184 replies to this topic

[Fstroke]

I've played against the EU community quite a few times and against your best players. Your meta is much different than ours. You enjoy burst weapons such as eoc/heat and despise AC, while NA is filled with sustain and orblords. We don't have problems dealing with AC because most of us don't use weapons that struggle against air targets and most of us are on the ground where we have more movement options + orb accessibility. Orblord is irrefutably the most dominant build in the entire game and it is easy mode against AC targets. What compliments orbbuild? turtling with sustain because it is effective on all ranges, deals solid dps, and requires little skill to use effectively. I want to play a game where player skill can turn situations that look dire and come out on top. I don't want a meta where you drop an orb and initiate the DPS race that is present in high level of play.

This is what I want to highlight. I am under the impression that we keep trying to band aid fix things in the meta without addressing real problems.

Orb lording is a topic that comes up constantly as a supporting issue to many problems. In general I think the amount of available HP and the up time allowed while gathering it is really what is leading to this perverse meta of two deathballs havinv dps races.

We highlight this in almost every thread concerning balance but never address it as a root cause.

HP and lol radar are what's leading to defensive play styles and reduced need for smart play. Address these two things and I think you will see a lot of strain on the current meta alleviated and then we can start addressing the real issues in the details. Right now we are just guessing at what can fix these problems while ignoring the most obviously gamebreaking things in the game.

Edited by Fstroke, 06 May 2015 - 01:11 PM.

[coldform]

Too bad this kind of stuff didn't sit on a serever side script or something. Something like that would be a private server admin's wet dream.
Or it would just leave the players on that server crying in the corner, with their mechs curled up in a fetal position. Oh, to deam of such sweet, subtle chaos.

[IareDave]

This got me thinking a bit. Do you think that sustain would still need to be nerfed to the degree being discussed if orblording wasn't as viable as it currently is? Or do you think that sustain DPS is an stand-alone issue that is compounded by orblording? I ask because if it's the former then we don't need to be having a discussion about sustain DPS nerfs, we just need to address orblording.

 

 

 

Orbs are a problem all on their own. Will nerfing orbs be sufficient enough to tone down sustain use/effectiveness? I can't say for sure that that adjustment would be enough, and I still stand by my original point. 

[Nept]

What's getting lost here is that the bloom and recoil stuff is all a little toungue in cheek as it is unpopular. For some reason it's seems to really offend people which is kind of hilarious.

 

Yeeeeah.  Nice save attempt.

 

Edited by Nept, 06 May 2015 - 01:14 PM.

[BluetoothBoy]

Why nerf stuff...

 

When you can buff stuff!

 

 

 

No, seriously. If it's that much of an issue, just buff the mechs that are "under-powered" which imo don't exist.

It's not really a question of the mechs being underpowered or overpowered, but the weapons they carry.

[Fstroke]

Yeeeeah. Nice save attempt.

You are the one acting like bloom and spread are two different things. This is me standing by what I said concerning it bit I am not so convinced that I am going to champion that change.

[Nept]

Bloom refers to an expanding cone of fire (cof) within which bullets can land anywhere.  Spread refers to the pattern (or spread) taken by the projectiles as the weapon fires, or within a single burst of a weapon like a shotgun.

 

And if you're standing by what you said, I'm still waiting for you to explain how bloom + air inaccuracy is preferable to a slight DPS decrease from the pov of someone who doesn't want sustain nerfed.  Because your suggestion would nerf sustain massively.

[BluetoothBoy]

Just going to try to clear up some things that seem to be confusing some people here...

 

-removed due to misinformation-

Recoil: The amount the gun moves after a shot. This is an independent dynamic from bloom/spread. It is additive over time, and changes the direction of the barrel. The bloom/spread remains the same, regardless of the recoil - it's just facing a different direction.

 

In other words, the game already has bloom/spread. The game does not have recoil.

 

EDIT: I also want to say something about hitscan weapons.

 

Several people suggested that these weapons be changed to non-hitscan weapons. But there are a few reasons why this wouldn't help.

 

First of all, hitscan weaponry (aka raycasting weaponry) is far less taxing calculations-wise on a system. Due to the immense number of bullets flying through the air at any given point in time (usually a lot!), suddenly optimization issues appear because the bullets go from raycasts to projectiles.

 

Secondly, from a gameplay perspective, the difference would be negligible. It's basic math, really. Let's say that the RoF of a weapon is 5/sec. Automatic, and fired for one second. Projectile shots take 0.1 second to reach target.

 

Hitscan: Pull trigger > target starts receiving damage immediately while hearing the gun being fired > damage received once every 0.2 seconds. Done in five seconds.

 

Projectile: Pull trigger > target starts receiving damage almost immediately while hearing the gun being fired > damage received once every 0.2 seconds. Done in 5.1 seconds.

 

In either case, the target is unlikely to react until they have started being damaged. For sustained weaponry, this basically means that these two situations are nearly identical, because the shots are still being received at a constant rate - the timing is only offset. However, this would be a bit different for burst weapons.

 

Now, in bringing up burst weaponry, there is a certain point to be made. With projectile shooting comes leading your shots. However, at the moment HAWKEN maps are so small that, considering the speed of a bullet, would hardly be a game changer. If it was, then that means your gun is weak and slow.

 

In the end, it really comes down to a battle between having realism versus having your computer being able to run the game without becoming choppy in large battles.While I haven't worked with Unreal/DirectX9 myself, it is a general rule in gamemaking that raycasting is far more optimized than projectiles.

Edited by BluetoothBoy, 06 May 2015 - 02:02 PM.

[Xacius]

You are the one acting like bloom and spread are two different things. This is me standing by what I said concerning it bit I am not so convinced that I am going to champion that change.

 

Just going to try to clear up some things that seem to be confusing some people here...

 

-removed at author's request-

NOTE: While these two are nearly identical, the terminology differs slightly between games. It just depends.

Recoil: The amount the gun moves after a shot. This is an independent dynamic from bloom/spread. It is additive over time, and changes the direction of the barrel. The bloom/spread remains the same, regardless of the recoil - it's just facing a different direction.

 

In other words, the game already has bloom/spread. The game does not have recoil.

 

Bloom and spread are two entirely different applications of a similar concept.  

 

They are not "basically the same thing."  

 

Let me explain, using a familiar format: 

 

Spread: The pattern by which bullets exit the gun during firing time.  Higher spread means that bullets exit farther from the center crosshair when being fired.  The Slug Rifle is an example of a weapon without spread.  The Point-D Vulcan has a lot of spread, in comparison.  

Bloom: The pattern by which spread increases during firing time, usually relative to the amount of time spent firing the weapon.  

 

While they technically deal with the same concept, they are entirely different in application.  It's important to note, however, that Bloom is not Spread.  They are not synonymous.  

 

It'd be like saying the L1/L2/L3 cache on your processor (memory) is the same as the DRAM sticks in your motherboard.  While they're both forms of memory, and deal with similar processes, their applications are entirely different.  

Edited by Xacius, 06 May 2015 - 02:05 PM.

[devotion]

Let me explain, using a familiar format: 

okay i snorted

[BluetoothBoy]

Bloom and spread are two entirely different applications of a similar concept.  

 

They are not "basically the same thing."  

 

Let me explain, using a familiar format: 

 

Spread: The pattern by which bullets exit the gun during firing time.  Higher spread means that bullets exit farther from the center crosshair when being fired.  The Slug Rifle is an example of a weapon without spread.  The Point-D Vulcan has a lot of spread, in comparison.  

Bloom: The pattern by which spread increases during firing time, usually relative to the amount of time spent firing the weapon.  

 

While they technically deal with the same concept, they are entirely different in application.  It's important to note, however, that Bloom is not Spread.  They are not synonymous.  

 

It'd be like saying the L1/L2/L3 cache on your processor (memory) is the same as the DRAM sticks in your motherboard.  While they're both forms of memory, and deal with similar processes, their applications are entirely different.  

-removed due to misinformation-

Edited by BluetoothBoy, 06 May 2015 - 02:01 PM.

[Nept]

Have fun, Xacius!

[Xacius]

-removed at author's request-

 

... no.  Altering the same mechanism doesn't make two entirely different concepts "basically the same thing." 

 

Your terminology "could've been better" by not likening two entirely different concepts to one-another, and then claiming that they're basically the same thing.  Because, they're not.  :)

Edited by Xacius, 06 May 2015 - 02:05 PM.

[BluetoothBoy]

... no.  Altering the same mechanism doesn't make two entirely different concepts "basically the same thing." 

 

Your terminology "could've been better" by not likening two entirely different concepts to one-another, and then claiming that they're basically the same thing.  Because, they're not.  :)

Ah. It would seem I misread your definitions. I stand corrected. :)

[Xacius]

:)

[BluetoothBoy]

Any chance you could remove the part about bloom/spread in the quote you made of my post, Xacius? I'm trying lessen confusion in this topic, not help it along. :(

[Fstroke]

Bloom refers to an expanding cone of fire (cof) within which bullets can land anywhere. Spread refers to the pattern (or spread) taken by the projectiles as the weapon fires, or within a single burst of a weapon like a shotgun.

And if you're standing by what you said, I'm still waiting for you to explain how bloom + air inaccuracy is preferable to a slight DPS decrease from the pov of someone who doesn't want sustain nerfed. Because your suggestion would nerf sustain massively.

First of all I never said I was against changes. I said I was against a blanket damage Nerf to an entire class of weapons.

If you really want to go on about this then fine. When they buffed damage and granted sustained weapons static improved stability and removed weapon stability penalty while air born I thought it was a little much. i was for the damage overboard on the stability mainly for the SMC and AR.

For instance if you have a controlled dynamic bloom model then you can't have someone with an assault rifle hanging back and just laying on the trigger putting out the same dps at sniper range and out damaging actual longer range weapons even with damage fall off. But with bloom it could be tuned to remain effective at nominal and close ranges. Damage reduction risks just making that weapon not competitive at all ranges.

Flight also heavily favors sustained weapons as it allows players to stay above grounded players keeping sights trained on the enemy maximizing dps and not allowing many evasive options for the opposing player.

So you might be thinking "yea why don't we just nerf damage then?" Because all that is irrelevant without considering the upsides of many of the burst weapons. Like high front loaded damage and the corner game.

Also many complain that many of these weapons are too easy to use. I suggest this would add a little bit more input and better use of timing for the user rather than just laying on the trigger.

Your assertion that's a bigger Nerf is your opinion that I can't really proof to be untrue no more than you can prove to be true at the moment.

If you want to see what I actually want to change read my other posts.

Your turn to actually explain.

[Xacius]

Any chance you could remove the part about bloom/spread in the quote you made of my post, Xacius? I'm trying lessen confusion in this topic, not help it along. :(

:))

[crockrocket]

Also many complain that many of these weapons are too easy to use. I suggest this would add a little bit more input and better use of timing for the user rather than just laying on the trigger.
 

A damage nerf would also effectively nerf ease of use, by way of making greater accuracy more important.

[Xacius]

First of all I never said I was against changes. I said I was against a blanket damage Nerf to an entire class of weapons.

If you really want to go on about this then fine. When they buffed damage and granted sustained weapons static improved stability and removed weapon stability penalty while air born I thought it was a little much. i was for the damage overboard on the stability mainly for the SMC and AR.

For instance if you have a controlled dynamic bloom model then you can't have someone with an assault rifle hanging back and just laying on the trigger putting out the same dps at sniper range and out damaging actual longer range weapons even with damage fall off. But with bloom it could be tuned to remain effective at nominal and close ranges. Damage reduction risks just making that weapon not competitive at all ranges.

 

For instance if you have a controlled dynamic bloom model then you can't have someone with an assault rifle hanging back and just laying on the trigger putting out the same dps at sniper range and out damaging actual longer range weapons even with damage fall off. But with bloom it could be tuned to remain effective at nominal and close ranges. Damage reduction risks just making that weapon not competitive at all ranges.

 

Except that doesn't really happen.  AR falloff starts at 60 meters.  SMC falloff starts around 40 meters.  For reference, the scout boosts at 37m/s.  Boost for roughly one second, and then you're at the beginning of SMC falloff range.  Boost for a little over half of another second, and you're at the start of AR falloff range.  

 

Even the lowest DPS sniper weapons don't start falling off until 140m (SA-Hawkins), and have far higher minimum damage than weapons with higher DPS up close.  

 

A bit of a "falloff" background: 

All weapons with "falloff" have min and max damage.  From 0m up to the beginning of falloff range, these weapons deal their max damage value.  For the AR, the maximum damage is 19.800. 

 

At the start of falloff range, that damage starts decreasing for each additional value(either meters or a smaller variation thereof) beyond the beginning of the falloff distance.  I'm pretty sure it's linear, but could be wrong.  When the opponent gets to maximum falloff range, or anything beyond that range, the weapon deals its minimum damage value.  

 

then you can't have someone with an assault rifle hanging back and just laying on the trigger putting out the same dps at sniper range and out damaging actual longer range weapons even with damage fall off. 

Let's analyze your logic at 2 intervals throughout the falloff range.  

 

60 meters:

Here, the AR is still doing its maximum damage (19.8) per shot.  Excluding spread, it has roughly 12 more DPS than the SA Hawkins at this range.  Both weapons are dealing maximum damage at this range (again, not including spread).  

 

100 meters: 

We're 40m into the AR's falloff range at this distance.  

 

The AR's total falloff distance is 140m (i.e. 60m to 200m).  

40m is 28.57% of 140m.  

The AR's maximum damage per shot is 19.800, and minimum damage per shot is 3.190

Assuming linear falloff, the AR is doing  [ (100.00% - (28.57%)) * 19.800 ] damage per shot at this range, which equates to 14.14 damage per shot.  

 

14.14 x 5 shots per second = 70.72 DPS.  

The SA-Hawkins retains its maximum damage up until 140m, as its falloff doesn't start until then.  At 100m, the SA-Hawkins is already doing ~17 more DPS than the AR.  We're not even a third of the way through the AR's maximum falloff distance and it's already less effective than the SA-Hawkins.  Keep in mind, these calculations aren't even factoring in weapon spread (which the AR has 25% more of, btw).  

 

You may want to take a look at the weapon stats before you consider any further balance changes ^_^

Edited by Xacius, 06 May 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[IareDave]

This is what I want to highlight. I am under the impression that we keep trying to band aid fix things in the meta without addressing real problems.

Orb lording is a topic that comes up constantly as a supporting issue to many problems. In general I think the amount of available HP and the up time allowed while gathering it is really what is leading to this perverse meta of two deathballs havinv dps races.

We highlight this in almost every thread concerning balance but never address it as a root cause.

HP and lol radar are what's leading to defensive play styles and reduced need for smart play. Address these two things and I think you will see a lot of strain on the current meta alleviated and then we can start addressing the real issues in the details. Right now we are just guessing at what can fix these problems while ignoring the most obviously gamebreaking things in the game.

 I've smurfed countless times and I've seen what low level players struggle with and are effective against, and the same for every tier above that. What did I run for those 8+ months of smurfing? (thank the old matchmaking for that) AR+TOW assault with orb build. It is the most powerful combination in the entire game. Is the reason for that because of orbs? No, orbs are nothing but icing on the cake - orbs take whatever is effective and increase that exponentially.

 

I'm not here to complain about orbs because that topic has been beaten down enough already and i hope that the devs already got the clue. I'm here to address sustain, and the fact is sustain has no weakness. Sustain mechs already come with the best burst in the game (TOW/GL/SAARE) and extremely powerful sustain weapons (ar+vulcan+smc) which deal ridiculous damage for little to no effort and if you can land 35%+ of your sustain shots which is what most of the top players of the game can do, it will easily outdps anything. 

Edited by IareDave, 06 May 2015 - 02:34 PM.

[Kopra]

 

You may want to take a look at the weapon stats before you consider any further balance changes ^_^

 

Note: spread values in that spreadsheet should be taken with a grain of salt. Reflak is definitely more accurate than T32, while the spreadsheet is saying otherwise. There's a couple of other errors too, but it's the best reference for weapons there is.

[Xacius]

Note: spread values in that spreadsheet should be taken with a grain of salt. Reflak is definitely more accurate than T32, while the spreadsheet is saying otherwise. There's a couple of other errors too, but it's the best reference for weapons there is.

 

Hence why I didn't even include it in the main analysis.  

[Fstroke]

For instance if you have a controlled dynamic bloom model then you can't have someone with an assault rifle hanging back and just laying on the trigger putting out the same dps at sniper range and out damaging actual longer range weapons even with damage fall off. But with bloom it could be tuned to remain effective at nominal and close ranges. Damage reduction risks just making that weapon not competitive at all ranges.

Except that doesn't really happen. AR falloff starts at 60 meters. SMC falloff starts around 40 meters. For reference, the scout boosts at 37m/s. Boost for roughly one second, and then you're at the beginning of SMC falloff range. Boost for a little over half of another second, and you're at the start of AR falloff range.

Even the lowest DPS sniper weapons don't start falling off until 140m (SA-Hawkins), and have far higher minimum damage than weapons with higher DPS up close.

A bit of a "falloff" background:
All weapons with "falloff" have min and max damage. From 0m up to the beginning of falloff range, these weapons deal their max damage value. For the AR, the maximum damage is

19.800

.

At the start of falloff range, that damage starts decreasing for each additional value(either meters or a smaller variation thereof) beyond the beginning of the falloff distance. I'm pretty sure it's linear, but could be wrong. When the opponent gets to maximum falloff range, or anything beyond that range, the weapon deals its minimum damage value.

then you can't have someone with an assault rifle hanging back and just laying on the trigger putting out the same dps at sniper range and out damaging actual longer range weapons even with damage fall off.
Let's analyze your logic at 2 intervals throughout the falloff range.

60 meters:
Here, the AR is still doing its maximum damage (19.8) per shot. Excluding spread, it has roughly 12 more DPS than the SA Hawkins at this range. Both weapons are dealing maximum damage at this range (again, not including spread).

100 meters:
We're 40m into the AR's falloff range at this distance.

The AR's total falloff distance is 140m (i.e. 60m to 200m).
40m is 28.57% of 140m.
The AR's maximum damage per shot is 19.800, and minimum damage per shot is 3.190
Assuming linear falloff, the AR is doing [ (100.00% - (28.57%)) * 19.800 ] damage per shot at this range, which equates to 14.14 damage per shot.

14.14 x 5 shots per second = 70.72 DPS.
The SA-Hawkins retains its maximum damage up until 140m, as its falloff doesn't start until then. At 100m, the SA-Hawkins is already doing ~17 more DPS than the AR. We're not even a third of the way through the AR's maximum falloff distance and it's already less effective than the SA-Hawkins. Keep in mind, these calculations aren't even factoring in weapon spread (which the AR has 25% more of, btw).

You may want to take a look at the weapon stats before you consider any further balance changes ^_^

I'm aware of the stats thank you. We are comparing sustained to burst right?

So why would you take my example and compare it to a longer range sustain weapon? I choose the AR because it's ubiquitous.

How many sight lines on these maps are longer than that? How many areas can a slug rifle maximize its range? The AR still has a high dps compared to a slug rifle at most engagement ranges which lies heavily in the mid range. Number wise no crap the AR has a shorter falloff but those extremely long ranges are not common.

[Xacius]

 

I'm aware of the stats thank you. We are comparing sustained to burst right?

So why would you take my example and compare it to a longer range sustain weapon? I choose the AR because it's ubiquitous.

How many sight lines on these maps are longer than that? How many areas can a slug rifle maximize its range? The AR still has a high dps compared to a slug rifle at most engagement ranges which lies heavily in the mid range. Number wise no crap the AR has a shorter falloff but those extremely long ranges are not common.

 

 

If you really want to go on about this then fine. When they buffed damage and granted sustained weapons static improved stability and removed weapon stability penalty while air born I thought it was a little much. i was for the damage overboard on the stability mainly for the SMC and AR.

For instance if you have a controlled dynamic bloom model then you can't have someone with an assault rifle hanging back and just laying on the trigger putting out the same dps at sniper range and out damaging actual longer range weapons even with damage fall off. But with bloom it could be tuned to remain effective at nominal and close ranges. Damage reduction risks just making that weapon not competitive at all ranges.

Your turn to actually explain.

 

 

Edited by Xacius, 06 May 2015 - 03:12 PM.

[Fstroke]

Don't care anymore

[Nept]

You know what else can be tuned to affect ranged efficacy?  Damage falloff.  And you know which option wouldn't punish skilled players by forcing arbitrary misses past a certain range?  Damage falloff.

[Xacius]

How many sight lines on these maps are longer than that? How many areas can a slug rifle maximize its range? The AR still has a high dps compared to a slug rifle at most engagement ranges which lies heavily in the mid range. Number wise no crap the AR has a shorter falloff but those extremely long ranges are not common.

 

Most of Frontline, any corridor longer than 70m, pretty much the entirety of Bazaar, Last Eco, and Bunker, etc...

 

There are plenty of open areas in Hawken's maps.  Nept runs an SS on every map in TPG, and we've also started using SA-Hawkins Brawler because of its ludicrous range.  If you're competent, the weapons with more range are incredible.  

[Bazookagofer]

 

I think mechs like the incinerator and predator are very strong and have MAJOR potential but they require a lot of skill.

 

List of explanations for this statement:

A) Things have either changed a lot in terms of balance and reworks since the last time I lurked these forums if the incinerator takes skill. But this is highly doubtful since the devs have been at this game for like 3 months barely...

B) You are trolling.

C) You are drunk and not thinking properly

D) I am drunk and not reading properly.

E)If it turns out you were being serious then I wish you put that statement in the beginning of the post so i can stop reading there and save myself some time.

 

My 2 cents... back to the gofer cave,

[Odinous]

Um, just saying, but I could likely destroy myself playing an Assault or Berserker any day with my Infiltrator or Scout.

 

If anything, the only nerfing that needs to happen is to the SMC. It is just plain and simply the only truly OP weapon in the game (note: not the only OP thing in the game necessarily, but the only truly OP weapon).

reduce its dmg,cause u can shoot forever anyway   not all the sustain though..

Edited by Odinous, 06 May 2015 - 06:36 PM.

[TangledMantis]

how about this,increase the scout HP by 100  

Kidding right? 

 

A good Scout would be unstoppable with less squishyness. I cant count the numbers of duels ive either lost or won right at the edge of my armor. If I had another 100 points to play with.. damn.

[Kopra]

You know what else can be tuned to affect ranged efficacy?  Damage falloff.  And you know which option wouldn't punish skilled players by forcing arbitrary misses past a certain range?  Damage falloff.

Bloom would make it so that hitbox size matters more, as vs. C-classes a slightly increased
spread wouldn't matter as much as vs. A-classes.

Damage falloff adjustment is probably the easiest solution to implement, though. I like the idea of bloom but it'd be very easy to get wrong as damage reduction via spread and distance is inversely exponential.

[SparkyJJC]

[Aregon]

He saw these:

[Elite_is_salty]

Y'all made this discussion ugly and bad. Just please devs, go ahead and lower sustained weapon DPS values slightly and see the community response and then go from there.

[IareDave]

Y'all made this discussion ugly and bad. Just please devs, go ahead and lower sustained weapon DPS values slightly and see the community response and then go from there.

You're ugly & bad

[MomOw]

I think that what could be done is  "nerfing" the SMC to lower its end of falloff damage and increasing its heat (closer to the AR), and maybe an increase of the range of some "shotgun", as the spread already lower the DPS at range.

[BaronSaturday]

Wait. This is still an active topic?

[?FTD? eXeon]

The problem isn't the heat, or range, or accuracy of the sustain weapons but its maximum DPS in the hands of someone who isn't missing 50% of their shots. Bloom is a horrible idea, recoil on the other hand is something I enjoy coming from counter strike but I think it too is a horrible idea. If you add either of those the problem is still going to be there and C mechs are still going to die in 4-5 seconds to a TOW/GL/SAARE mech in the hands of someone who can aim. Heat is also not the problem, vulcan and mini flak(even though its not really a problem) can still manage to take out 2-4 mechs efore overheating with ease. The problem is the maximum potential DPS in the hands of someone who can aim, something anyone can learn to do with enough practice since the weapon is incredibly simplistic. 

 

If the highest DPS weapons are also the easiest to use it is obvious that any competitive player who wants to win will utilize the best tool to his advantage, at the moment that is exactly the case and is exactly what we see in competitive settings like TPG. If I could get my wish I would love to see high DPS sustained weapons turned into projectile rifles like you see in Tribes, I know this will never happen so I've settled for expecting a DPS nerf which has been a long time coming.

[phed]

It's funny how thebuttsatisfier gets to keep his name, but exeon lost his for a little duck the felay.

And honestly, I kinda like fstroke's idea for the return of bloom, especially while flying. And that's saying something, since I usually don't agree with anything that dude says.