79 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

pinpoint is a cancer, kept here by the 'skill,' crowd, and is why MWO has been a glorified tank game for years, instead of a mech brawler.

[Chados]

The only way to counter the pinpoint damage problem and get alpha striking under control is to implement a cone-of-fire system.

It will never, ever, EVER happen in MWO, however. It's pointless even to talk about it, because Captain Tryhard and his effervescent and loyal sidekick Metagirl will charge in to prevent it, sailing to the rescue on a sea of QQ while trumpeting their battle-cry of "Meh skillz!"

Seriously, there are too many tryhards in the game who have PGI's ear, aren't happy unless they can one-shot anything under 60 tons with a single alpha strike, and who are very vocal about that being the only thing that makes the game fun for them. Examples: Jenner IIC and Kodiak. These also are the same folks who love the one-shot, warp-speed play style of Call of Duty and want MWO to be like that.

Edited by Chados, 06 February 2016 - 09:39 AM.

[Aresye]

Chados, on 06 February 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

These also are the same folks who love the one-shot, warp-speed play style of Call of Duty and want MWO to be like that.

Step 1 - Get some friends.
Step 2 - Run Oxides.
Step 3 - Laugh as you smash the pinpoint meta crowd.

[Chados]

Aresye, on 06 February 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Step 1 - Get some friends.
Step 2 - Run Oxides.
Step 3 - Laugh as you smash the pinpoint meta crowd.

LOL, there actually is some truth to this. I've had my best luck vs higher tier players running SRM brawlers.

[wanderer]

Chados, on 06 February 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

The only way to counter the pinpoint damage problem and get alpha striking under control is to implement a cone-of-fire system.

It will never, ever, EVER happen in MWO, however. It's pointless even to talk about it, because Captain Tryhard and his effervescent and loyal sidekick Metagirl will charge in to prevent it, sailing to the rescue on a sea of QQ while trumpeting their battle-cry of "Meh skillz!"

Seriously, there are too many tryhards in the game who have PGI's ear, aren't happy unless they can one-shot anything under 60 tons with a single alpha strike, and who are very vocal about that being the only thing that makes the game fun for them. Examples: Jenner IIC and Kodiak. These also are the same folks who love the one-shot, warp-speed play style of Call of Duty and want MWO to be like that.

Eh. Doesn't even need to be cone-of-fire. It just needs to be "you can't put the entire 'Mechs firepower into a single point easily".

And that'd be as simple as changing convergence from being perfect (range of target) to "converge at X distance away from 'Mech". Then, you've gone from automatically putting every hardpoint precisely on the crosshair to having each section's hardpoints hitting a distinct space away from the others. That would be the Dummy's Guide to Changing Death Stars.

(I'd prefer binary convergence based on sensor locks, but heck. That'd at least reduce maximum alpha-to-point by a huge margin.)

Edited by wanderer, 06 February 2016 - 01:12 PM.

[Lightfoot]

You realize that turning a bunch of lasers into a cone of fire gives you a laser shotgun? That might be good if you are in an Assault, but if you are in something under 50 tons it rips your mech apart because each shot will score a few laser hits and after 3-4 shots your mech is legged instead of the hits being hit or miss and usually miss. Think of an LB-48X, but made of insta-hit lasers. It would be something like that so you need something other than cone-of-fire. I wonder if PGI tried it as a test?

[himself]

Convergence should only be possible with arms and a lock.

It would make placing long range weapons on the arms appealing.

[Mystere]

Aresye, on 05 February 2016 - 10:03 PM, said:

No matter how you tell it, you're still talking about people missing shots who should have made them, and others making shots that should have missed them, and random luck is a bad mechanic to try and balance things with.

Life is full of "Oh ****!" moments, and warfare more so. Random luck is part of that. As such, I like them in video games depicting warfare. If nothing less, it removes the predictability.

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 06 February 2016 - 05:48 PM, said:

Life is full of "Oh ****!" moments, and warfare more so. Random luck is part of that. As such, I like them in video games depicting warfare. If nothing less, it removes the predictability.

That's all fine and dandy for single player, but when it comes to multiplayer, there's a reason it should be avoided.

Or perhaps if we're going to screw people over with high heat and a long cooldown due to a CoF system essentially saying, "Nope, your PPC shall miss this time," we should bring back full 40 damage, instant headshot arty strikes while we're at it? I remember a few choice words describing them, and I don't think, "fun and immersive," or, "good for the game," were any of them.

If PGI wants to drastically lower cooldown values and up rates of fire, sure, I wouldn't mind a CoF system, but I think you'll find that to be much closer to Call of Duty than what we have here today.

Also, if we're going to utilize the, "it's warfare," argument, we already have systems on tanks and ships that guarantee perfect convergence, so technically if we wanted this to be a simulation of warfare we'd all have aimbots that require little to no user input.

[Mystere]

Aresye, on 06 February 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

That's all fine and dandy for single player, but when it comes to multiplayer, there's a reason it should be avoided.

LOL! LOL! LOL! Life and warfare are not single-player experiences.

Aresye, on 06 February 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

Or perhaps if we're going to screw people over with high heat and a long cooldown due to a CoF system essentially saying, "Nope, your PPC shall miss this time," we should bring back full 40 damage, instant headshot arty strikes while we're at it? I remember a few choice words describing them, and I don't think, "fun and immersive," or, "good for the game," were any of them.

If PGI wants to drastically lower cooldown values and up rates of fire, sure, I wouldn't mind a CoF system, but I think you'll find that to be much closer to Call of Duty than what we have here today.

Also, if we're going to utilize the, "it's warfare," argument, we already have systems on tanks and ships that guarantee perfect convergence, so technically if we wanted this to be a simulation of warfare we'd all have aimbots that require little to no user input.

Just to make things perfectly clear, I am for changes on the current convergence system. But, that does not mean I am incapable of seeing any merit on other solutions to the "perfect shot to a single pixel" problem. And it is a problem.

And again LOL, LOL, LOL! Current aiming systems, including those so-called smart bombs, are nowhere near perfect. Otherwise civilians will not be killed by the thousands -- and still counting -- in you know which places.

[wanderer]

Honestly, MWO's weapon systems would make most modern warfare types wet themselves as far as dispersion goes, if they had similar reach.

Even modern tank guns usually get at least a mil or so simply from temperature variations, and that's a meter or so off at 1000m (meaning shots would be about in a 3ft circle) with a single, highly stabilized main weapon the entire turret is built around firing a single shell at a time. GAU-8's are more in the 4-mil range, for a more dakka-related comparision, and WWII-era aircraft guns got similar performance. That's a 13-foot circle of hits at 1000m around your sighted point.

Meanwhile, we folks in sci-fi land are zipping along in our heavies at MBT flank speeds (or higher, especially in Clan 'Mechs) firing at equally mobile targets while getting rattled by returning fire and managing to get the equivalent of half a dozen or more weapons to -all- fit in what's literally a zero-mil circle. Because everything hits the same pixel, every time. Literally better than real life even when trying to put one high-powered gun into the same point on the crosshairs.

Ain't perfect convergence grand?

[Wolfways]

The crosshairs should bounce with the cockpit so that aiming requires the pilot to slow down or even stop
I read somewhere that it's supposed to be like that in BT lore...Sarna maybe....

[thehiddenedge]

As much as I hate comparing MWO to actual FPS's, it keeps heading further in that direction. Why not take a cue from these games, and implement a few systems that have been used for years.

A great deal of them, if not almost all, use a gaussian distribution to implement accuracy penalties while moving. This not only prevents people from pinpointing damage, but adds a certain amount of skill to lining up a shot while countering a bouncing crosshair. You know like you would have in a giant, lumbering, walking tank. If it's possible implement a seperate gaussian distribution for each weapon. Shoot while standing still and you'd get perfect convergence how it is now. Shoot while moving at high speed and risk more weapons not landing on target.

Then you have another great suggestion I heard which is to make weapons spread the more you fire at once. If you use yet another gaussian distribution, you could still have fairly accurate, but more physically spread damage, while still preserving "skill". While this would need balancing between weapon types, it's a fairly decent way to deter alpha strikes from being the status quo and more of a special case.

Then throw in a lower heat cap and heat system with real penalties, get rid of ghost heat and it starts resembling this weird game I use to hear about all the time called Battletech. I guess it had big, stompy robots too.

[wanderer]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

The crosshairs should bounce with the cockpit so that aiming requires the pilot to slow down or even stop
I read somewhere that it's supposed to be like that in BT lore...Sarna maybe....

Movement to-hit modifers do exist in TT (for both gunner and target), yes.

But yeah, what PGIs done to get HSR working (perfect convergence) has led to miracle-level accuracy for guns. Not that you should miss a crosshairs-on-torso shot, but you shouldn't be putting guns mounted all over your 'Mech into it with so much accuracy you could draw your name in bullet holes on the CT and not so much as miss dotting an I or crossing a T.

[FupDup]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

The crosshairs should bounce with the cockpit so that aiming requires the pilot to slow down or even stop
I read somewhere that it's supposed to be like that in BT lore...Sarna maybe....

If you make standing still the only way to fire accurately, peeking around corners and camping will be the only valid way to play the game. If you didn't peek around a corner or camp and tried to fight an opponent who did, they your shots would all splatter in various directions while the enemy's shots would all go straight into your juicy core.

Not to mention, it would also kill mechs who depend on mobility. The means lights, mediums, and even a few heavies/assaults (e.g. Gargoyle). Mechs that have high firepower and high armor can afford to stand still a for a second to line up the shot...mechs with low armor and low firepower lose the only advantage they have (mobility) if you force them to stand immobile to hit their targets.

There are so many better ways to deal with convergence...

[AEgg]

Aresye, on 06 February 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

That's all fine and dandy for single player, but when it comes to multiplayer, there's a reason it should be avoided.

Or perhaps if we're going to screw people over with high heat and a long cooldown due to a CoF system essentially saying, "Nope, your PPC shall miss this time," we should bring back full 40 damage, instant headshot arty strikes while we're at it? I remember a few choice words describing them, and I don't think, "fun and immersive," or, "good for the game," were any of them.

If PGI wants to drastically lower cooldown values and up rates of fire, sure, I wouldn't mind a CoF system, but I think you'll find that to be much closer to Call of Duty than what we have here today.

Also, if we're going to utilize the, "it's warfare," argument, we already have systems on tanks and ships that guarantee perfect convergence, so technically if we wanted this to be a simulation of warfare we'd all have aimbots that require little to no user input.

Cone of fire and convergence are COMPLETELY separate ideas. Convergence is NOT random. Cone of fire is.

We know dynamic convergence (other than perfect) isn't possible for this game (literally because players don't have enough bandwidth to send it to the servers, and possibly because servers can't send it all back down).

But what about fixed convergence? Yes, yes, it's been brought up before, but I still think it's the best option. You set the convergence point for all weapons on your mech in the mechlab (ideally specifying one for each weapon but maybe just one for everything to make it simpler), and that's it. Your weapons always converge at that range ingame, no matter what. Spreads damage, but nothing is random, nothing depends on the game guessing where you want stuff to converge, and convergence never changes once the game starts so it's easier to calculate and transfer between players.

[thehiddenedge]

FupDup, on 06 February 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

If you make standing still the only way to fire accurately, peeking around corners and camping will be the only valid way to play the game. If you didn't peek around a corner or camp and tried to fight an opponent who did, they your shots would all splatter in various directions while the enemy's shots would all go straight into your juicy core.

Not to mention, it would also kill mechs who depend on mobility. The means lights, mediums, and even a few heavies/assaults (e.g. Gargoyle). Mechs that have high firepower and high armor can afford to stand still a for a second to line up the shot...mechs with low armor and low firepower lose the only advantage they have (mobility) if you force them to stand immobile to hit their targets.

There are so many better ways to deal with convergence...

That's called a tradeoff.

You stand still and you can shoot more accurately, but you're also much easier to hit.
You move and you shoot less accurately, but you're much harder to hit.

It's how almost every FPS works. Hell it's not far off from how this game already plays anyway. I don't see the huge dilemma.

Edited by thehiddenedge, 06 February 2016 - 08:17 PM.

[FupDup]

thehiddenedge, on 06 February 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

That's called a tradeoff.

You stand still and you can shoot more accurately, but you're also much easier to hit.
You move and you shoot less accurately, but you're much harder to hit.

It's how almost every FPS works. This game isn't that far off from being called one.

Tradeoffs is exactly the problem...there are lots of mechs that trade durability and firepower for mobility. Making those mechs have to stand still to shoot removes the only advantage they have. Likewise, having low mobility is no longer a weakness when everybody has to stand still in order to actually kill things effectively.


The big problem with the comparison of "almost every FPS" is that other FPS games don't have weight classes like Mechwarrior.

In almost every FPS, player avatars have very similar health, very similar movement speed, and very similar damage output.

The complex triangle of mobility/firepower/durability from MW/BT doesn't exist in other games, which is why comparisons to Call of Duty or whatever other run-of-the-mill infantry-based FPS fall short.

Edited by FupDup, 06 February 2016 - 08:21 PM.

[Wolfways]

FupDup, on 06 February 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

Not to mention, it would also kill mechs who depend on mobility.

This has always been my problem with MWO. Why do mechs depend on mobility? Depend on it for getting from place to place yes, but in combat?
I hate that lights have been buffed so much that they can happily brawl any bigger mechs (T3-T5) and take away what should have been the mediums role. I never play lights as brawlers. I use my speed and cover to flank the enemy and fight how lights are supposed to fight...strikers/harassers.

[FupDup]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

This has always been my problem with MWO. Why do mechs depend on mobility?

There are two reasons that mechs depend on mobility:

A. Their low tonnage (aka lights, many mediums) literally forbids them from equipping more armor/structure or more firepower.

B. They have a large hardwired engine (Omnimechs, like the Gargoyle) that cannot be downsized.