79 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

FupDup, on 06 February 2016 - 08:34 PM, said:

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.

That has nothing to do with combat....and IS mechs can change to a lower engine rating if they like.

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 06 February 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

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, on 06 February 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

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?

Both of you are talking about the projectile based systems, where many external factors play into the trajectory of the projectile after it's left the barrel/launcher.

I'm talking about the targeting systems themselves, and the data that they use to calculate and perfectly align the weapons so that (given optimal external conditions) the projectile WILL hit with 100% accuracy.

We have lasers installed on ships that can shoot down moving targets, but these aren't, "burst damage," type weapons in the sense that it fires for a split second and instantly vaporizes a target. No, these lasers have to be held PERFECTLY on target for MULTIPLE SECONDS, and they do this regardless of wind, sea state, target vibrations, and target movement. They lock onto a section of the target smaller than the size of an inch, and keep it there.

The helicopter I flew on in the Navy was equipped with a target designating laser and FLIR system. Believe me when I say it that no matter how much we are blasted by gusts of wind, experienced violent vibrations from track and balance variations, or pulled 30-45 degree turns, that FLIR system WILL keep the targeting laser perfectly on target.

So yes, assuming proper boresighting and alignment to the targeting system, we have laser systems TODAY that can track a single point on a complex moving target, regardless of the weapon platform's own movement and external factors such as wind and sea state.

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

Sounds nice in theory, but here's the real tradeoff that will happen:

- Players who mastered the ability to shoot accurately while moving (aka: good players) will lose the ability to shoot as accurately as before.
- Players who have to stand still to shoot accurately (aka: bad players) will still be able to shoot like they did before, except they won't have to worry about good players shooting them up as bad considering good players who are moving will not be as accurate.

It literally punishes those who have spent the time learning how to actually be a decent pilot, while reenforcing the habits of bad players who stand still. That's called, "lowering the skill cap."

You all say you aren't talking about a CoF type system, and then say that any multiple convergence/delayed convergence isn't compatible with HSR.

Here's a newsflash: If you have 2 possibilities, and one of those possibilities isn't possible, then you only have ONE possibility, and that ONE possibility is CoF, which is stupid and has never existed in a MW game before.

[FupDup]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

That has nothing to do with combat....and IS mechs can change to a lower engine rating if they like.

However, changing to a lower engine rating does not increase a mech's capacity for armor or structure. For example, if I'm driving a Raven and I decide to switch my XL255 for an XL225, I don't suddenly get more armor. My armor is the same all the time.

When you get into low enough engine ratings, the amount of tonnage you get for downsizing also gets to become so small that you don't actually gain much (or any) additional firepower for using that lower engine. For example, the 35-ton Cougar that has a top speed of 87.1 kph has almost the same firepower as the 35-ton Adder that can run at 104.5 kph. The Cougar gains pretty much nothing from sacrificing speed compared to the Adder.

Also, at times, the larger engine also grants MORE firepower because they can store more internal heatsinks, which frees up more critical slots for other equipment. They also can improve survivability in the form of not just raw speed but agility (aka faster torso twisting/turning for spreading damage).

Given that durability is a pre-set value per mech and firepower doesn't always increase much, that leaves not much reason to not upsize that engine for certain mechs.

Edited by FupDup, 06 February 2016 - 08:45 PM.

[wanderer]

AEgg, on 06 February 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

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.

I'm not even sure PGI's coding could handle separate fixed convergences for everyone, but they definitely could handle a single default convergence that isn't "range of target". It's already gotta have a max value, given any shot that's fired into the sky. Binary (locked target "perfect" or "default"), almost certainly.

[Wolfways]

FupDup, on 06 February 2016 - 08:41 PM, said:

However, changing to a lower engine rating does not increase a mech's capacity for armor or structure. For example, if I'm driving a Raven and I decide to switch my XL255 for an XL225, I don't suddenly get more armor. My armor is the same all the time.

Well if the stock mech has low armour you can drop engine size to increase the amount of armour. Obviously there's a point where reducing the engine any further is pointless.

Quote

When you get into low enough engine ratings, the amount of tonnage you get for downsizing also gets to become so small that you don't actually gain much (or any) additional firepower for using that lower engine. For example, the 35-ton Cougar that has a top speed of 87.1 kph has almost the same firepower as the 35-ton Adder that can run at 104.5 kph. The Cougar gains pretty much nothing from sacrificing speed compared to the Adder.

Does the Cougar not have some other advantage over the Adder?

Quote

Also, at times, the larger engine also grants MORE firepower because they can store more internal heatsinks, which frees up more critical slots for other equipment. They also can improve survivability in the form of not just raw speed but agility (aka faster torso twisting/turning for spreading damage).

Given that durability is a pre-set value per mech and firepower doesn't always increase much, that leaves not much reason to not upsize that engine for certain mechs.

My point though was that lights in MWO use speed tanking as a way of surviving instead of learning to use cover to attack flanks. Lights should be trying to not get shot, not using speed to hope the enemy miss them. It has been quite a while since I used lights but my RVN-3L never had a problem surviving...unless I ran in front of something with an AC20 which happened way too much. I also mastered Jenner and Spiders which imo had ridiculous survivability. The only reason I don't play lights is because players expect you to brawl and put out huge damage numbers over scouting and helping the team with ECM, AMS, etc. and tiny maps are bad for lights.

[FupDup]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

Well if the stock mech has low armour you can drop engine size to increase the amount of armour. Obviously there's a point where reducing the engine any further is pointless.

I'm not sure why stock mechs are relevant here, but I'll bite...

You can free up weight for more armor in several different ways. One way is to switch SHS to DHS, which gives you much more heat efficiency and will give you several more tons to play with if your mech had more than 10 SHS stock. You can also add Endo or Ferro, or downgrade the weapons load.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

Does the Cougar not have some other advantage over the Adder?

Well, there is a JJ variant later in the timeline and 2 variants with a lot of hardpoints (later in timeline)...but those aren't connected to engine sizes. Those are just random equipment choices made by the TT designers. If I could increase the Cougar's engine size the hardpoints would be the same. Also note that most Coug variants have either equal number or slightly fewer hardpoints than the Puma.

I'd still prefer the Adder over the Cougs unless quirks were involved.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

My point though was that lights in MWO use speed tanking as a way of surviving instead of learning to use cover to attack flanks. Lights should be trying to not get shot, not using speed to hope the enemy miss them. It has been quite a while since I used lights but my RVN-3L never had a problem surviving...unless I ran in front of something with an AC20 which happened way too much. I also mastered Jenner and Spiders which imo had ridiculous survivability. The only reason I don't play lights is because players expect you to brawl and put out huge damage numbers over scouting and helping the team with ECM, AMS, etc. and tiny maps are bad for lights.

Lights "brawling" or otherwise fighting in the open already face the potential of being crippled by huge alpha strikes that are flowing out, so it's not exactly riskless.

Putting out those damage numbers are the primary way to "help the team." All game modes in MWO can be (and usually are) won by killing all enemy mechs. Mechs that don't contribute to killing are not worthy uses of player slots.

Of course, a mech can fulfill both roles of damage and scouting or whatever, but a mech that only scouts without dealing any damage isn't very useful.

Edited by FupDup, 06 February 2016 - 09:09 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

Does the Cougar not have some other advantage over the Adder?

Short answer: No

Long answer: Ahahahahaahah, no, not really.

With sub-200 engines, you really start to suffer from diminishing returns on tonnage.

[Lightfoot]

wanderer, on 06 February 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

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.

Those movement to-hit modifiers are currently working in MWO dynamically. TT uses hit-roll modifiers because the PnP mechs are not actually moving. In MWO mechs gain a deflection modifier by actually moving laterally or vertically. It makes both aiming and hitting more difficult than just standing still. The faster the speed, the greater the deflection. I think we all know this, but it's part of the balancing that protects low armor Lights and makes high armor Assaults more vulnerable.

The best solution is in adjusting how the hit-boxes work to make them harder to hit, not cone of fire or additional hit modifiers. Now if you want to add to-hit modifiers based on overheating slowing mech movement that might be ok, but they already added Ghost Heat instead.

[Davers]

Hotthedd, on 05 February 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I get what you are saying, but having say 6 weapons does not have to be a disadvantage to having only 3. Each mech would be able to fir 3 weapons in the same amount of time. The mech with 6 weapons is not obligated to fire all of them.

Say you have 6 weapons, but when chainfiring when you reached the 4th weapon the first was ready to fire again. That means weapons 4-6 are just redundant and should be replaced with heat sinks, a larger engine, or something else. The extra hardpoints would be wasted.

[Wolfways]

FupDup, on 06 February 2016 - 09:08 PM, said:

I'm not sure why stock mechs are relevant here, but I'll bite...

Because we buy stock mechs and have to customize them to make them viable...mostly.

Quote

You can free up weight for more armor in several different ways. One way is to switch SHS to DHS, which gives you much more heat efficiency and will give you several more tons to play with if your mech had more than 10 SHS stock. You can also add Endo or Ferro, or downgrade the weapons load.

But a huge engine is a priority for lights. It shouldn't have to be.
Plus lights get much faster than heavier mechs do by changing engine...much faster.

Quote

Well, there is a JJ variant later in the timeline and 2 variants with a lot of hardpoints (later in timeline)...but those aren't connected to engine sizes. Those are just random equipment choices made by the TT designers. If I could increase the Cougar's engine size the hardpoints would be the same. Also note that most Coug variants have either equal number or slightly fewer hardpoints than the Puma.

I'd still prefer the Adder over the Cougs unless quirks were involved.



Lights "brawling" or otherwise fighting in the open already face the potential of being crippled by huge alpha strikes that are flowing out, so it's not exactly riskless.

Exactly, but they shouldn't be fighting in the open, but players whined and pgi made sure they can.

Quote

Putting out those damage numbers are the primary way to "help the team." All game modes in MWO can be (and usually are) won by killing all enemy mechs. Mechs that don't contribute to killing are not worthy uses of player slots.

Of course, a mech can fulfill both roles of damage and scouting or whatever, but a mech that only scouts without dealing any damage isn't very useful.

Yeah, and people expect players to get around 500+? damage to be useful. To me that has always been wrong. If I'm in my Kit Fox and I scout then return to the group to provide ECM/AMS cover while still doing a little damage shouldn't that be enough?
Imo the bigger the mech the more damage it should be able to put out, yet I often see lights topping the damage in matches.

To me, in MWO lights are too durable due to speed tanking, mediums and heavies are okay, and assaults are far too squishy because they can't torso twist effectively. I've never liked that you could change engine size though...or customize at all really


Also, it says a lot about the state of the classes when there are basically two types of builds (not including LRMboats that suck anyway). Big Alpha setups for killing anything, and streakboats made to kill lights.

Edited by Wolfways, 06 February 2016 - 10:31 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

Because we buy stock mechs and have to customize them to make them viable...mostly.
Yeah, and people expect players to get around 500+? damage to be useful. To me that has always been wrong. If I'm in my Kit Fox and I scout then return to the group to provide ECM/AMS cover while still doing a little damage shouldn't that be enough?
Imo the bigger the mech the more damage it should be able to put out, yet I often see lights topping the damage in matches.

To me, in MWO lights are too durable due to speed tanking, mediums and heavies are okay, and assaults are far too squishy because they can't torso twist effectively. I've never liked that you could change engine size though...or customize at all really

You have to actually "carry your weight". It comes with the territory.

If the games you are seeing where Lights are doing the most damage, it's probably because the rest of the team aren't as good, and you haven't reached Tier 1 (or any sort of serious group play).

At the highest of levels, any damage you really get as a Light is a bonus. They simply don't regularly score high due to insta-gib level low TTK (people that can aim will torch a light mech).

These kinds of matches, I would just nom nom nom (well, maybe not that great, but not be too terrible at it).

[Wolfways]

Deathlike, on 06 February 2016 - 10:29 PM, said:

You have to actually "carry your weight". It comes with the territory.

If the games you are seeing where Lights are doing the most damage, it's probably because the rest of the team aren't as good, and you haven't reached Tier 1 (or any sort of serious group play).

At the highest of levels, any damage you really get as a Light is a bonus. They simply don't regularly score high due to insta-gib level low TTK (people that can aim will torch a light mech).

These kinds of matches, I would just nom nom nom (well, maybe not that great, but not be too terrible at it).

I edited my last post before seeing that you had posted.
"Also, it says a lot about the state of the classes when there are basically two types of builds (not including LRMboats that suck anyway). Big Alpha setups for killing anything, and streakboats made to kill lights."
Meta and streakboats kill lights. I will never be good at killing lights because I won't use either. I tried meta for a while and found it so stupidly easy I didn't really have to try to be good (currently in T3 atm, not that it means anything other than less meta around ).

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

I edited my last post before seeing that you had posted.
"Also, it says a lot about the state of the classes when there are basically two types of builds (not including LRMboats that suck anyway). Big Alpha setups for killing anything, and streakboats made to kill lights."
Meta and streakboats kill lights. I will never be good at killing lights because I won't use either. I tried meta for a while and found it so stupidly easy I didn't really have to try to be good (currently in T3 atm, not that it means anything other than less meta around ).

Much as scouting is Lostech, it's still useful when used and applied properly.

It's just that many groups really don't think about positioning once the Doritos light up.

[Texas Merc]

Hotthedd, on 05 February 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

Will MW:O ever become anything more than a Mecha Shooter about how many weapons can be perfectly converged on one spot?

With the LRMaggeddon exceptions, every dominant meta has always been about Alpha Strikes, and for good reason: it is simply the best way to kill opponents efficiently. There is absolutely no downside to it. It is the ONLY play style if you want to help your team.

Will PGI ever address it? Do a majority of the players even care?

IMO, perfectly precise group fired weapons are holding the game back from what it could have been. Game play has become stagnant and boring because of it. The only question when designing a layout is how much damage can I put on one pixel effectively?

This has been an argument since the start of the closed Beta. The answer is that it won't change. MW:O is a FPS first and foremost and is not a tabletop game or an RTS or anything else you imagined it would, or might be.

Those are just the facts sir.

[Mystere]

wanderer, on 06 February 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

I'm not even sure PGI's coding could handle separate fixed convergences for everyone, but they definitely could handle a single default convergence that isn't "range of target". It's already gotta have a max value, given any shot that's fired into the sky. Binary (locked target "perfect" or "default"), almost certainly.

PGI already has the basic necessary code.

Think about this. What happens if you're aiming at the target and at the same time you press the fire button(s) another Mech steps into the line of fire either [1] fully or [2] partially? How does MWO resolve the shots?

Of course if their code looks like this then implementation might be a bit of a problem:

Edited by Mystere, 06 February 2016 - 11:04 PM.

[Ramseti]

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

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.

Haven't made it through the rest of the thread, but this thought has got to stop. Seriously. The best tank guns today still err around 20cm (laterally; moreso vertically) @ 1000m, under perfect test conditions, when fired individually on a non-moving platform and good powder. Try a moving platform, with terrain, with multiple weapon systems firing simultaneously, a moving enemy (usually), and often "snapshot" firing, and you are most certainly not talking about perfect convergence. Additionally, GPS weapons are close, but they're not perfect either - and they never will be. I'm 20 minutes from Schriever AFB, visited 2SOPs a few times, and I can promise you it'll get awesomely close, but even with the next gen GPS it'll never be perfect.

[Ramseti]

Aresye, on 06 February 2016 - 08:40 PM, said:

Both of you are talking about the projectile based systems, where many external factors play into the trajectory of the projectile after it's left the barrel/launcher.

I'm talking about the targeting systems themselves, and the data that they use to calculate and perfectly align the weapons so that (given optimal external conditions) the projectile WILL hit with 100% accuracy.

We have lasers installed on ships that can shoot down moving targets, but these aren't, "burst damage," type weapons in the sense that it fires for a split second and instantly vaporizes a target. No, these lasers have to be held PERFECTLY on target for MULTIPLE SECONDS, and they do this regardless of wind, sea state, target vibrations, and target movement. They lock onto a section of the target smaller than the size of an inch, and keep it there.

The helicopter I flew on in the Navy was equipped with a target designating laser and FLIR system. Believe me when I say it that no matter how much we are blasted by gusts of wind, experienced violent vibrations from track and balance variations, or pulled 30-45 degree turns, that FLIR system WILL keep the targeting laser perfectly on target.

So yes, assuming proper boresighting and alignment to the targeting system, we have laser systems TODAY that can track a single point on a complex moving target, regardless of the weapon platform's own movement and external factors such as wind and sea state.

What system? The LaWS can hit drones and ships, and is drastically larger than anything on a mech. SMDC created the THEL, but that's for missiles (i.e., somewhat forgiving for error compared to artillery). The Advanced Tactical Laser (air-breather type) was discontinued. The YAL-1 was discontinued. We can keep going. That's great that FLIR can track - but tracking, utilizing computer assistance != moving mechanical parts on a mech for pinpoint precision, especially while moving. You're talking about mounts in arms, torsos, head, etc. all able to re-align in nano-seconds under horrible conditions during a mech battle, and comparing it to "optimal external conditions?"

Ultimately, you're both right and wrong. Yes, we have things today that can stay on-target - but that's very different from staying "on-pixel."

[LordNothing]

high alphas need to be penalized more. not to say they should be impossible, but it should come with a very high cost.

to start, get rid of the existing ghost heat.

secondly use a dh/dt system like was used in mechwarrior 2.

3rd apply heat penalties based on high dh/dt values. if you put out a lot of heat in a little time, it should really hurt you.

Edited by LordNothing, 07 February 2016 - 01:14 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Davers, on 06 February 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

Say you have 6 weapons, but when chainfiring when you reached the 4th weapon the first was ready to fire again. That means weapons 4-6 are just redundant and should be replaced with heat sinks, a larger engine, or something else. The extra hardpoints would be wasted.

Not necessarily. I may just be a bad/unlucky pilot, but there are many games that I finish with many of my weapons destroyed. I sure am glad I have more weapons available at that point.

Texas Merc, on 06 February 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

This has been an argument since the start of the closed Beta. The answer is that it won't change. MW:O is a FPS first and foremost and is not a tabletop game or an RTS or anything else you imagined it would, or might be.

Those are just the facts sir.

Thanks for answering the question. It's too bad, though, as originally this game was to be more sim-like, IIRC.

[FupDup]

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

Yeah, and people expect players to get around 500+? damage to be useful. To me that has always been wrong. If I'm in my Kit Fox and I scout then return to the group to provide ECM/AMS cover while still doing a little damage shouldn't that be enough?

Because, once again, every game mode can be won by just simply killing all enemy mechs. That victory condition turns basically every mode into "deathmatch with a twist."

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

Imo the bigger the mech the more damage it should be able to put out, yet I often see lights topping the damage in matches.

When a light gets at the top of the damage charts, it's because they were able to fire many many salvos over the course of the entire game. Heavies or assaults can get that same damage in less time, provided that you're in position to do so.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

...I've never liked that you could change engine size though...or customize at all really

Customization is ultimately here to stay because it's one of the cornerstones of the PC Mechwarrior series and one of the key attributes that makes MW different than other games.

Wolfways, on 06 February 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

Also, it says a lot about the state of the classes when there are basically two types of builds (not including LRMboats that suck anyway). Big Alpha setups for killing anything, and streakboats made to kill lights.

LRM boats and Streak boats are of course just alternative variants of alpha setups.