1126 replies to this topic

[Kuritaclan]

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

Quote

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.

Acutally it is because of whiners, who doomed on weapon system, which the developers react to and nerf it, and then the playerbase gravitate to the second best, till this gets nerfed. - And to be honest to use in a FPS game like this diffrent type of weapon system you just need the convergance, or it will crawl down to the point, that you do not even can use diffrent weapon systems, because no convergance+diffrent timings caused by velocity and such weapon specifics will make the game so difficult that maintaining diffrent weapongroups is to hard - so the boaters will win the race, not to mention that the outcome of such a change would favor certain chassis over others and make a couple of chassis absolutly undesireable to play with, like the grasshopper for example. A HBK 4P with 6 Lasers in the uper side Torso, that converge by nature of hardpointlocation would be outstanding to for example a grasshoper, who has his laser hardpoints loacted all over his parts, and non of them will be easy to aim with/you will aim with every hardpoint and therefore you lose time, while MR. TDR 9SE with 3 LPLs in the Maintorso will aim only once and burn out whatever he aims for!

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

Quote

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.

I'm into it, but not that deep - but sure deep enough that i have books like this:
(Link was broken - to look up the book cover you can see it here: https://www.google.d...iw=1920&bih=932)

Quote

"Feuerleitcomputer - Zusätzlich zu den verschiedenen spezialisieren Zielsuchsystemen, die für Raketenkafetten zur Vefügung stehen (Artemis IV,NARC,Blitz), haben die Clans hochmoderne Feuerleitsysteme entwickelt. Für diese Zielhilfen gab es in der Freien Inneren Späre lage Zeit kein Pendant. Sie erhöhen die Zielsicherheit der folgenden Direkfeuerwaffen: Laser, PPKs, Gaussgeschütze und Autokanonen. Dieser fortschrittliche Zielcomputer stand lange Zeit nur den Clans zur Verfügung, aber den Wissenschaflern am NAIW in den Vereinigten Sonnen ist in jüngster Zeit die Entwicklung einer eigneen Version dieses Geräts gelungen, das den Clan-Systemen - abgesehen von höherem Gewicht und Platzverbrauch - in nichts nachsteht."

English: "fire control - In addition to the various specialized aiming/homing/guidance systems to the customers' disposal for rocketlaunchers (Artemis IV, NARC, flash), the clans have developed cutting edge fire control systems. For this aiming/targeting assistant in the Inner Sphere existed no counterpart. They increase the accuracy/security objective of the following direct-weapons: Laser, PPCs, Gauss and ACs. This advanced target computer was for a long time only for the clans available, but the scientist on NAIW in the Federated Suns has recently developing a own version of this unit, which does not be set behind the clan version - beside from higher weight and space requirements"

Just to make it clear "Pendant" steht für Gegenstück oder Entsprechung, schließt aber nicht etwas weniger fortschrittliches aus! To be clear about it. Pendant is Coutnerpart, but it does not exclude fire controlls - however they might not be so advanced.

Also do you ever heared of the Kampfschütze (english: Rifleman)

Quote

2505 - Kallon Industries beginnt mit der Produktion des Kampfschützen. Dessen frühe Versionen tragen noch mittelschwere Laser anstatt des Paares mittelschwerer Autokanonen (in jedem Arm eine) und eine entsprechende Anzahl Wärmetauscher. Spätere Produktionsreihen wurden dann auf die Imperator-A-Autokanonen umgestellt, um das Langstreckenpotential und die durch das fortschrittliche Garret-2J-Zielerfassungssystem - in den Nachfolgerstaaten bis ins Jahr 3040 das beste System seiner Art - gewährleisteten Flak-Eigenschaften des Mechs noch weiter zu verbessern. Trotz seiner geringen Panzerung und seiner unzureichenden Hitzeableitung stellt der Kampfschütze den im Verhältnis zu seinem Gewicht am schwersten bewaffneten Mech der 3025 als <Standard< bezeichneten Modelle dar.

2505 - Kolon Industries begins the production of Rifleman. Earlier versions still wear medium laser instead of the pair medium autocannon (in each arm one) and a corresponding number of heatsinks. Later production series were then refitted to the Imperator-A-autocannons, to support the long-range potential and to add up on the advanced Garret 2J target system (in the successor states the best system of its kind) an Improvment to the outstanding Flak properties of the mechs even further. Despite its small armor and its insufficient heat dissipation, the Rifleman is the most heavily armed Mech in relation to its weight[class] of 3025, referred to as 'standard' models.

In other words - there are many targeting/aiming/guidance system in IS as on clan side. On the is side not that good like the clan versions, but good enough to use them for a flak purpose

For the rifleman the forthinking was the german http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Wirbelwind - Compareable on the state of the past what than goes into a BT Universe future is the german http://en.wikipedia....akpanzer_Gepard - to hit something with a Autocannon-Flak a Targeting/Aiming/Guidiance System is fundamental.

So stop trolling,fooling and on the lowest end bullshiting us about this fictional future.

Also it needs a PVP adaption in this game. You can not meassure with two weights if you wanna have nearly equal viable mechs, so you have to provide for a balanced game a fully equal aimingsystem - so the wish for better and worse "aiming assistant systems" is out of order.

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

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.

Whatever you say....

Edit to awnser this question and don't making a new post about:

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?

I arguing that
1st - lore and tt fetishists arn't right about targeting/aiming/guidiance system what provide convergance
2nd - making fixed convergancy will unbalance the complete chassis
3rd - have autoconvergance is no problem what needs to be fixed
4th - those who think it is not simulation of battle enough, maybee had some wired thoughts, that simulation would stand for the battle simulation. However simulation in mwo could also possible refer to other video game typ simulations, since PGI/IGP/the developers did not say what is speficaly simulation.

Ragtag soldier, on 13 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

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.

With all forbearance - I'm not the one who want the change. There is for now no problem with convergance that needs a change! Nor is there any fundamental lore based claim that it needs to be changed! The problem is coming out of another corner of the game. So yes i'm against it. The wall of text, is needed to provid shortthinkers like you the informations needed to make a fact based choice.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[Mystere]

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?

It's called progress, or updating games for the 21st Century. Otherwise, it's like saying why are movies in color when they were originally in black and white.

Here's a question for you. Why does MWO not properly support joysticks? Mechwarrior 2/3/4 all supported them just fine and worked better than K/M.

[Mystere]

tangles 253, on 13 April 2015 - 12:22 AM, said:

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.

Many who have been here since closed beta prefer the old delayed convergence we used to have. But, that was removed due to technical reasons that PGI could not solve.

And so, as an alternative, some are proposing fixed or zero convergence (for torso weapons anyway).

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 04:59 AM, said:

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.

Not quite. With fixed convergence, skilled players will seek to put their targets at the convergence sweet spot or close to it. Proper use of ranging will be even more important. As such, it can be argued that more skill will be required to hit the target component with more than one weapon.


(grammar fixes)

Edited by Mystere, 13 April 2015 - 12:46 PM.

[Mystere]

KraftySOT, on 13 April 2015 - 07:09 AM, said:

This thread has actually made me stop playing MWO altogether.

A thread discussing suggestions to raise the skill bar has made you stop playing? I don't even know how to react to that without being even slightly offensive.

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.

What you are describing is not the MWO that was sold to the founders.

Edited by Mystere, 13 April 2015 - 12:44 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 09:06 AM, said:

Quote

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.

Not quite. With fixed convergence, skilled players will seek to put their targets at the convergence sweet spot or close to it. Proper use of ranging will be even more important. As such, it can argued that more skill will be required to hit the target component with more than one weapon.

You should read my post #885 - what you want is out of order and proved wrong. - If you wanna have fixed mounted weapons like planes in ww2 had, go and play ww2-flight-games, which provide that type of aiming style. I have nothing more to say.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 09:14 AM.

[Ragtag soldier]

they sold the founders snakeoil, this was pretty much obvious when they were crowdfunding it. most people knew they had no way to deliver their proposal in short order, they just had a jones for more mechwarrior and hoped they're be able to convince russ to move towards what they preached as the game went on.

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

With all forbearance - I'm not the one who want the change. There is for now no problem with convergance that needs a change! Nor is there any fundamental lore based claim that it needs to be changed! The problem is coming out of another corner of the game. So yes i'm against it. The wall of text, is needed to provid shortthinkers like you the informations needed to make a fact based choice.

that's the most nonsensical jumble of words i've read in a long time. it belongs in a damn lewis carroll book, it's so ludicrious.

but at least you admit that you're here to **** up the discussion about the convergence problems. so thanks kuritaclan, for telling us that we should leave you out of the conversation.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

You should read my post #885 - what you want is out of order and proved wrong. - If you wanna have fixed mounted weapons like planes in ww2 had, go and play ww2-flight-games, which provide that type of aiming style. I have nothing more to say.

Did you mean this?

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

And to be honest to use in a FPS game like this diffrent type of weapon system you just need the convergance, or it will crawl down to the point, that you do not even can use diffrent weapon systems, because no convergance+diffrent timings caused by velocity and such weapon specifics will make the game so difficult that maintaining diffrent weapongroups is to hard

In other words, you do not like increasing the skill cap. Got it, loud and clear.

And by the way, you proved nothing.

[pbiggz]

Just to reiterate before that 1453 R guy started rambling and knocking my post back a few pages, weapons convergence and reticle bloom are ACCEPTED and COMMON game mechanics across MANY games, including some simulators and action simulators. And by the way, this game is SUPPOSED to be an ACTION SIMULATOR, which means a little bit of arcadiness, and a little bit of simulator play, all blended together to create a smooth gameplay experience.

That being said, if we go back to any of the mechwarrior games of the past, the SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE has always been high alpha pin point damage. Recall poptarting glad bags in mechwarrior 4 with 80+ point alpha strikes (you were a scumbag if you played those by the way). Do you know how you fix those? No not ghost heat, no not lowering the heat threshold.
The FIRST THING YOU DO is make sure accuracy comes with a price. If you want pinpoint accuracy you fire fewer weapons, if you want 80+ points of damage you fire many weapons, but dont expect to hit with pinpoint accuracy.

As I suggested before, a simple system where Weapons convergence (distance from the center of the reticle that your weapons can hit in) is calculated as # of weapons fired * weapons convergence modifiers (number between 0 and 1) all divided over 3 means that with a weapon that has 1 as a modifier (i.e. no weapons convergence mod) you will need to fire a minimum of 3 to begin incurring any notable convergence issues.

You could counteract this by giving certain weapons modifiers of less than 1, so that say, lasers, which were intended to be more accurate, can enjoy a little more reckless firing, and machine guns of course, will barely incur the convergence penalties at all.

You see, if you give this thought, the answers are quite clear, but if you pull a Kuritaclan or a 1453R and simply blindly cling to what you think you like without even considering that these systems would be OBJECTIVE improvements to the quality of the game, then you do nothing to contribute to the discussion, you just make people mad.

So kuritaclan, kindly **********, you're not helping yourself or anyone else with your stupid text walls.

[Almond Brown]

Max Liao, on 10 April 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

Not sure if you saw my response [here].

When World of Tanks (with CoF) simulates BattleMech combat than a BT/MW game, there's a problem .. and (for all of the whine and QQ) it has more active players.

And here is a Thread about a slight (6%) change to that RNG Aiming system, or Convergence. It was apparently not very well rec'd, nor would one be for MWO I suspect.

http://forum.worldof...uracy-feedback/

So WoT has one and even a slight change "****** up" the game play immensely, (gun and arty based fire) according to its players anyways.

[pbiggz]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

With all forbearance - I'm not the one who want the change. There is for now no problem with convergance that needs a change! Nor is there any fundamental lore based claim that it needs to be changed! The problem is coming out of another corner of the game. So yes i'm against it. The wall of text, is needed to provid shortthinkers like you the informations needed to make a fact based choice.

This is categorically false. You clearly never even played megamek, where there are AGRESSIVE weapons convergence penalties. Any canon excuses for weapons convergence all have their roots in the battletech TT rules, you know, the ACTUAL GAME WHICH EVERYTHING WE DO IS BASED ON. And you better believe the systems we propose here are better than whats in TT, because you would NOT like being able to only fire 1 medium laser at a time before incurring accuracy penalties. So shut up.

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 10 April 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

stuff

as for burst fire, when an auto-cannon fires bursts, you can still aim each of those bursts. its just harder to hit the same location with 4 rapid shots than 1 single shot. However you can still aim your shots, the skill cap required to do all the damage to one location is just increased.

Interesting. I have read many many posts who say their Clan Burst fire based AC's suck and yet you advocate that they become the the norm throughout MWO?

Would that not just make ALL AC's suck the same? The same and sucking the same are not always beneficial to game play...

Quote

The same exact way the CERPPC currently works. CT shots do 10 damage to the CT and 2.5 to each side torso.

stuff

From the FRONT, a shot on an ARM wastes 2.5 damage though. Can't spread outside the arm, only in. So again many advocate that the CerPPC is a bad weapon based on that probability being a reality.

[Dino Might]

Almond Brown, on 13 April 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

And here is a Thread about a slight (6%) change to that RNG Aiming system, or Convergence. It was apparently not very well rec'd, nor would one be for MWO I suspect.

http://forum.worldof...uracy-feedback/

So WoT has one and even a slight change "****** up" the game play immensely, (gun and arty based fire) according to its players anyways.

Whether people want it is a fair question, and one of taste. But the detractors have been yelling and screaming about the CoF model not being realistic. We have just been showing them to be full of hot air in that regard. Once we can get past this discussion and agree that a CoF model would make the game more sim-like (more real world), then we can discuss, "does it solve the current problems we want to solve, and does it do so in a manner that is palatable to us?"

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 13 April 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

And here is a Thread about a slight (6%) change to that RNG Aiming system, or Convergence. It was apparently not very well rec'd, nor would one be for MWO I suspect.

http://forum.worldof...uracy-feedback/

So WoT has one and even a slight change "****** up" the game play immensely, (gun and arty based fire) according to its players anyways.

Post #2 is a real gem:

Quote

Game is more and more simulation and less and less fun.

That is a fun read.

[Dino Might]

Almond Brown, on 13 April 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Interesting. I have read many many posts who say their Clan Burst fire based AC's suck and yet you advocate that they become the the norm throughout MWO?

Would that not just make ALL AC's suck the same? The same and sucking the same are not always beneficial to game play...



From the FRONT, a shot on an ARM wastes 2.5 damage though. Can't spread outside the arm, only in. So again many advocate that the CerPPC is a bad weapon based on that probability being a reality.

Make all ACs suck the same, and then buff the damage, CoF, projectile speed, etc. as necessary to make them useful. The best thing to do is get more parity between different types of weapons (yes they still have different particular niches, but none will be the best at everything), and then adjust their damage/heat/range/accuracy values as necessary.

Right now, there's way too much variation in mech capability as a result of no-penalty boating, so that if any one weapon is just slightly out of balance, it will be boated and make certain mechs very overpowered. In some of the suggested systems, the individual weapon performance will have a bit more tolerance before it leads to significantly overpowered mechs.

Edited by Dino Might, 13 April 2015 - 09:57 AM.

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 13 April 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

And here is a Thread about a slight (6%) change to that RNG Aiming system, or Convergence. It was apparently not very well rec'd, nor would one be for MWO I suspect.

http://forum.worldof...uracy-feedback/

So WoT has one and even a slight change "****** up" the game play immensely, (gun and arty based fire) according to its players anyways.

Here's another gem:

Quote

My stats are decreasing very fast ...

[Dino Might]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

Here's another gem:

I just want to know why our proposed ideas aren't legitimate because we are, 'a minority whining on a forum,' when the counterargument used is predicated entirely on another game's, 'minority whining on a forum.'

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 13 April 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

I just want to know why our proposed ideas aren't legitimate because we are, 'a minority whining on a forum,' when the counterargument used is predicated entirely on another game's, 'minority whining on a forum.'

Beats me, especially because the whining here seems to be mostly from those who do not want any changes that may put their so-called skillz into question.

[Kuritaclan]

Ragtag soldier, on 13 April 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

that's the most nonsensical jumble of words i've read in a long time. it belongs in a damn lewis carroll book, it's so ludicrious.

but at least you admit that you're here to **** up the discussion about the convergence problems. so thanks kuritaclan, for telling us that we should leave you out of the conversation.

Just a hint, you and others need to get numbers and informations straight, before you talk about convergence and the influence a change will have.


A small example loadout ac20, ppc, lasers have diffrent velocitys. ac20 650m/s but instant damage ppc 1050m/s but instant damage lasers damage over time.

The target is a 100kp/h mech to make it easy at 300m running tangential. The ac20 bullet travel time is 0,46sec (300/650) - the ppc travel time is 0,286sec. if you have the charge with for the ac20 you need to fire this weapon on timepoint zero. 100:3,6= 27,7m*0,46 traveling time for the 300m the way the mech moved tangetial is 12,7m - so you need this distance to charge in fornt of your enemy. The tan α is GK/AK - so the angle the mech would run within the 0.46sec is 2.5° you do not even be on the target to have a direct convergenca with autoconvergance @ 300m - you more likely have a autoconvergency to a point somewhere in the background. But anyway you have to fire the ac20 around 220ms before the pcc holding the aim still and hoping for the case the mech does not make some zig zag. Then the PPC would hit within the same location at the same time with the ac20 together and you have to reaim withn a 286ms window the crosshair on the enemy mech on a specific location to hit the torso with your group of lasers (which will autoconverge) - to make this alpha happen!!!!!!

Auto convergency does not help at all in the example above. - The Alpha however gets deadly for this 100m/s mech if he is nearly standing still withn a range of under lets say 150m and or charge directly on you. So who is to blame to get ****** up by alphas. The game mechanics or the players skill.

Convergancy with lasers is another story, because they produce high heat, for the gain, and for clans at least a long beam duration, so charging with the target for >1sec to hit one specific part is skilldependant - the autoconvergency does allow you to hit with multiple lasers one spot on the target, but because of relative velocitys of you and a enemy mech the steadyness to hold the aim on a section is nearly zero and you get a spread by nature of human reaction rate not to mention that over the optimal range the damage of lasers decrease rather rapid and the damage/heat is with high alpha a question of return of investment. If your enemy is foreseable in his movement/non movement@poke war the ROI is high - if you have a good longrange brawl ROI is abysal small, so you would close out the range to have a better chance to hit and there we go SRMs/LB-X/AC-20s - you set yourself in optimal range for getting high alpha'd to death.

pbiggz, on 13 April 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

Quote

With all forbearance - I'm not the one who want the change. There is for now no problem with convergance that needs a change! Nor is there any fundamental lore based claim that it needs to be changed! The problem is coming out of another corner of the game. So yes i'm against it. The wall of text, is needed to provid shortthinkers like you the informations needed to make a fact based choice.

This is categorically false. You clearly never even played megamek, where there are AGRESSIVE weapons convergence penalties. Any canon excuses for weapons convergence all have their roots in the battletech TT rules, you know, the ACTUAL GAME WHICH EVERYTHING WE DO IS BASED ON. And you better believe the systems we propose here are better than whats in TT, because you would NOT like being able to only fire 1 medium laser at a time before incurring accuracy penalties. So shut up.

I play a BATTLETECH® related game named "MWO" - all TableTops are spin offs of this trademark - how they achive to simulate the BATTLETECH®-Universe is not related to this franchise called MWO. However since there are tech-books like the one above - it is clear that there a certain boarders to make it as near as it is can get to the BATTLETECH®-Universe. The TT rules, are so meaningless to MWO you can not imagin! What means something to MWO are the tech-books and the novels because they are the source to make this "universe" accurate.

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

Quote

You should read my post #885 - what you want is out of order and proved wrong. - If you wanna have fixed mounted weapons like planes in ww2 had, go and play ww2-flight-games, which provide that type of aiming style. I have nothing more to say.

Did you mean this?

As i said MWO is a BATTLETECH® franchise what set on the rules of the books, like the BATTLETECH® book i quoted to prove there are targeting/aiming systems! - If you say they are not lore you fail.

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

Quote

And to be honest to use in a FPS game like this diffrent type of weapon system you just need the convergance, or it will crawl down to the point, that you do not even can use diffrent weapon systems, because no convergance+diffrent timings caused by velocity and such weapon specifics will make the game so difficult that maintaining diffrent weapongroups is to hard

In other words, you do not like increasing the skill cap. Got it, loud and clear.

And by the way, you proved nothing.

I made an example - you are those trolling around in this whole thread about high alphas and convergence. And it is all unfair. Jadaa Jadaa Jadaa.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 10:23 AM.

[Almond Brown]

PFC Carsten, on 11 April 2015 - 02:42 AM, said:

Would be an easy solution to allow pinpoint only for absolutely standing still mechs and introduce just a little bit of random jitter (really just a tiny bit) for walking speed and a bit more for moving full speed?

That doesn't FIX the issue as presented though. The panels on anything over a Medium are LARGE and when the optimal battle ranges are between 250-500m hitting the same panel(s) over and over will not be mitigated by a jitter (really just a tiny bit). It will just add a bad visual element for everyone. Currently that bad visual element is already alive and well, but just for JJ use and that is fine.

Here is another possible option for everyone to consider. How about doing away with the RED BOX when a Mech is targeted. Keep the FILLED Red Triangle Marker on the enemy Mech for others to see and indicate a Lock but do away with the big RED BOX for firing reference. It would make hitting the same spot on Mechs more of a challenge( worse as range increases) and especially on moving targets.

Edited by Almond Brown, 13 April 2015 - 10:25 AM.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

As i said MWO is a BATTLETECH® franchise what set on the rules of the books, like the BATTLETECH® book i quoted to prove there are targeting/aiming systems! - If you say they are not lore you fail.

Which source materials say that the targeting/aiming systems are perfectly accurate and that all weapons converge perfectly?

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

I made an example - you are those trolling around in this whole thread about high alphas and convergence. And it is all unfair. Jadaa Jadaa Jadaa.

Find a post from me where I specifically complained about high alpha, or that it was unfair.