poptarting are all viable methods of keeping your front safe and your mech in the fight for much longer.

Walking straight up to another mech in any chassis is a mistake that should be quickly corrected if you wish to see success.

[MischiefSC]

Actually I'd love a mechanic where accuracy was not pinpoint, but a circle of accuracy. Much like Fallout, New Vegas and a number of other games have instituted. You're not perfectly accurate with every shot. Accuracy should improve a bit when stopped. Not pinpoint mind you but more accurate. At close range both you and your enemy are more precise but the ability to put 6 PPC shots on the same location doesn't exist.

This would fix a metric ton of game balance issues. Suddenly weapons like the AC2 and Gauss are valuable despite their limitations because of their greater accuracy. LRMs go to 1point per missile and don't need ECM to balance because their value is based on their ability to accurately hit targets at extreme range.

However I realize it won't happen because a lot of people come to the game from other FPS where their shots always go where the crosshairs are. More reliably than any modern battlefield rifles that haven't been carefully dialed in to a specific range. You get more crosshair drift by exhaling than you ever get in MWO.

Anyway. This would fix it but isn't likely to happen.

[Volthorne]

Khobai, on 13 February 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

You're wrong. Excluding headshots, it takes roughly 275-325 damage to kill an Atlas in tabletop on average. I can kill a double armor Atlas in MWO by doing 150-200 damage. That is how much faster mechs die in MWO.

1) triple rate of fire means you fire three times faster than in tabletop. Mechs die three times faster as a result. It would be like if in tabletop you fired three times per turn instead of once per turn. That would accelerate the game significantly.

2) aiming means you hit someone's center torso way more often. In tabletop you only hit someones center torso about 20% of the time. In MWO you can easily hit someones center torso twice or even triple that (40%-60%). So mechs are dying 2-3 times faster as a result of being able to aim directly for the center torso.

3) armor was only doubled which hardly even begins to offset #1 or #2.

So the result is mechs die 3-4 faster in MWO than in tabletop.

1) Cockpits were a 1/8 chance to get hit in the TT, so that in itself offsets the supposedly lower TTK (time to kill). One of my Riflemen got head capped with just three shots in the first 5 turns once. That's 50 seconds in play, which is a considerable amount LESS than what is granted to you here, even as the worst pilot.

2) you can maneuver to spread out damage, whereas in TT you took whatever damage you took and that was that. Even with really good aim, someone twisting around a lot and taking snap shots at you will mitigate a large portion of your damage dealt.

3) It offsets #1 & #2 plenty.

Result: still not dying as fast as TT.

Edited by Volthorne, 13 February 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[Praehotec8]

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I have modified my post to make it clearer I am talking about the destruction of internal equipment, not whole Mech components (RT/arms/etc).

I too like the ability to damage different parts and want to maintain that, and gave suggestions as to how that can be maintained while keeping gameplay more consistent and adding to tactical depth and complexity.

But I guess you didn't read the actual post, only skimmed the first sentence or two.

As a matter of fact, I did read your whole post, and actually went back and re-read it a second time. Nowhere did you make it clear that you're okay with total loss of limbs/components. Quite the opposite: "Having random, permanent and game-changing effects in a competitive multiplayer game is one of the most blatant taboos imaginable in the genre."

To me, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just how I interpreted your thought, this would include limb/torso loss, as this by default eliminates components on that part of the mech. I do gather from your reply to me that you are mainly referring to compnent loss before destruction of a mech's extremity, but in no way could I draw that conclusion from your post.

In addition, adding grades of damage to components would be interesting, but, again, given how damage occurs currently, it seems that components would reach maximum handicap rather quickly anyways (and again...I can't see such a system being added at this point...would guess it's likely too much work for too little gain)

Fundamentally, I disagree with your thought that such game changing effects is a bad thing. It actually adds a layer of strategy, and more importantly, immersion. Part of the game is dealing with the loss of critical and non-critical components. Step A is to avoid damage when you can, and move to spread damage so that it doesn't stack on one area/component. Part B is dealing with the loss. Sure, it can be frustrating to early on lose weapon systems (my stalkers seem VERY prone to this), but how you deal with it is important. If nothing else you can scout, distract or move to base cap. Graded damage would only add to that, but I think that there still needs to be a "weapon broken" mechanic. If you never have to worry about losing a weapon, you have one less variable to adjust to on the fly during a battle. (TL;DR - Luck plays a part in battle, and you need to be prepared to deal with the good and the bad).

Temporary loss of function is already in the game as weapon jam. No need for more, in my opinion. Again, not to offend, but I really did not get a sense from your original post of much except that you don't like to lose weapon systems permanently and your suggested ways to change it.

[Bryan Kerensky]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Actually I'd love a mechanic where accuracy was not pinpoint, but a circle of accuracy. Much like Fallout, New Vegas and a number of other games have instituted. You're not perfectly accurate with every shot. Accuracy should improve a bit when stopped. Not pinpoint mind you but more accurate. At close range both you and your enemy are more precise but the ability to put 6 PPC shots on the same location doesn't exist.

This would fix a metric ton of game balance issues. Suddenly weapons like the AC2 and Gauss are valuable despite their limitations because of their greater accuracy. LRMs go to 1point per missile and don't need ECM to balance because their value is based on their ability to accurately hit targets at extreme range.

However I realize it won't happen because a lot of people come to the game from other FPS where their shots always go where the crosshairs are. More reliably than any modern battlefield rifles that haven't been carefully dialed in to a specific range. You get more crosshair drift by exhaling than you ever get in MWO.

Anyway. This would fix it but isn't likely to happen.

Actually, laser weapons have enough enough trouble hitting the same spot as it is. Something like this would make it pretty horrible when using something like large lasers on fast moving mechs.

[Kraven Kor]

I prefer the destruction of internal components and locational damage to "yet another game with a health meter or life bar."

I do wish the AC/20 would not break the moment another mech looked at me, though.

[Kommisar]

I personally love how quickly this thread picked up an ECM debate. It's like space-herpies... just flares right up and runs across the deck.

I would like to add that I think it would be great if we had items spawn around the map that could give us repairs or boosts. Like, maybe if you shoot a building, a repair power up appears. Or even a flower power up that makes your AC shots into "hot" shot rounds until you take so much damage. Or even a glowing one that runs across the map and gives the player that catches it an extra "life". OR, best yet. A special blue munition you can pick up. One shot, seeks out the highest scoring player and blows him up.

Would totally make this game more competitive.

Edited by Kommisar, 13 February 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[Praehotec8]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

This would fix a metric ton of game balance issues. Suddenly weapons like the AC2 and Gauss are valuable despite their limitations because of their greater accuracy. LRMs go to 1point per missile and don't need ECM to balance because their value is based on their ability to accurately hit targets at extreme range.

Not to derail the thread, but...while I don't have argument against your aiming variation, I do take issue with the suggestion to take LRMs to 1.0 dmg. At 1.0 damage, two LRM 15s with one ton of ammo (equal in weight to an AC 20, but taking more crits) would do 22.5 damage to each section of a mech per ton (less if you count front/rear separately, and more if you exclude the legs). A ton of AC20 ammo can do 140 points of damage to a component of your choosing. Aside from the fact that it's MUCH easier to land 7 AC 20 shots on a target than spend the time to lob 6 volleys of LRMs that all hit a target (I use both weapons and that is my impression), 22.5 damage won't even strip the armor from a heavy mech, while the 140 damage can core almost anything.

Yes, LRMs are a "support" weapon, etc., etc. (forgetting again that this support weapon requires even more support to operate with ECM), but even a support weapon needs to have the bite to be effective. Do you remember when, before ECM, LRMs did o.1/missle less? Mechs just ignored them. AMS was not carried, and mechs would stand in the open under multiple volleys and not care. People would speak of carrying 8-10 tons (!) of LRM ammo to be effective. The catapult carried in canon, only one ton of ammo, the A-1 carried two at the expense of additional weapons. 1-3 tons of LRM ammo ought to be effective to at least strip the armor completely from several mechs, which it can at this point. They're dangerous to ignore, but you can take a couple of volleys and still retain your armor as long as you don't continue to allow the bombardment to hit you. Whether or not someone should be boating 60-100 LRMs on a stalker is a completely different issue, but for dual LRM20s, damage feels just about right given how many shots you can effectively put on target before a reasonable player gets out of LOS.

I don't care for misslewarrior online, but LRM support mechs SHOULD be able to do significant damage and get occasional kills, or else who would use them?

Edit: Plus, "accurately able to hit targets at long range?" How consistently can you hit mechs 800-100m away without LOS? Many times shots hit obstructing terrain you did not know was between you and the target, the spotter loses focus on the enemy you are targetting, etc... Even if not, the target has a very significant time to move to cover once the missle warning indicator starts. LRMs true useful range is really < 500m and generally best with direct LOS. They ARE good for weeding out the gene pool of those foolish enough to continue to allow themselves to be hit.

Edited by Praehotec8, 13 February 2013 - 02:57 PM.

[yamishan]

to all people complaining about this and that being op and other useless ****
everybody can **** off and let the devolpers make a BATTLETECH UNIVERSE BASED GAME if u dont like it **** AND GO PLAY SOMETHING LIKE HAWKEN and have your ****** buttonmashing fests

[OneEyed Jack]

Khobai, on 13 February 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

You're wrong. Excluding headshots, it takes roughly 275-325 damage to kill an Atlas in tabletop on average. I can kill a double armor Atlas in MWO by doing 150-200 damage. That is how much faster mechs die in MWO.

He's not. You said that mechs die faster in MWO, not that they die to less damage. He was refuting what you wrote, not what were thinking when you wrote it.

Volthorne, on 13 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

1) Cockpits were a 1/8 chance to get hit in the TT, so that in itself offsets the supposedly lower TTK (time to kill). One of my Riflemen got head capped with just three shots in the first 5 turns once. That's 50 seconds in play, which is a considerable amount LESS than what is granted to you here, even as the worst pilot.

Result: still not dying as fast as TT.

While I agree with your conclusion, headshots in TT are 1/36, not 1/8. The head may have been 1 out of 8 locations, but a 12 on 2d6 is a 1 in 36 chance.

[yamishan]

Kommisar, on 13 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I personally love how quickly this thread picked up an ECM debate. It's like space-herpies... just flares right up and runs across the deck.

I would like to add that I think it would be great if we had items spawn around the map that could give us repairs or boosts. Like, maybe if you shoot a building, a repair power up appears. Or even a flower power up that makes your AC shots into "hot" shot rounds until you take so much damage. Or even a glowing one that runs across the map and gives the player that catches it an extra "life". OR, best yet. A special blue munition you can pick up. One shot, seeks out the highest scoring player and blows him up.

Would totally make this game more competitive.

this game doesnt need that system in it the game would suddenly have no player base above age 12 because uhm? why do we want to play a mechassault/mario cart fps? i thought it was called MECHWARRIORONLINE....

on the other hand the other MW titles had repair facilities on certain maps that could be used for in mission partial/complete repairs to keep the fight going but that was also because you were basicly 1 man against the world this is a team based game so it isnt as viable.

[MischiefSC]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Actually, laser weapons have enough enough trouble hitting the same spot as it is. Something like this would make it pretty horrible when using something like large lasers on fast moving mechs.

At close range it's much closer to pinpoint. Also I should have clarified that armor doesn't need to be doubled at this point; total number of concentrated hits are reduced while the impact of individual hits increases. Yes, hitting light mechs at range becomes more difficult but conversely you can kill a light with 1 ac20 hit in many locations or at least blow it half way through.

Praehotec8, on 13 February 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Not to derail the thread, but...while I don't have argument against your aiming variation, I do take issue with the suggestion to take LRMs to 1.0 dmg. At 1.0 damage, two LRM 15s with one ton of ammo (equal in weight to an AC 20, but taking more crits) would do 22.5 damage to each section of a mech per ton (less if you count front/rear separately, and more if you exclude the legs). A ton of AC20 ammo can do 140 points of damage to a component of your choosing. Aside from the fact that it's MUCH easier to land 7 AC 20 shots on a target than spend the time to lob 6 volleys of LRMs that all hit a target (I use both weapons and that is my impression), 22.5 damage won't even strip the armor from a heavy mech, while the 140 damage can core almost anything.

Yes, LRMs are a "support" weapon, etc., etc. (forgetting again that this support weapon requires even more support to operate with ECM), but even a support weapon needs to have the bite to be effective. Do you remember when, before ECM, LRMs did o.1/missle less? Mechs just ignored them. AMS was not carried, and mechs would stand in the open under multiple volleys and not care. People would speak of carrying 8-10 tons (!) of LRM ammo to be effective. The catapult carried in canon, only one ton of ammo, the A-1 carried two at the expense of additional weapons. 1-3 tons of LRM ammo ought to be effective to at least strip the armor completely from several mechs, which it can at this point. They're dangerous to ignore, but you can take a couple of volleys and still retain your armor as long as you don't continue to allow the bombardment to hit you. Whether or not someone should be boating 60-100 LRMs on a stalker is a completely different issue, but for dual LRM20s, damage feels just about right given how many shots you can effectively put on target before a reasonable player gets out of LOS.

I don't care for misslewarrior online, but LRM support mechs SHOULD be able to do significant damage and get occasional kills, or else who would use them?

Edit: Plus, "accurately able to hit targets at long range?" How consistently can you hit mechs 800-100m away without LOS? Many times shots hit obstructing terrain you did not know was between you and the target, the spotter loses focus on the enemy you are targetting, etc... Even if not, the target has a very significant time to move to cover once the missle warning indicator starts. LRMs true useful range is really < 500m and generally best with direct LOS. They ARE good for weeding out the gene pool of those foolish enough to continue to allow themselves to be hit.

I should have clarified that I'd say LRM speed needs a boost of around 50% plus armor reduced to regular levels, maybe a 20% boost above normal. The idea is that seeing a target with LRMs and getting a lock at range is dangerous to people and softens them up at range. Also LRMs supporting brawling becomes far more useful as the lack of pinpoint accuracy increases the value of the spread damage LRMs do.

[Praehotec8]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

I should have clarified that I'd say LRM speed needs a boost of around 50% plus armor reduced to regular levels, maybe a 20% boost above normal. The idea is that seeing a target with LRMs and getting a lock at range is dangerous to people and softens them up at range. Also LRMs supporting brawling becomes far more useful as the lack of pinpoint accuracy increases the value of the spread damage LRMs do.

Good argument, I can see your point with these type of changes.

[KharnZor]

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

But I guess you didn't read the actual post, only skimmed the first sentence or two.

...
How about you stop it and try to understand that people have differing views to your own. The thinly veiled insults that you are giving to some of the responses are un called for.

I think that the ac 20 needs more hitpoints or something. it does seem to me to get wrecked rather easily sometimes.

Edited by KharnZor, 13 February 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[Bryan Kerensky]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

At close range it's much closer to pinpoint. Also I should have clarified that armor doesn't need to be doubled at this point; total number of concentrated hits are reduced while the impact of individual hits increases. Yes, hitting light mechs at range becomes more difficult but conversely you can kill a light with 1 ac20 hit in many locations or at least blow it half way through.

Currently with the way the netcode is. A certain amount of leading is still needed to hit lgiht mechs on the move. As for doubled armor, it is debatable whether this is a good move or not, the fact is that this is a sim that rewards people who are precise with their shot placement and a cone of fire will simply not be a viable solution. If you're dying fast or killing someone quickly it only means one of two things

1. You're better than he is
2. He is better than you.

Also, 1 ac/20 round cannot kill a light outright no matter where you hit it. Two maybe, but not one.

Edited by Bryan Kerensky, 13 February 2013 - 04:13 PM.

[zverofaust]

Artgathan, on 13 February 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I'll venture an argument about tactical decision making here: weapon destruction is a punishment placed on the player for their poor tactical decision making. The 'fork in tactical decision-making' is meant to come before your weapon is destroyed. The decision you're faced with is whether or not to present your weakened/destroyed armor to the enemy and allow them the chance to destroy it.
If you fail to make the right choice (turn away to present a different section of armor, take cover, go evasive to prevent them from firing on you again), your opponent gets to exploit your poor decision. This in turn leads to you, the player, being punished for making the wrong decision by having your weapon destroyed.

Here's an example (in case I've explained myself poorly):

Bob is piloting an Atlas, and firing at Stan who is also piloting an Atlas. Both of them are standing facing one another at 100m trading blows. Bob realizes that his right torso, which holds his AC/20, is about to be breached. Bob now has to do something about that. If he turns away from Stan he can preserve his AC/20, at the cost of his damage output (he won't be able to fire the AC/20 at Stan because it won't be facing him). If he continues to fire directly at Stan (without moving) he'll maintain a higher damage output, but Stan's next attack might cripple the AC/20.

Having weapon destruction also adds more tactical depth by allowing for more meaningful decisions on the battlefield. What I mean is this: without weapon destruction, you should only ever aim at the 'killzones' (head, center torso, legs) of a battlemech. With weapon destruction in play there are options: since I know the armor is usually thickest on the Center Torso, maybe targeting the weapons systems will be more efficient to disable the enemy. For example, if I destroy the right torso of a HBK-4G, I effectively negate 60% of the battlemech's firepower. So I have a choice: I can either attempt to kill the mech (takes longer) or I can render it a much smaller threat (faster, but still alive). One of the best ways to counter the 6 X SRM6 Catapult A1 is by shooting off its missile pods. Taking weapon destruction out would negate this strategy and reduce the overall tactical depth of the game in my opinion.

I appreciate that you made a lot of :words: about things as a response but I'd appreciate something a little more substantive than "if you don't like dicerolls determining serious gameplay effects then play better so those dicerolls don't happen", and some nebulous 'example' about some hypothetical situation with hypothetical people that you've cherry-picked to suit your argument.

But sure, I'll play.

Quote

One of the best ways to counter the 6 X SRM6 Catapult A1 is by shooting off its missile pods. Taking weapon destruction out would negate this strategy and reduce the overall tactical depth of the game in my opinion.

This doesn't really work at all though since those tiny SRM6s are more likely than not to survive up until the complete destruction of the component (launcher) itself, and my argument certainly isn't to get rid of component destruction -- that is a welcome feature, since the complete destruction of an entire component generally takes some amount of effort and has very little to do with arbitrary random number generation.

My argument is that having any shred of damage to an unprotected component able to destroy the weapon housed within on an absolutely arbitrary and random based chance does nothing for gameplay. I don't care who you are or what you do for a living, you are not going to be able to torso-swing your away around avoiding every single stray machinegun bullet or laser beam being thrown your direction and if your argument relies on a foundation of "play better" than I don't think such a discussion is worth my time.

miSs, on 13 February 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Some posts in this thread have been removed for violating your community standards. Please remember to post in accordance with the Code of Conduct.

Thanks.

Hi miSs!

[MischiefSC]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Currently with the way the netcode is. A certain amount of leading is still needed to hit lgiht mechs on the move. As for doubled armor, it is debatable whether this is a good move or not, the fact is that this is a sim that rewards people who are precise with their shot placement and a cone of fire will simply not be a viable solution. If you're dying fast or killing someone quickly it only means one of two things

1. You're better than he is
2. He is better than you.

Also, 1 ac/20 round cannot kill a light outright no matter where you hit it. Two maybe, but not one.

A raven without the current armor buffs has less than 20 points of CT armor. Odds are good you'll get internals and an engine crit on a CT hit. Something like a Commando with standard armor loadout 20 points will pretty much put a hole clean through them. On a Jenner, unless he's got max armor it'll pop through a legs armor and internals. At the very least you'll get all the armor, most the internals and a crit that'll slow him down.

Precision will be tied to the weapon you use. An AC20? Not very precise. A Gauss Rifle or ER LL? Far, far more so. AC2? Terribly precise even at range.

The downside of course is that the ERLL generates a lot of heat and the Guass will pop in your guts if you take a crit on it.

Make sense? It was a powerful balancing too for TT and really drives a lot of the diverse loadouts. Boating was rare in TT because you needed weapons that were accurate and effective at different ranges, not simply maxing your DPS/heat measurement. Even range isn't that important - I drop AC20 rounds on the location I choose on targets 500m away if they're stupid enough to stand still. There really isn't much reason for me to take an AC10 aside from weight if I can mount an AC20. Now, if my odds of hitting someone are very slim at 500 meters I'd hold my shot until I had better odds. Also the AC10s greater accuracy combined with more shots/ton suddenly make it a very appealing alternative.

Currently though an AC10 would be a wasted ballistic slot for me.

All rather academic. We're too far along into development to expect that sort of sweeping rebalance. Oh, but one can dream....

[SteelRat]

I have to agree with the OP to some extent. Over the last few patches I have noticed primarily, the Ac/20, Guass and ECM randomly being destroyed with very minor damage to my mech. Played a match yesterday were I lost my Ac/20 on the first shot that hit me. However, my 2 large lasers in my arms, lasted until my arms were blown off.

Which makes me wonder whats the point here? Higher damage weapons are more fragile? Perceived over powered weapons are more fragile? Using this as a means to balance weapons seems a bit cheesy to me. I don't think I have ever lost a laser before the hard point it attached to was blown off. Where is this leading to? Are all weapons going to be like glass? Why hasn't this happened with SRMs and Streaks yet, with all the whining we have had in the past over those weapons? Seems like the perfect balance strategy to me. 1 shot a Cats ear, he can keep the ear but his SRMs/SSRMs are gone. Those pesky raven-3ls with streaks, 1 good medium laser shot, POOF, streaks gone. Hell, they balanced UAC5s real easy, ya don't even have to shoot at them, they just randomly jam, usually on the first shot. (I am UAC5 cursed )

Now I don't mind some minor chance, very very minor chance of a weapon lost, **** happens. Maybe its just me but I prefer a game were skill, placing your shots, using tactics and strategy, play a bigger role in the game than random chance.

[Kobold]

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

I'm amazed that this permanent destruction of Mech equipment at complete random is still around as an integral part of this game, a feature seen nowhere else in the entirety of even mediocre competitive game titles.

Let me drop a very simple, infallible truth: Having random, permanent and game-changing effects in a competitive multiplayer game is one of the most blatant taboos imaginable in the genre. There's no getting around that fact.

...

I like the idea of "battle damage"; it indeed adds more depth to combat than simply giving every Mech a healthbar to chew through. But in a competitive online game with no respawning or "reset button", having permanent, random events heavily affecting your Mech adds nothing to gameplay -- on the contrary, it takes from both the casual and competitive aspects of the game by frustrating people with arbitrary unavoidable dice-roll gimmicks and making real competition no more legitimate than a game of dice. There is no way for a player to "play around" or adapt their playstyle to losing a weapon. It's simply gone.

You're playing a game that is based almost entirely on attrition warfare. That is just the way it is. Gameplay choices (both in mech design, and how you choose to play your battle out) should take that into account. You should plan how you will deal with losing one or more weapon systems.