Is it okay to respond about "precision shot, called shots" not behaving like TT "Called shots" and more like the aimed shots I described?
Is headcapping too powerful?
- Thread starter Jade_Rook
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Is it okay to respond about "precision shot, called shots" not behaving like TT "Called shots" and more like the aimed shots I described?
I agree that Precision Strike headshots are gamebreakingly overpowered. It's not just a late game thing, either. By mid game I always have a couple of high Gunnery, high Tactics pilots able to shoot heads off at a fairly reliable 19% rate. As my pilots get better and I get more tech it just gets easier and easier. And that's how things were pre-HM, before I could just just Marauder or a UAC-20++ in the general store.
I think that, for reasonable balance, aimed headshots should be limited to Called Shots on downed or overheated mechs. I also recognize that there are a lot of players who would be infuriated by that change. That's fine. To each their own, and I'm not here to pee in anyone's Cheerios.
Therefore, IMHO, what's needed is a checkbox in the difficulty settings allowing the player voluntarily to turn off Precision Strike and/or a slider to modify PS incrementally to make it less effective.
I think that, for reasonable balance, aimed headshots should be limited to Called Shots on downed or overheated mechs. I also recognize that there are a lot of players who would be infuriated by that change. That's fine. To each their own, and I'm not here to pee in anyone's Cheerios.
Therefore, IMHO, what's needed is a checkbox in the difficulty settings allowing the player voluntarily to turn off Precision Strike and/or a slider to modify PS incrementally to make it less effective.
Respond away.Is it okay to respond about "precision shot, called shots" not behaving like TT "Called shots" and more like the aimed shots I described?
I'm bringing it up for reference so we know that people are talking about multiple different mechanics with the same terminology of "head shots".
Some seem to be confusing a couple of these.
You need end-game upgrades and gear to get six straight turns of precision shots.
I disagree. I've kept track of uses, and honestly? There's not as many times as it's more useful than drilling out a side torso to take out someone's weapons. (Or to try to ignite the ammo.) It's a neat trick, and it can be useful . . . but it's not reliable enough. With the MAD's bonus, it might be more reliable, but I'd rather do as I said and shred apart 'Mechs at the torso. The Spoilermech can do this remarkably well at medium-range, and the Gauss Rifle has that lovely option of causing a critical hit into ammunition bins . . .
Overall, the more I played late-game and the more I would try to rely on it . . . the more frustrating it would become when it didn't work, and the more painful it could be if you hung someone out there to take the shot and it failed. (Heck, sometimes it could hurt even if it did work...) I used it largely to fish for 'Mech chassis I really needed to fill out my group, or for acquiring ones I hadn't gotten yet (I'm a collecting addict, which is why I had to cold-turkey off Pokemon last generation).
Again - it's a neat tool in the box. But as with many of the various "OP" tactics through the age of the game, it shouldn't consist of the whole strategy.
I would like to present the concept: "If I'm using end-game upgrades, maxed-out pilots, and top-of-the-line weapons, I should be seeing wild success."
I never said six straight turns of precision shots, but even so I think the point stands. I got the marauder and a high tactics dude mid-campaign, and it allowed me to take down two assault mechs in two rounds, which would have otherwise obliterated my lance. A one in three chance of immediately decapitating even the strongest mechs in the game with a mid-game mech and pilot seems pretty silly to me. Even if it was the latest of late game stuff, I still think it's beyond ludicrous.
Seems fine to me, reminds me a lot of those wonderful tabletop moments where you just sigh, get another drink, and try to salvage some measure of Pyrrhic victory for the night.
I disagree. Precision Strike gives you both a bonus to hit and a good chance at a headshot. Even if you miss the headshot kill you're still likely to land a torso shot.
Sure, if you run right out in the open and blast away, counting on headshots to see you through, then a miss could be fatal. But that's bad tactics. If you use good tactics and pair those good tactics with a large bonus to hit and a nearly 20% chance to get a 1-shot kill in the mid game and a 30% chance once you're well kitted out then Precision Strike gets pretty close to being an I Win button.
Either way, a checkbox or difficulty slider would comprehensively fix the whole issue without causing anyone any bother.
Please read before posting in thread.
Greetings Mechwarriors,
Please avoid the dismissiveness and hyperbole when sharing ones perspective, and instead share the reasons for it instead.
The first leads to friction and flaming.
The second leads to constructive discussion even when two people might respectfully disagree with each other.
Thank you
Please avoid the dismissiveness and hyperbole when sharing ones perspective, and instead share the reasons for it instead.
The first leads to friction and flaming.
The second leads to constructive discussion even when two people might respectfully disagree with each other.
Thank you
?
Hbs Connor :On adding allegedly simple features in game development .
"To clarify, in order to make Manual Ejections an option in game, this is what I would consider when making a design request internally.
These and possibly more things would need to happen (In no particular order or organization):
We now have tasks for (at least) 8 people (not including the big dogs like lead design and production to make sure people are keeping track of this feature). And even though each of their individual part may be small or short in time required, it ultimately takes away from their already big lists of bugs and features to work on leading up to ship.
So while I agree. I personally would love to have manual ejections. It takes away from the focus on other issues of higher priority and frankly the other unfinished parts of the game that we've made Kickstarter commitments to. This is not to say the idea is bad or to shut down any discussion on it, please continue as these things help inform our future decisions. Nor am I soliciting solutions for the hypothetical problems I've laid out. We have an incredibly talented team here at HBS, they can solve just about any problem you throw at them, and solve it well. I have no concern on that count. No matter which way you slice it, even if it was a silent operation with no VFX/SFX/Animations needed, and even if it was JUST for player and not AI, this is still a chunk of work. Though when you have time on the clock (and we do), you have to pick which problems you solve, "Focus equals Quality."
Now I am not our director, nor our producer. So even I am not fully qualified to make such a judgement. But that's my thought process if I was gonna push for such a thing (and it's sorta my job to push for features). I say all of this to explain that even a 'light' implementation of any new system is a risky proposal that must be weighed and decided on. Our current plan is not to support manual ejection.
In summation, some things that are PURELY data we can tweak with low risk. But if it is a new interaction model we don't currently have, the best first assumption is that it would be non-trivial to build.
Hope that clarifies some."
These and possibly more things would need to happen (In no particular order or organization):
- Get code in place for non-automated ejection. Could be easy as we already have some stuff going on in the background (as Tyler pointed out earlier in this thread), but I never assume ANY code ask will be easy or quick. That's a sure fire way to be wrong.
- Make new space on the abilities bar, or elsewhere in the already crowded UI, to put this new button. That requires rework and reflow on the UI to ensure that people see it and can understand it. There are parts of the existing UI that beta feedback has shown to not be fully clear, adding more to that makes things clear as mud.
- Create the necessary VFX, Sound, and Animations to support the gameplay of 'A Pilot Punching out of a Mech'. Of which there currently is none. So it's entirely new. This may not be totally necessary, but as most things in the game have some sort of grounding, it can be expected we'd want to do this. This also assumes we don't record VO for the pilot ejecting, which takes coordination and $. So when this happens there would be no "I'm punching out, boss!" bark.
- Create rules and specifications around how the player interacts with this ability. When can it be used. When does it get resolved. Are there penalties or bonuses. How is the pilot handled. Can they take injuries even on a manual ejection.
- Look into our turn order system to allow for best use by player. For instance our system ends your turn when you fire or use an ability. So you would not be able to say, fire with a Mech X, then immediately after have Pilot Y eject from Mech X. That's cuz your turn ends when you fire the rest is damage resolutions & animations & camera pans that are automated, you've essentially ceded player control when the 'Fire' button is hit. This would require additional code/work in our turn system to allow for you to fire then do anything without your turn ending. Let alone eject.
- Build into the AI decision tree some node that allows them to consider their survivability rate, and make a call to eject or not. As some of you have pointed out that you would like the enemy AI to eject to save themselves. We want them to eject when it makes sense, and not just at the first sign of trouble, which would consequently have all battles taking 2 minutes because the AI ejects once they take their first crit or big hit.
- We need sufficient tutorial-ization / messaging to educate players who are unfamiliar with Battletech TT (which will be a big chunk of who will ultimately plays this game) how to eject, what the trade offs and benefits are to a manual ejection, and when it is a good time to eject.
We now have tasks for (at least) 8 people (not including the big dogs like lead design and production to make sure people are keeping track of this feature). And even though each of their individual part may be small or short in time required, it ultimately takes away from their already big lists of bugs and features to work on leading up to ship.
So while I agree. I personally would love to have manual ejections. It takes away from the focus on other issues of higher priority and frankly the other unfinished parts of the game that we've made Kickstarter commitments to. This is not to say the idea is bad or to shut down any discussion on it, please continue as these things help inform our future decisions. Nor am I soliciting solutions for the hypothetical problems I've laid out. We have an incredibly talented team here at HBS, they can solve just about any problem you throw at them, and solve it well. I have no concern on that count. No matter which way you slice it, even if it was a silent operation with no VFX/SFX/Animations needed, and even if it was JUST for player and not AI, this is still a chunk of work. Though when you have time on the clock (and we do), you have to pick which problems you solve, "Focus equals Quality."
Now I am not our director, nor our producer. So even I am not fully qualified to make such a judgement. But that's my thought process if I was gonna push for such a thing (and it's sorta my job to push for features). I say all of this to explain that even a 'light' implementation of any new system is a risky proposal that must be weighed and decided on. Our current plan is not to support manual ejection.
In summation, some things that are PURELY data we can tweak with low risk. But if it is a new interaction model we don't currently have, the best first assumption is that it would be non-trivial to build.
Hope that clarifies some.
"
Last edited:
That's the only way it makes sense as an impressive feat though. Dropping six assaults in six rounds is a golf clap thing but not especially remarkable. Stuff like double AC/20+SRM spoilermechs have been dropping other assaults one per round, every round, since release.
Given more than six rounds (maybe like ten or so?) even a Hunchback-4P with ML++ can pull off dropping six assaults.
I can't comment on tabletop since I've never played it, but I feel there's a difference between the odd lucky headshot which I'm perfectly fine with, and consistently being able to score headshots without it feeling like much of a gamble. I think going for headshots should be a gamble, not a reliable cheesy tactic. This is not to mention that the Marauder also provides a damage reduction to the whole lance, as if it wasn't strong enough already lmao.
Please note, on late-game missions where this sort of tactic can be the difference between "clean win" and "massive repair bill" . . . it can sometimes not matter if you're standing in cover or maximizing your likelihood to tank some hits. Because the enemy can outnumber you enough . . . and can focus down a target quickly enough . . . it's always a risky move should you miss. It's not an "I Win" button, it's rolling the dice and hoping you can see "6 to 8" on two six-sided dice.
The enemy can still headcap you back, even if they don't get the Resolve-based abilities. I've had Annihilators do this to (who else) Dekker even after seeing them lose half their weapons. (I'd shot a Gauss at the head, and it hit the ammo instead.) I've had Hunchbacks, Victors, and Demolishers do it with significant enough impact to cause a problem. I've had a kick from an armless, one-legged Atlas stomp a pilot out of the cockpit of a standing 'Mech.
I've stopped taking "style kill" chances like headshots after a certain difficulty, because the risk . . . in my opinion and experience . . . doesn't pay off with as nice a reward.
I don't think it's any less reliable than previous cheese tactics, or any more reliable: LRM-spam to kill via knockdowns, sleepy Awesomes, "Clanbuster" King Crabs (dual Gauss, so you know) abusing flamers to shut down a target so you can dismantle them easily . . . the Punshee . . .
All of these can be terrible little things to unleash, but have risks associated with them. Going for headshots constantly carries the risk of a miss not doing damage to threaten the target, and thus leaving you out there for a chance at getting killed. In non-Ironman play, this isn't an issue - just save scum your way to victory. In Ironman play, with "Mech Destruction" turned on, though . . . I'm not sure it's a risk worth taking. We are talking roughly a 30% chance to hit the head and instakill . . . which is a 70% chance it didn't, which can mean you did enough damage to cripple or you just tickled the target a little.
And when we get to the end of this discussion, I'll note we're talking - all of us - about a subjective concern of "is this worth it to do?" which comes with the question to each player "would you risk doing this?"
I'd dig straight down in Minecraft before pinning a battle strategy on winning through headcaps in BattleTech. It's a neat tool, a useful tool, and dare I say even a very effective tool. I'm not sure it's worth being your go-to tool for all occasions, though. Which is why I have to disagree on it being "overpowered". In my lexicon, an overpowered strategy/ability is one where there is no counter, there is no risk to using it, and it pretty much causes a win condition to trigger. (For the record, I also do not consider "Turn Zero Kill combos" in Magic the Gathering - and there are a few - overpowered due to the incredible chance to not hit the combo before the opponent can pick up something to stop your efforts. Called Shot Headcapping falls into the same territory - really good when they work . . . when they don't . . .)
Please read before posting in thread.
Greetings Mechwarriors,
Again;
Please avoid the dismissiveness and hyperbole when sharing ones perspective, and instead share the reasons for it instead.
The first leads to friction and flaming.
The second leads to constructive discussion even when two people might respectfully disagree with each other.
Examples;
Please share your constructive reasons instead. That way feedback is helpful for the Devs.
Thank you
Again;
Please avoid the dismissiveness and hyperbole when sharing ones perspective, and instead share the reasons for it instead.
The first leads to friction and flaming.
The second leads to constructive discussion even when two people might respectfully disagree with each other.
Examples;
Silly
Ludicrous
I win button
Insane
Freakish
Ludicrous
I win button
Insane
Freakish
Please share your constructive reasons instead. That way feedback is helpful for the Devs.
Thank you
Last edited:
It's okay, with the subjective nature of whether it's "too good" . . . I'm going to let my last posts stand as all I have to say on the matter.
[Mod edit: hyperbole, dismissive (effacing at one self, but still dismissive) ]
Besides, I have to get back to working up energy post-work to get to more work translating the tabletop game notes. (Wherein headshots caused a hilarious result of 'death through pilot damage before the 'Mech itself died'...)
[Mod edit: hyperbole, dismissive (effacing at one self, but still dismissive) ]
Besides, I have to get back to working up energy post-work to get to more work translating the tabletop game notes. (Wherein headshots caused a hilarious result of 'death through pilot damage before the 'Mech itself died'...)
You mean the comms system +++ that was just hanging out in the Black Market on the planet I salvaged my first Marauder? Or the 2 UAC/2++ sitting in the next Black Market I visited?
Anyways, the UAC/2++ in combination with the Marauder is not helping. At 35 damage, you only need 2 hits to headshot anything out of cover. I think it would be entirely reasonable if the lower class UACs started 5 points lower on the damage scale (or ended 5 points lower), since the standard AC damage had to be buffed heavily in order to make those weapons relevant.
The buffed lostech lasers are similar , if less heat-efficient, contributors to the problem.