74 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

RNG = replaces skill with luck. no thanks.

That is not to say pinpoint damage isnt a problem. But lets fix it in a way that doesnt devalue skill. thanks.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 12 March 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

RNG = replaces skill with luck. no thanks.

That is not to say pinpoint damage isnt a problem. But lets fix it in a way that doesnt devalue skill. thanks.

It doesn't replace skill with luck.

Many board games have RNG. And yet you need skill to win in any of those.

Most table top roleplaying games have RNG.

The skill is - among other things - accounting for the RNG when you make your decisions.

[Prezimonto]

I would love to see fixed bore torso axes that sway with movement.

Better yet, I would love to have a slider to set my convergence arc at a fixed distance under the assumption that you'd calibrate the convergence point of fixed hardpoints in the mechlab/bay before you drop on a mission. Those angles should be reasonable and might have different distance minimums based on the tonnage of the weapons.

So in the K2 the convergence point might be something near or in excess of 270m for the AC20 and gauss, however a small weapon like a med. pulse laser might allow for a convergence point in the sweet spot of it's firing range. The dual AC20's you'll have to ponder how much spread is acceptable, and the dual gausses you'll have to establish a definitive range for optimal hits.... do you go for max range, sacrificing the probability of head shots, or converge them at medium range where you can be more likely to obtain a headshot.

This would double up on skill allowing a good player to tweak his mech loadouts significantly. It would add depth to the game on both the actual game play and in the mech lab that is based on play style and not just "what configuration works best for everyone".

Further, it would highlight the trade-off of exposed hardpoints on the arms (where there's often less space to put in large weapons in favor of movement actuators) vs. a protected hardpoint in the torso.

Edited by Prezimonto, 12 March 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Zyllos]

Khobai, on 12 March 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

RNG = replaces skill with luck. no thanks.

That is not to say pinpoint damage isnt a problem. But lets fix it in a way that doesnt devalue skill. thanks.

Hey, I am fine with not introducing "RNG" but I also think that is a 100% valid way to introduce more weapon spread.

I have created a suggestion on how to place a reduction on the pin-pointness of all mounted weaponry while not introducing a RNG to the game:

Quote

Something I have begin to notice in MWO is that builds which can pin-point a lot of weaponry onto a single point for as long as possible than builds which can actually deal more damage but generally spreads the damage across a target.

This is part of why the phenomenon on why players generally only aim for the torsos. All their weapons can easily pin-point to a Left/Right Torso, which also destroys the arms in the process. Thus, there is little emphasis on destroying arms because you can just aim all your weaponry at the torso and destroy a mech or maim it by killing both a torso and arm.

I suggest three mechanic changes to fix this issue by placing more emphasis on arm mounted weaponry while removing some ability for all weapons to target a specific point, thus allowing more weapon fire to spread.

Suggestion One - Multiple Weapon Fire Out of a Single Weapon Port

This is an odd mechanic by PGI. I understand the logic behind allowing multiple weapons to be equipped to allow for more customization but why allow multiple weapons to fire out of the same physical weapon port at the same time?

A good example of this is the Atlas Right Torso 2 Ballistic hardpoint / 1 Physical Weapon port location. If someone equips two UAC/5s in this location, and places both of them on the same weapon group without chain fire, then why does both UAC/5s fire at the same time, having overlapping projectiles? This essentially makes it a UAC/10. This also fools your target because they believe a single UAC/5 is firing but actually it is 2 UAC/5s firing at the same time.

The Cicada is another prime example of this. With multiple Energy hardpoints in the same physical Weapon port, they can fire both laser, which overlaps each other looking like a single laser.

So I suggest adding a mechanic where if multiple weapons are fired at the same time out of a single weapon port, just fire the weapons immediately one after the other. This will help spread a bit of the damage just because of the delta time between each firing while moving and also not be used to fool your target.

Suggestion Two - Arm Actuators Given Meaning

This is a brand new mechanic added, which I believe PGI is planning on adding at some point in time. It is fairly straight forward implementation based on how existing mechs already behave and actually sticks to the TT actuator charts fairly well.

Shoulder actuator - Allow arm weaponry to converge on the Arm crosshair.
Upper Arm actuator - Allow vertical deviation of the Arm crosshair from the Torso crosshair.
Lower Arm actuator - Allow horizontal deviation of the Arm crosshair from the Torso crosshair.
Hand actuator - Allow hand related actions to be performed.

Suggestion Three - Torso Mounted Weaponry Do Not Converge

I personally think this is a big balancing factor to the game and part of the reason why nobody aims on arms and everyone can just place the crosshair on a single location and alpha strike, having all damage hit that single location.

I suggest making all torso mounted weaponry only aim straight ahead, aiming in relation to the cockpit view. Basically, a straight line is drawn down the center of the player's perspective. All torso mounted weaponry fires straight ahead from the mech in relation to this line. As a note, arm mounted weaponry will still only fire straight ahead, like torso weaponry. Just both arms point directly at the Arm crosshair.

A good example is the Atlas. The two Center Torso Laser ports will fire straight ahead, not converging on the location on which it is aimed at, but instead will be aimed at the Torso crosshair, landing in relation to the weapons mounted on the mech. So the two Lasers will land below the Torso crosshair, one directly below (because the cockpit is actually out of the left eye, thus the left Center Torso laser will be directly below you) and the other below and slightly to the right. The Ballistic and Missile hardpoints will be aiming to the below/left and below/right of the Torso crosshair.

What this does is removes the ability to pin-point all weaponry mounted on a mech (unless it is all in the arms) to hit a single location. Thus, placing a larger emphasis on arm mounted weaponry (with intact Shoulder actuators). While alpha strikes will still be around, they will not be the single location devastating that they are now, but instead be the wild firing of multiple systems to place as much damage on the target as fast as possible, not worrying about where on the mech it hits.

And with the greater emphasis on allowing convergence on arms only, players might start choosing to destroy an arm first before taking out the Left/Right Torso, especially on mechs which mount a large amount of weaponry on those arms.

Below is an example of what I am talking about:





TLDR

Remove ability to fire multiple weapons out of the same weapon port at the same time.
Add arm actuator functionality.
Make torso weaponry not converge, but instead fire straight ahead based on distance to selected target or longest range weapon.
All weapons fire straight ahead.

Even thought it is not shown above, regarding the arms, you can think of the torso suggestion as the same with arms. Draw a box around each arm, having the boundry around the arms to fit each weapon system attached and the middle of the arm itself.

Then, trace each weapon to hit the same location in a boxed diagram of each arm (as above for the torso, keeping weapons in their own relationship of each arm).

Lastly, then converge that box size to the target based on the distance to the target. Each weapon will land in that box, no matter the distance (but remember, that box grows/shrinks in size with distance) with the same relationship.

This removes all individual weapon convergence, then removes torso weapon convergence specifically, while maintaining the ability to point arms at specific locations.

The large torso convergence square is always centered on the Torso crosshair while both arms (with Shoulder actuators) with the small arm covergence squares will center on the Arm crosshair. The arm convergence squares can be different sizes (different shaped arms and mounted weaponry).

Edited by Zyllos, 12 March 2013 - 08:37 AM.

[Cyke]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 March 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

It doesn't replace skill with luck.

Many board games have RNG. And yet you need skill to win in any of those.

Most table top roleplaying games have RNG.

The skill is - among other things - accounting for the RNG when you make your decisions.

I respectfully disagree, Mustrum.

While an RNG-based mechanic can affect the flow of decisions made by players of what actions to take, the actual execution of the action is devalued by uncontrolled randomness of the RNG.

No matter how you try to compensate for an RNG, it can betray a player.. or benefit his enemy. In a worst-case scenario, it can do both of those things in the same engagement, turning the outcome of the engagement from a win to a loss.
Recall that in a game with non-regenerating durability (armor points), any such luck-based outcome will further cascade and can decide the outcome of an entire game. With community warfare, that could further cascade into even further-reaching effects.

I'm getting ahead of myself here, though.
The point is, even if we want to make pinpoint accuracy more difficult (or rather, concentrated pinpoint accuracy with multiple weapons fired simultaneously), it's best if we use a mechanic that raises difficulty, but has a consistent, predictable outcome, and therefore one that can be compensated for.
That's the reason why I find non-converging torso hardpoints interesting.

Edited by Cyke, 12 March 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[Zyllos]

Prezimonto, on 12 March 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

I would love to see fixed bore torso axes that sway with movement.

Better yet, I would love to have a slider to set my convergence arc at a fixed distance under the assumption that you'd calibrate the convergence point of fixed hardpoints in the mechlab/bay before you drop on a mission. Those angles should be reasonable and might have different distance minimums based on the tonnage of the weapons. So in the K2 the convergence point might be something near or in excess of 270m for the AC20 and gauss, however a small weapon like a med. pulse laser might allow for a convergence point in the sweet spot of it's firing range.

This would double up on skill allowing a good player to tweak his mech loadouts significantly. It would add depth to the game on both the actual game play and in the mech lab that is based on play style and not just "what configuration works best for everyone".

The problem with this suggestion is that, why not just calibrate all the weapons to converge to a single point?

[Prezimonto]

Zyllos, on 12 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

The problem with this suggestion is that, why not just calibrate all the weapons to converge to a single point?

I don't have a problem with that if it's at a fixed range and on that you can set. That implies a level of skill in piloting and positioning your mech for optimal alpha strikes that currently doesn't exist, but preserves the possibility of a good pilot and/or excellent situation to still provide that kind of damage.

Additionally, it would allow a player who's not boating to tune multiple hardpoints for different layers of convergences, which is also potentially useful.

[Cyke]

Prezimonto, on 12 March 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

I would love to see fixed bore torso axes that sway with movement.

Better yet, I would love to have a slider to set my convergence arc at a fixed distance under the assumption that you'd calibrate the convergence point of fixed hardpoints in the mechlab/bay before you drop on a mission.

Now this is really interesting.

It's actually something that's been a real consideration on the weapon mountings on WW2 fighter aircraft, where ground attack aircraft and dogfighters had different concepts behind where their guns were fixed to converge on.

Personally I think I'd probably set a pretty long ranged convergence point (or even just parallel), and use careful crosshair positioning while chain-firing to compensate. Other players may simply prefer to set the convergence to the optimal range of their weapons, and keep their fights at that range where possible.


Due to the complexity, I can't say I'm 100% behind the idea of MechLab-configurable gun-mount convergence. But It'll certainly add a lot of depth to the game, I'll give you that.

Edited by Cyke, 12 March 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Many board games have RNG. And yet you need skill to win in any of those.

I didn't say you didn't still need skill to win a game with RNG. What I said was that RNG replaces skill with luck. If you add RNG to MWO you make it require less skill than it would require without RNG.

For example, if you had to roll 8+ on 2d6 in chess to capture pieces... it would be inherently less skillful than just automatically being able to capture pieces. RNG would only hurt players with good aim and help players with bad aim.

The ideal solution to the pinpoint accuracy imbalance is one that does not involve compromising the skill level of the game.

Edited by Khobai, 12 March 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Roland]

If you even mention the word "random" you will never have a meaningful conversation about this topic.

[Cyke]

Zyllos, on 12 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

The problem with this suggestion is that, why not just calibrate all the weapons to converge to a single point?

That's not geometrically possible.

You can only fix your weapons to converge on a single point at a particular range. But then they'd only make focused concentrated hits at that range. Beyond that, the beams/bullets would actually cross each other and start to spread out again. The trick is keeping your target at your weapon-mountings' precise convergence distance to concentrate group-fired shots; enemies have a tendency to behave uncooperatively in this regard.

There's also an interesting meta-game development we'd see.. if you recognize a player's name, and you've previously spectated him and carefully watched to figure out the torso mounting convergence range he uses on one of his 'Mechs, if you face him again while he's piloting the same 'Mech you could actually take advantage of this knowledge to avoid that range.


Incidentally, relating back to the original post, the system we have right now actually automatically sets your convergence range of all your weapons (arm, torso, whatever) to the distance of the crosshair's built-in rangefinder. Torso weapons actually magically fire off-axis right now at variable angles depending on the range of the object under the crosshair.

[Zyllos]

Cyke, on 12 March 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

That's not geometrically possible.

You can only fix your weapons to converge on a single point at a particular range. But then they'd only make focused concentrated hits at that range. Beyond that, the beams/bullets would actually cross each other and start to spread out again. The trick is keeping your target at your weapon-mountings' precise convergence distance to concentrate group-fired shots; enemies have a tendency to behave uncooperatively in this regard.

There's also an interesting meta-game development we'd see.. if you recognize a player's name, and you've previously spectated him and carefully watched to figure out the torso mounting convergence range he uses on one of his 'Mechs, if you face him again while he's piloting the same 'Mech you could actually take advantage of this knowledge to avoid that range.


Incidentally, relating back to the original post, the system we have right now actually automatically sets your convergence range of all your weapons (arm, torso, whatever) to the distance of the crosshair's built-in rangefinder. Torso weapons actually magically fire off-axis right now at variable angles depending on the range of the object under the crosshair.

Yes, but I was attempting to remove all ability to set or converge any amount of weaponry onto a single point in all situations. My above suggestion will remove any ability for someone to get that pin-point strike.

Unless, of course, the weapons are mounted closely together. Then that is an advantage of the mech design.

Edited by Zyllos, 12 March 2013 - 09:01 AM.

[Prezimonto]

I would argue that's an over correction/simplification of what's possible. As Cyke noted, the idea of fixed convergence arcs is actually an old one, and it would make no sense to ignore what's essentially a basic physics problem in fixed weapons mounts on giant stampy robots. Right now we're assuming a nearly magical ability to auto-converge even fixed mounts on the fly, which is also weird in my head given other in-game restrictions related to targeting and zoom.

[Zyllos]

Prezimonto, on 12 March 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

I would argue that's an over correction/simplification of what's possible. As Cyke noted, the idea of fixed convergence arcs is actually an old one, and it would make no sense to ignore what's essentially a basic physics problem in fixed weapons mounts on giant stampy robots. Right now we're assuming a nearly magical ability to auto-converge even fixed mounts on the fly, which is also weird in my head given other in-game restrictions related to targeting and zoom.

Ok...

I think we are on the same page...maybe...

But the point I was getting at was to never give an opportunity to converge your weaponry onto a single point where Cyke's suggestion allows for someone to converge weaponry into a single point at some fixed distance.

[Khobai]

Quote

Right now we're assuming a nearly magical ability to auto-converge even fixed mounts on the fly, which is also weird in my head given other in-game restrictions related to targeting and zoom.

Uh we have nose mounted turrets in today's aircraft that shoot lasers... so it stands to reason that torso mounted turrets could exist in 3050. I see no problem with torso mounted weapons converging.

The problem is not convergence IMO. The problem is that armor values were not properly increased to account for convergence.

[Zyllos]

Khobai, on 12 March 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Uh we have nose mounted turrets in today's aircraft that shoot lasers... so it stands to reason that torso mounted turrets could exist in 3050. I see no problem with torso mounted weapons converging.

The problem is not convergence IMO. The problem is that armor values were not properly increased to account for convergence.

What do you want? Quadrupled armor values? And it still wouldn't change the fact that people will still only aim for torsos. Actually, they would only ever fire at torsos if armor keeps going up.

No amount of armor increasing will fix this issue.

[Karl Streiger]

Zyllos, on 12 March 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

But the point I was getting at was to never give an opportunity to converge your weaponry onto a single point where Cyke's suggestion allows for someone to converge weaponry into a single point at some fixed distance.

There are minor myomers that direct the weapons in fixed mounts. Even the arm mounted weapons have minor "muscles" to aim the weapon. So convergence could be possible.
To hit the same zone is even in tabletop possible - not only for luck but for the Targeting Computer.

Actual we have two technologies that are not yet implemented for nothing.
first is sharing target information -> C3
the other is this pinpoint accurarcy -> targeting computer.. ..well the 6 shooter Stalker should be able to achieve its pinpoint fire as it is actual...but even with clan tech you have to mount the 8 ton and 8 critical targeting computer.

[Adridos]

Karl Streiger, on 12 March 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

the other is this pinpoint accurarcy -> targeting computer.. ..well the 6 shooter Stalker should be able to achieve its pinpoint fire as it is actual...but even with clan tech you have to mount the 8 ton and 8 critical targeting computer.

Have you ever set convergence for objects in the distance by vertical movement of the weapons? Because Stalker can't move them horizontally and let's face it, not even the best computer on the world can't do impossible.

Besides, mechs with arms are considered useless by many, since they have the lower arm accutator preventing them from mounting AC/20 just for having valuable weapons in easier to shoot off places. Thus this would also mean they get their deserved buff.

Edited by Adridos, 12 March 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Eliminating convergence would mostly just accomplish a slight change in the meta.

Weapon spread would be a nerf to non-missile weapons.

[Cyke]

Khobai, on 12 March 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Uh we have nose mounted turrets in today's aircraft that shoot lasers... so it stands to reason that torso mounted turrets could exist in 3050. I see no problem with torso mounted weapons converging.

Well, if we go all the way with that, we might as well just decouple torso-mounted weapons from the central crosshair and allow MW3-style full frontal arc for torso weapons. The Boeing YAL-1 airborne laser testbed had a very wide engagement arc.
Zyllos pretty much covered the fact that armor multiplication factor (currently 2), no matter how high, isn't going to address this.

Karl Streiger, on 12 March 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

There are minor myomers that direct the weapons in fixed mounts. Even the arm mounted weapons have minor "muscles" to aim the weapon. So convergence could be possible.

To hit the same zone is even in tabletop possible - not only for luck but for the Targeting Computer.

You'd need those minor myomers to move a 14 to 15 ton weapon that's very clearly visible to be static in the 'Mech model.


Anyway, realism is not a major point of contention.
Basically the goal is to require increased forethought to concentrate damage, especially for heavy Alpha strikes from "boat" designs. This is all about raising the bar for difficulty in getting all your shots onto a pinpoint target (the words "pinpoint target" interchangeable with "single body part location"). By no means will this be impossible, it'll just be more difficult. I expect that if these concepts were implemented, before long, people will still be adjusting aim while chain-firing (or moving to maintain MechLab-configured convergence range) to concentrate damage on the target body part of their choice. It'll just need players to pay more attention and give more thought to accomplishing the feat. Or, conversely, separating amazing players from average ones.

We have the purely added bonuses of increased tactical decision-making (slowing or stopping your 'Mech before firing firing to eliminate the cyclic movement from a 'Mech's gait pattern), and increased depth in 'Mech construction and valuation (arms with full actuators still have dynamic on-the-fly convergence).

Edited by Cyke, 12 March 2013 - 11:13 AM.