1126 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:

The Devil has his uses in carefully measured & small partitions. It's when you embrace the Devil that things go wrong.

You got it all wrong. Embracing is good. Carefully measured use only leads to possession. I'm taking about the Devil, of course.

As for CoF, that's what requires "carefully measured & small partitions".

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:

All banter aside, I'm thinking about your idealized CoF - and how big a cone are you talking here?

Cause, to my mind, you're saying it's fine as long as the CoF is kept very small.
I'm not seeing, at that point, how it'd function better than giving weapons separated points of aim while still retaining precision and accuracy - like you might as well just go with this latter idea.

Would it be possible for you to take a couple screenshots, one for "stationary", "on the move", "close up", "at range", or whatnot, and just paint in with MSpaint or something how you think the aiming reticule should look, so I can get a better idea of what you're saying?

Cause the worst case scenario for me is that it looks exactly like something out of World of Tanks...while the "best" possible scenario to my mind (if we're talking CoF) would look rather like a center dot that's been enlarged to a still pretty tiny circle, just large enough that shots at a distance would vary a little.

There's a problem here too, though, that just occured to me: how the heck would CoF work if you've got a Gauss Rifle, an SRM6, a Large Pulse Laser, and an array of SPL/Machine guns?
I mean, if you use a unified, one-CoF-for-all-weapons scheme, seems to me that would just indirectly buff shortrange weaponry, since it'd still effectively be pin-point while combat at range would be hindered. Since shortrange weapons in large numbers is already quite advantageous compared to heavier-tonnage, long-range weapons, I don't think that kinda help is necessary.

It's not idealized. You can actually deduce what I am thinking from here, preliminary numbers and all.

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:

I think at that point it'd be easier to just go with the perfect-accuracy, separated-convergence train of thought.

As I have mentioned previously, I am actually here for a convergence solution. But these "RNG is the Devil Incarnate" folks compels me to talk about CoF. Compels. Got it? <maniacal >

[Zordicron]

20 pages later and it's the same silly debates.

Convergence is IRRELEVANT if people can not fire a 60 point laser alpha in .6 seconds.

Lower the heat cap. Increase dissipation. Put it on test.

Low cap/high dissipation will allow DPS loadouts to compete directly or surpass Alphagank loadouts. Skill threshold increased, now you need to hit the same location with multiple shots to quickly destroy an enemy.

[Mystere]

Ragtag soldier, on 12 April 2015 - 07:53 PM, said:

....is there some reason why "degrading convergence" means "cone of fire" for you kids? there's more than one way to handle this problem.

Well, you are right. Some want a CoF solution. Some want a change to convergence. And some are open to both.

Unfortunately, there are also some who want to muddy the waters.

[wolf74]

If you have a MANUAL Control over the Convergence Point, It would give the Effect of a Cone of Fire with NO Random Elements Needed. Than those Long Range shot will truly be player skill not just the fastest Mouse on the plant. Also with a Manual Convergence Deeper game elements can be added to the game.

some minor ones
LRM that can be Lob over the a hill (no Targeting lock need, indirect Fire)
Targeting Computer make it a bit easier to hit targets
Pulse Laser that Make it a bit easier to it targets

There are many ways they could do this too. Here are the three I think are most Feasible
1. Single Dynamic all weapons Group follow the set range
2. Each Group could a fix set range in Mechlab not change in the field
3. Each Group has Dynamic Range that can be change

see my earlier post
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4351655

[tangles 253]

drop convergence as it stands??? really?

no, in short. not in my opinion, thats too bigger of a change and makes no sense to me. especially for the new player.
Its fine as it stands, no change needed.

high damage pinpoint alphas would be better combated by lowering the shutdown heat threshold and upping the heat dissipation, as stated earlier and numerous times before, for longer i think.. could be wrong.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 12 April 2015 - 08:46 PM, said:

As for CoF, that's what requires "carefully measured & small partitions".

Exactly how I feel about game balance! lol

Quote

It's not idealized. You can actually deduce what I am thinking from here, preliminary numbers and all.

I didn't take statistics and I'm too lazy to google wikipedia pages about it.
I want some pretty pictures instead!

Quote

As I have mentioned previously, I am actually here for a convergence solution. But these "RNG is the Devil Incarnate" folks compels me to talk about CoF. Compels. Got it? <maniacal >

I blame Wargaming.

[Dino Might]

Telmasa, on 13 April 2015 - 01:25 AM, said:

I didn't take statistics and I'm too lazy to google wikipedia pages about it.

You've highlighted my exact problem with those 'RNG is the devil,' folks. Too many who are too lazy to learn what they are arguing against. Instead, they make up preposterous examples, either with extreme cases that nobody would recommend, or with blatantly false mechanics that are not representative of the systems proposed, and then they use those examples as their 'evidence.'

[Kuritaclan]

Dino Might, on 13 April 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

You've highlighted my exact problem with those 'RNG is the devil,' folks. Too many who are too lazy to learn what they are arguing against. Instead, they make up preposterous examples, either with extreme cases that nobody would recommend, or with blatantly false mechanics that are not representative of the systems proposed, and then they use those examples as their 'evidence.'

Well you do not need statistical evidence, when all that is said about is true. There is only one argument the stays true if convergency get changed - you forcing all people to go for the torso, instead of crippeling specific parts of mechs. And that is a decrease in skillfull play.

And when i read something like this:

Mystere, on 12 April 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

Well, you are right. Some want a CoF solution. Some want a change to convergence. And some are open to both.

Unfortunately, there are also some who want to muddy the waters.

or the topic title:

Quote

Do The Majority Of Players Want To Get Rid Of Convergence?

I knowe for sure the majority of those who wanna have a change are in this thread, but those are a little minority. Who enumerate possible changes and don't include the "no change need" option is clearly not someone i wanna trust to do the best solution, since he by himself exclude all solutions, what is not the way you solve problems. Why you ask. Because maybee the problem is on a other end of the game to search, in first place.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 05:04 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

Why can't there just be a Weapons Link piece of Equipment that links weapons?

Maybe even make it so it can only link adjacent weapons forcing weapons groups and limiting alpha potential.

Seems far more simple than any other idea, and they cost .5 tons, and they can be crit'd causing the link to break and forcing that weapon group into single fire mode.

If you think hard on the implications of this idea, then you will see it solves a lot of problems.

1.) More Slots taken up.
2.) More Weight added to design
3.) Less Alpha damage
4.) Require multiple groups to be fired independently
5.) Can break

That's all I can think of right now.

Additional rules could be put in place to require more links to span the width of the mech (like linking two arm lasers would require a link in each torso and one in the center torso - that's 1.5 tons, and if one is shot out, the entire link fails).

Remove the ability to link non-synchronistic weapon systems or cause a delay of 1/4 of a second between different systems to fascilitate the switches required to fire the two weapons systems.

I never understood why we didn't have something like this; it would increase the time to kill in so many ways and bring certain alpha designs down to normal levels.

[Kuritaclan]

Aphoticus, on 13 April 2015 - 05:18 AM, said:

Why can't there just be a Weapons Link piece of Equipment that links weapons?

Maybe even make it so it can only link adjacent weapons forcing weapons groups and limiting alpha potential.

Seems far more simple than any other idea, and they cost .5 tons, and they can be crit'd causing the link to break and forcing that weapon group into single fire mode.

Because what you suggest is allready in the game, loock at your hardpoints of the cockpit: "Life support", "Cockpit" and "Sensors" - those are internals with weight, and provide you a general maintain of your mech in combat including your general aiming systems. In advance you can equip better aiming systems like TCs and so on or other sensors. Anyway.

[[ Edit: Yet the homepage says: "BattleMechs have various weapon systems that include energy (lasers/flamers/particle projectiles), ballistic (autocannons, machine guns, Gauss), missile (long range missiles, short range missiles, streak short range missiles) and a variety of electronic monitoring/targeting systems. In conjuction with all of this, a BattleMech utilizes a series of heat sinks to help dissipate the large amounts of heat all of these weapons and electronics generate." (http://mwomercs.com/game)]]

And to stay with the lore lovers, there is no such equip, that actually work the way you suppose. It would be a PGI creation, to make somthing what is generally proivided anyway.

Also it has the chance to break stock versions of mech, which have all critical slots occupied, but should need this special item so that their weapons will allow them to converge. (For example: BNC-3S Stock)

I appreciate your effort, but it would be very tricky to implent and rather could break something you may not have thought about yet, like my example for the stock mechs.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 06:48 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Alpha Striking is not a problem by itself.

Pinpoint precision is not a problem by itself.

But the two together ARE a problem, both as far as the BattleTech universe AND good game play are concerned.

Those that want to do nothing either want to ignore that this was supposed to be a sim, or are too dependent on the crutch of multiple weapons magically converging with impossible (for BT 3050 tech) precision to have to aim every shot.

[Kuritaclan]

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

Alpha Striking is not a problem by itself.

Pinpoint precision is not a problem by itself.

But the two together ARE a problem, both as far as the BattleTech universe AND good game play are concerned.

Some think, this is a problem - while there are others who think it is not or at least it is highly situational.

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

Those that want to do nothing either want to ignore that this was supposed to be a sim, or are too dependent on the crutch of multiple weapons magically converging with impossible (for BT 3050 tech) precision to have to aim every shot.

Really another round how the tech "work" in a fictional future debatte.

Just for curiosity - if you refer to: "A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3050 AD. As a pilot known as a "MechWarrior", you are about to take control of the most powerful mechanical battle units the universe has ever seen." This statement does not tell the gamer, what the creators mean with the word simulation, since it does not go deep to explain the sim part. Simulation can mean in games many things: http://en.wikipedia....tion_video_game - while yes there is a description like: "Certain tactical shooters with higher degrees of realism than other shooters. Sometimes called "soldier sims", these games try to simulate the feeling of actually being in combat." in the wiki arcticle, it does not say it refers to it in mwo. The sim part of mwo could also be meant like the community warfare and the part of R&R. At the begining MWO would simulated a full economic to sustain your mechs as a lonewolf/unit in a univers. That was also a claim of MWO. However if this part was the thing simulation refered to we do not see much of it yet.

If sim means: "A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3050 AD" is refered to tactical sim with: "MechWarrior Online puts MechWarriors into team-based and tactical battlefield where the victors swim in the spoils of war and are rewarded with the almighty C-Bill (in-game currency). [economy sim]

Each team has up to 12 players and the two teams are pitted in combat in an enclosed battlefield. Communication is key, be it in-game chat, integrated C3, or a third party VOIP solution, keeping in constant communication with your teammates will drastically increase your team’s chances of success.
The various weight classes of BattleMechs help create their own evolving roles on the battlefield. Fast moving scouts can feed target and tactical information back to the main battle group and the team commander. This information allows the support and assault role pilots to decide where to put their resources to work. Long-range fire support and heavy hitting assault class Mechs will use this invaluable information to finish the job at hand. [tactical sim]

It is up to you, the pilot, to customize your BattleMech’s loadout and electronic systems to fulfill the role you want to take. [construction sim]" (http://mwomercs.com/game) - The simulation does not refere actually on the shooter part itself but to the part to be a groupe and use mechs to achive a goal in a simulation of tactical moves ("3-5mechs are a lance/star - 12mech are a company/trinarystar" is the keyword).

Anyway. PGI has a long road to go with its "SIM".

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 06:57 AM.

[Poisoner]

Every other mechwarrior game has had one crosshair with instant convergence. Why should this game be any different?

[Hotthedd]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Some think, this is a problem - while there are others who think it is not or at least it is highly situational.

Sure there are those who do not think it is a problem. Those are the ones who need the crutch of only aiming one time for multiple weapons to hit one section. It is easy mode. I do not deny that there exists a large pool of players who like arcade-style shooters. However, this is not what MW:O was sold to be.

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Really another round how the tech &quot;work&quot; in a fictional future debatte.

Just for curiosity - if you refer to: &quot;A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3050 AD. As a pilot known as a &quot;MechWarrior&quot;, you are about to take control of the most powerful mechanical battle units the universe has ever seen.&quot; This statement does not tell the gamer, what the creators mean with the word simulation, since it does not go deep to explain the sim part. Simulation can mean in games many things: http://en.wikipedia....tion_video_game - while yes there is a description like: &quot;Certain tactical shooters with higher degrees of realism than other shooters. Sometimes called &quot;soldier sims&quot;, these games try to simulate the feeling of actually being in combat.&quot; in the wiki arcticle, it does not say it refers to it in mwo. The sim part of mwo could also be meant like the community warfare and the part of R&amp;R. At the begining MWO would simulated a full economic to sustain your mechs as a lonewolf/unit in a univers. That was also a claim of MWO. However if this part was the thing simulation refered to we do not see much of it yet.

Yes, really another round of how tech should work in the lore of the fictional future universe IN WHICH THIS GAME IS SET.

I, and I would assume many of the players who bought into MW:O originally, believe that IGP/PGI referred to "sim" as a simulation of piloting a BattleMech, due to the billing as "a thinking man's shooter". If IGP/PGI meant "sim" to ONLY refer to a simulated economy, or a simulated war, they A) started out on the wrong part of the game, and/or flat out lied, as you pointed out we still do not really have that in the game.

Poisoner, on 13 April 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

Every other mechwarrior game has had one crosshair with instant convergence. Why should this game be any different?

An appeal to tradition is NOT a logical argument.

But, I'll bite.

Every other MechWarrior game was built as a PvE game.
Every other MechWarrior game was limited by the computers of the day.

[KraftySOT]

You guys have to realize, even if this was 44 pages of everyone agreeing with each other. They havent read it, you cant tweet an idea this complex, its not going to be implemented, this is an action game not a sim, and PGI simply isnt ready, or willing, to advance the franchise.

They didnt lease this IP, to revolutionize it. They leased it to produce a minimally viable product from a bygone franchise, and raise it from the dead.

Complex mechanics will never, ever, be a part of the game. As much as they should be, regardless of the naysayers and blabbermouths in this thread.

[Kuritaclan]

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 06:58 AM, said:

Sure there are those who do not think it is a problem. Those are the ones who need the crutch of only aiming one time for multiple weapons to hit one section. It is easy mode. I do not deny that there exists a large pool of players who like arcade-style shooters. However, this is not what MW:O was sold to be.

This statements is untrue, as long as you have diffrent weapon systems to use, with diffrent mechanics. It is however true if you have mechs equipd with boating weaponsystems for example ac's or lasers - however the creators of battlemechs have come up with variants of mechs, that are in first place boating plattforms, - so it is not a fault of the game that you can choose your ominpods to indirectly manipulate your hardpoints to a specific boating configuration. Also if in first place mechs where thought as weaponplattforms what boat for example lasers, than it would be a really dumb idea, that those mechs could not use their weapons in full alpha mode with a full convegency to score the win over the other pilot!

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 06:58 AM, said:

Yes, really another round of how tech should work in the lore of the fictional future universe IN WHICH THIS GAME IS SET.

Well i do not, since everything is highly up to interpretation and there are to much diffrent interpretations, to say: "it is common that ..."

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 06:58 AM, said:

I, and I would assume many of the players who bought into MW:O originally, believe that IGP/PGI referred to "sim" as a simulation of piloting a BattleMech, due to the billing as "a thinking man's shooter". If IGP/PGI meant "sim" to ONLY refer to a simulated economy, or a simulated war, they A) started out on the wrong part of the game, and/or flat out lied, as you pointed out we still do not really have that in the game.

Yeah unfortunately IGP/PGI didn't told it in a specific way - so we are up to guess, how it could be meant. But anyway i am certain sim means what IGP/PGI/the developer think it should mean, but not what random player like you or me think it could stand for. xD So if you and or others claim it means "this specific interpretation", than this is with certainty not true, because we do not know at all.

The idea: of a " billing as "a thinking man's shooter"" is done by the developers, since the tactical part of group managment is in the game. - But i guess you do not see it that way. And is more a rudimentary implementation, since the maps do not support exercising tactical moves in deep szenario with command structures.

KraftySOT, on 13 April 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:

You guys have to realize, even if this was 44 pages of everyone agreeing with each other. They havent read it, you cant tweet an idea this complex, its not going to be implemented, this is an action game not a sim, and PGI simply isnt ready, or willing, to advance the franchise.

They didnt lease this IP, to revolutionize it. They leased it to produce a minimally viable product from a bygone franchise, and raise it from the dead.

Complex mechanics will never, ever, be a part of the game. As much as they should be, regardless of the naysayers and blabbermouths in this thread.

shots fired - i agree.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

This statements is untrue, as long as you have diffrent weapon systems to use, with diffrent mechanics. It is however true if you have mechs equipd with boating weaponsystems for example ac's or lasers - however the creators of battlemechs have come up with variants of mechs, that are in first place boating plattforms, - so it is not a fault of the game that you can choose your ominpods to indirectly manipulate your hardpoints to a specific boating configuration.

Actually, it is EXACTLY the developers' decisions that have made boating the best (most effective)choice.

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Also if in first place mechs where thought as weaponplattforms what boat for example lasers, than it would be a really dumb idea, that those mechs could not use their weapons in full alpha mode with a full convegency to score the win over the other pilot!

This statement is the one that gets me. I do not know how versed you are in the lore, how much you are INTO the BattleTech universe or just into FPS games.
But one trigger pull firing multiple weapons that all hit the same component simply IS NOT part of the BT universe.

Now if this game mechanic is set in stone, PGI should rename all of the "mechs, not even CALL them 'mechs, create their own universe, and save a lot of overhead by not having to lease the BT rights.
Of course, they would immediately lose their core player base, and eventually lose everyone else, because they do not have the resources to compete with the big boys.

[Khobai]

Quote

Actually, it is EXACTLY the developers' decisions that have made boating the best (most effective)choice.

Yep

1) weapon modules reward boating multiple of the same weapon
2) quirks reward boating multiple of the same weapon
3) ghost heat barely punishes the most boated weapons (CERML has a ridiculous ghost heat limit of 6!)


quirks should really only reward you for running the stock loadout of a mech. a stalker shouldnt get rewarded for running 6 LLs. No canon stalker has 6 LLs. quirks should exist to compensate suboptimal stock loadouts... they should not make optimal meta loadouts even better.

ghost heat limit on CERML should also temporarily be reduced to 4 until a solution can be implemented that allows ghost heat to be removed entirely. CERML is by far one of the strongest and most abused weapons in the game which is why nearly every clan mech spams them (7 damage for 1 ton with decent range is completely unbalanced).

Edited by Khobai, 13 April 2015 - 08:08 AM.

[Dino Might]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Some think, this is a problem - while there are others who think it is not or at least it is highly situational.


Really another round how the tech "work" in a fictional future debatte.

Just for curiosity - if you refer to: "A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3050 AD. As a pilot known as a "MechWarrior", you are about to take control of the most powerful mechanical battle units the universe has ever seen." This statement does not tell the gamer, what the creators mean with the word simulation, since it does not go deep to explain the sim part. Simulation can mean in games many things: http://en.wikipedia....tion_video_game - while yes there is a description like: "Certain tactical shooters with higher degrees of realism than other shooters. Sometimes called "soldier sims", these games try to simulate the feeling of actually being in combat." in the wiki arcticle, it does not say it refers to it in mwo. The sim part of mwo could also be meant like the community warfare and the part of R&R. At the begining MWO would simulated a full economic to sustain your mechs as a lonewolf/unit in a univers. That was also a claim of MWO. However if this part was the thing simulation refered to we do not see much of it yet.

If sim means: "A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3050 AD" is refered to tactical sim with: "MechWarrior Online puts MechWarriors into team-based and tactical battlefield where the victors swim in the spoils of war and are rewarded with the almighty C-Bill (in-game currency). [economy sim]

Each team has up to 12 players and the two teams are pitted in combat in an enclosed battlefield. Communication is key, be it in-game chat, integrated C3, or a third party VOIP solution, keeping in constant communication with your teammates will drastically increase your team’s chances of success.
The various weight classes of BattleMechs help create their own evolving roles on the battlefield. Fast moving scouts can feed target and tactical information back to the main battle group and the team commander. This information allows the support and assault role pilots to decide where to put their resources to work. Long-range fire support and heavy hitting assault class Mechs will use this invaluable information to finish the job at hand. [tactical sim]

It is up to you, the pilot, to customize your BattleMech’s loadout and electronic systems to fulfill the role you want to take. [construction sim]" (http://mwomercs.com/game) - The simulation does not refere actually on the shooter part itself but to the part to be a groupe and use mechs to achive a goal in a simulation of tactical moves ("3-5mechs are a lance/star - 12mech are a company/trinarystar" is the keyword).

Anyway. PGI has a long road to go with its "SIM".

So, let me get this straight. You are arguing that this is not a sim, and to fix this, we should not allow any changes that would make it more like a sim?

[Ragtag soldier]

Dino Might, on 13 April 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

So, let me get this straight. You are arguing that this is not a sim, and to fix this, we should not allow any changes that would make it more like a sim?

no, he's arguing that he likes the current laser pinpoint situation and is willing to puke up textwalls to make it look like there's an argument against changing it. nothing he said actually leads to a conclusion, it's just there to confuse you.