51 replies to this topic

[M4rtyr]

Keep trolling dude.

[Prezimonto]

I'll say it again.

Torso mounts shouldn't auto correct, the pilot should be allowed to calibrate the convergence point to a fixed position for each(non-arm with full actuators) weapon grouping in the mechlab before dropping. This preserves the idea that a well timed/positioned alpha against a single hard point is possible, but makes it a higher skill in piloting a mech issue rather than just "can I aim a crosshair" issue.

It would add depth to both in-game and the mechlab.

Edited by Prezimonto, 19 March 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Seox]

Prezimonto, on 19 March 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

I'll say it again.

Torso mounts shouldn't auto correct, the pilot should be allowed to calibrate the convergence point to a fixed position for each(non-arm with full actuators) weapon grouping in the mechlab before dropping. This preserves the idea that a well timed/positioned alpha against a single hard point is possible, but makes it a higher skill in piloting a mech issue rather than just "can I aim a crosshair" issue.

It would add depth to both in-game and the mechlab.

I can understand the appeal to a system where pilots could further customize their mechs, but adding depth to the game and to the mechlab are not necessarily always good things.

If the game had weight stabilizers that could be mounted in 3d to any part of the mech which changed how it gained and maintained momentum in different directions and altered jumpjet physics, as well as incorporated a system where all team chat in PUGs required radio frequency calibration in mid combat and the mech's reactor had to be micromanaged to prevent overload and failure, as well as a system where the game represented standard hardware failure where mechs broke legs and etc pretty much at random and a pilot had to activate backup systems to compensate, we'd also be adding depth to the game. Do you see the issue with this? Depth and fun factor are not necessarily proportional, and it'd be a folly to implement a system that carries needless complexity solely for the sake of complexity.

MWO is not and does not appear to ever be likely to tend towards a simulator; I do not feel that convergence needs to be botched to support the game.

Edited by Seox, 19 March 2013 - 07:38 AM.

[Prezimonto]

I'm not talking simulator levels of decision making. I'm suggesting a single choice you have to make in the mechlab that consequently carries into your game play and also solves the issue of constant massive alpha's to single hard points.

[Seox]

Prezimonto, on 19 March 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'm not talking simulator levels of decision making. I'm suggesting a single choice you have to make in the mechlab that consequently carries into your game play and also solves the issue of constant massive alpha's to single hard points.

That's precisely what I'm saying, though, why do we need to prevent "massive alpha to single hardpoints"? If people are accurately hitting you, then people are accurately hitting you. I don't understand the need to create complications in aiming because a select few people don't like being shot at and feel that would be best handled by ruining everyone else's aim.

Implementing superfluous complexity does not automatically improve the quality of the game.

Using the example of simulator levels of depth served only to illustrate that "adding depth" didn't necessarily improve the quality of the gameplay, as that was the reason for proposing this change that you had previously stated.

Edited by Seox, 19 March 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Because the game heavily favors builds that can alpha strike for 40 to 60 damage on single hardpoints. That is not fun for someone on the receiving end, to just die in one to two salvos. Any of the ideas in this thread make alpha strikes of that type much harder to land.

[Zyllos]

Seox, on 19 March 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

That's precisely what I'm saying, though, why do we need to prevent "massive alpha to single hardpoints"? If people are accurately hitting you, then people are accurately hitting you. I don't understand the need to create complications in aiming because a select few people don't like being shot at and feel that would be best handled by ruining everyone else's aim.

Implementing superfluous complexity does not automatically improve the quality of the game.

Using the example of simulator levels of depth served only to illustrate that "adding depth" didn't necessarily improve the quality of the gameplay, as that was the reason for proposing this change that you had previously stated.

Incorrect.

Why did PGI add an Arm/Torso crosshair to begin with then if they did not want to balance out many weapons hitting the same location? I believe they had the intention that having a separate Arm and Torso crosshair would reduce the amount of damage going into a single location. What they did not foresee is the changes they made to the hardpoints allowed on mechs (WAY more hardpoints than what the stock builds show) to allow for concentrated hardpoints in locations. That allows players to customize their builds to circumvent the built in mechanics to reduce weapon convergence.

That is why I said the DGN-1N (the hero versions suffer from the same problems in allowing multiple weapons to converge into a single point) is a balanced but unfavorable mech due to the hardpoint layout makes it almost impossible to converge all their weapons on a single point when firing the multiple weapons. You have 2 Energy hardpoints which are split between the Arm and Torso crosshair while the Ballistic hardpoint is in the arms, which is impossible to fire at the same time as the Energy weapon in the other arm because of how the weapons interact.

This balance needs to be brought back into to all mechs. And I can only see this happening by making individual weapons never converge and only fire straight forward. This means that at any given time, you can't fire all weapons and have them hit the same point. Meaning you have to fire 1 group of weapons (a group would be like in the left torso) and let them finish firing before moving to the next firing group to get them to hit the same location. Or, you can fire all your weapon groups but they will be spread across a convergence square, which is the size of the location that is firing, which means they will all generally hit different areas of the target in mind.

Only the arms will converge onto a single point, and even then, it's only the middle of the arms that is pointed at that point (your Arm crosshair) but the weapons will still fire in relationship to where that arm is pointed.

If you need an example of what I am speaking about, look below:

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion Two - Arm Actuators Given Meaning

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

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

Suggestion Three - Torso Mounted Weaponry Do Not Converge

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

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

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

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

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

Below is an example of what I am talking about:





TLDR

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

From what you can see, there is no random mechanics introduced. But single point alpha strikes will be removed, mostly, some mech designs are just built in such a way that makes them good at alpha striking. But that is balanced in that those weapons can only be converged if they are in the arm, and we all know how easy it is to take out an arm. And I have every confidence that arms will still be easy to remove even with 100% weapon convergence removed.

This will also add a reason to fire at arms, specifically, instead of Left/Right Torsos. Because it will take more time to remove that Left/Right Torso than at the Left/Right Arm (less overall armor). Also to, since weaponry is non-convergence across torsos, people will be more apt to fire at arms and less overall damage (or really fast instantaneous alpha strike damage) will be reduced, thus making it harder to take out a torso section.

Edited by Zyllos, 19 March 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Pht]

kiltymonroe, on 16 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

The best suggestion to dealing with aiming:

Go get a pair of dice and just play tabletop so you don't have to deal with this whole skill-based element of 'mech piloting.

The best solution to the problem of not caring enough about what you think to actually give people a reason to believe what you believe:

Misrepresent everyone who disagrees with you and than attack that misrepresentation, vainly hoping nobody realizes you've not made any counter-argument at all.

Prezimonto, on 19 March 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

I'll say it again.

Torso mounts shouldn't auto correct, the pilot should be allowed to calibrate the convergence point to a fixed position for each(non-arm with full actuators) weapon grouping in the mechlab before dropping.

Battlemechs can converge every weapon mounted on them, including torso mounted weapons - and it is the battlemechs that automatically calculate where to converge their weapons based upon sensor inputs and software calculations.

[Zyllos]

Pht, on 19 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Battlemechs can converge every weapon mounted on them, including torso mounted weapons - and it is the battlemechs that automatically calculate where to converge their weapons based upon sensor inputs and software calculations.

What evidence shows that weapons converge onto a single point?

Our evidence is that TT uses random deviation (dice) to determine hit location. If weapons/armor in MWO is based on that same system (basically, how much armor is allowed to be allocated) but weapons do not spread across sections nearly as much as they should, then that is a flaw of MWO.

Plus, there has been many systems given that allow for more weapon spread without adding random deviation (even though every FPS has this in their game).

[M4rtyr]

Pht, on 19 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Battlemechs can converge every weapon mounted on them, including torso mounted weapons - and it is the battlemechs that automatically calculate where to converge their weapons based upon sensor inputs and software calculations.

As Zyllos stated play TT -AND- read the books. Weapons hit all over, they don't converge. That is not only part of the btech concept it's part of what kept the weapons balanced. Thats a key factor to keep in mind.

What you are talking about is more akin to the Targeting Computer, exactly as the name says a sofisticated computer to aid in the -PRECISE- targeting of weapons.

Edited by M4rtyr, 19 March 2013 - 06:44 PM.

[Pht]

Zyllos, on 19 March 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

What evidence shows that weapons converge onto a single point?

That they do so in the TT - the *only* time certain weapons cannot fire at something is that leg weapons cannot fire at the CT when mechs are literally chest to chest - as long as there's some distance between the mechs and the target is in the proper firing arc - front, left, right, center, rear, all weapons mounted can converge onto the target.

... and the TT, along with the techmanual and CBT companion tech writeups, form the source for 'mech behavior (of course, the line developer makes the final say-so):

http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

If all else fails, I can just ask Mike (and herb, If I have to) about it, so we can have a direct answer from the horse's mouth(s).

Quote

Our evidence is that TT uses random deviation (dice) to determine hit location.

The use of the hit location table does not necessitate that we conclude that the 'mechs cannot converge some (or any) of their weapons.

The hit-location table describes a 'mech's ultimate ability to get multiple weapons to concentrate on a target... nothing more.

Also, a bit more evidence: the called-shot hit location tables show how much the 'mech's pilot can concentrate the shots into a desired location - the rule specifically says that called shot represents this.

Quote

If weapons/armor in MWO is based on that same system (basically, how much armor is allowed to be allocated) but weapons do not spread across sections nearly as much as they should, then that is a flaw of MWO.

Yes, it is very much a flaw in MWO; they tried to use the weapons damage values and the mech armor values from the TT but they did not use the hit location tables those numbers were designed for - which was very bad... but instead of using the hit-location tables that describes the 'mechs ability to align it's weapons to hit a target - they doubled the armor values ... and than started tweaking weapons damage.

Quote

Plus, there has been many systems given that allow for more weapon spread without adding random deviation (even though every FPS has this in their game).

The to-hit mechanics besides those used to represent the mechwarrior's gunnery skill represent how well a 'Mech can overcome varying conditions - and these are entirely predictable and intutive.

The hit-location tables are the combat mechanic that gives the MW universe a large chunk of it's distinctive combat "flavor" and allows for "epic" combat vs instant-death combat.

[Seox]

In the end, people who think that using convergence changes will add skill to the game seem to be forgetting a very major thing: It will remove the -entire- skill mechanic of torso twisting and using all of your armor.

If you guys don't want to get shot at and don't want to torso twist, I'm not sure why you're playing this game.

[Cyke]

When you face a careful gunner who can still concentrate his damage, you'll still have to torso twist/turn your 'Mech to avoid exposing your damaged facing.
Actually, even if you face a less skilled shooter who doesn't bother to concentrate his damage, you'll still need to do it to stay alive longer.

Seox, on 19 March 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

If you guys don't want to get shot at and don't want to torso twist, I'm not sure why you're playing this game.

I.. I don't even.. what.. ugh.
I always keep things rational and civil for the benefit of all, because becoming inflammatory benefits no one.. but I have to say, this has got to be the king of strawman arguments.

[Seox]

Cyke, on 19 March 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

I.. I don't even.. what.. ugh.
I always keep things rational and civil for the benefit of all, because becoming inflammatory benefits no one.. but I have to say, this has got to be the king of strawman arguments.

Reading into things and assuming will make everything strawman; I've been nothing but civil this entire thread. If you read it at face value instead of assuming negative tone then you would have gotten exactly what I said; "I don't understand the fear of being shot at in a game about shooting at people."

When you assume, you make an ******* of you and me. For someone who seems to be acquainted with logical fallacies, you don't seem to put much skepticism in your own initial evaluations.

I absolutely understand how it looks, and in hindsight it appears worse than I meant it; I'm sorry that it came across that way. That still doesn't excuse reading into it.

Edited by Seox, 19 March 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[Zyllos]

Seox, on 19 March 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

In the end, people who think that using convergence changes will add skill to the game seem to be forgetting a very major thing: It will remove the -entire- skill mechanic of torso twisting and using all of your armor.

If you guys don't want to get shot at and don't want to torso twist, I'm not sure why you're playing this game.

While I am not sure if your argument is a strawman, it is not correct. Just because weapon convergence is not 100% does not mean torso twisting will not happen. If an arm or torso section is damaged, even with weapon spread, you will turn that section away from your target because they will hit that location, just not with 100% of their fire unless they are taking their time shooting specific weapon groups.

[Seox]

Zyllos, on 20 March 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

While I am not sure if your argument is a strawman, it is not correct. Just because weapon convergence is not 100% does not mean torso twisting will not happen. If an arm or torso section is damaged, even with weapon spread, you will turn that section away from your target because they will hit that location, just not with 100% of their fire unless they are taking their time shooting specific weapon groups.

And any amount of additional "noise" when it comes to the aim that people have in game will subsequently reduce the concentrated damage that skilled players can put out, reducing the amount of effort and pilot skill requirement that will be emphasized with torso skill, so while I'm not sure that your argument is based in the same game that I'm playing, it is not correct.

In the end, if you don't like being shot at by people who can aim, go play world of tanks. The RNG there will be glad to nurse you. I know that's harsh, but I cannot fathom why anyone could find putting needlessly complex mechanics on a canon part of battletech, or into a game at all, to be a good thing. I sincerely hope that the devs don't fall victim to the post being spammed all over the forums from this thread (the one being pasted in threads that hardly even have anything to do with convergence), as it will be the worst thing to happen to this game since its creation. The worst way to argue is to just say something louder when people give it reasons why it's wrong. I apologize if you're not yet skilled or experienced enough with this game to see why altering the convergence mechanics is both unnecessary and unhealthy for the gameplay.

Edited by Seox, 20 March 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[M4rtyr]

Guys stop arguing with Seox.

He doesn't bother to listen at all and keeps acting like its just a people that can aim vs people that can't even when you clearly state the convergence has nothing to do with the ability to hit a target or where.

The devs know the issue by now, so I wouldn't waste your time on one person that spouts the same baseless crap, he's just a troll that likes his game given advantage.

Edited by M4rtyr, 20 March 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[Zyllos]

Seox, on 20 March 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

And any amount of additional "noise" when it comes to the aim that people have in game will subsequently reduce the concentrated damage that skilled players can put out, reducing the amount of effort and pilot skill requirement that will be emphasized with torso skill, so while I'm not sure that your argument is based in the same game that I'm playing, it is not correct.

In the end, if you don't like being shot at by people who can aim, go play world of tanks. The RNG there will be glad to nurse you. I know that's harsh, but I cannot fathom why anyone could find putting needlessly complex mechanics on a canon part of battletech, or into a game at all, to be a good thing. I sincerely hope that the devs don't fall victim to the post being spammed all over the forums from this thread (the one being pasted in threads that hardly even have anything to do with convergence), as it will be the worst thing to happen to this game since its creation. The worst way to argue is to just say something louder when people give it reasons why it's wrong. I apologize if you're not yet skilled or experienced enough with this game to see why altering the convergence mechanics is both unnecessary and unhealthy for the gameplay.

Ok, it *might* reduce torso twisting skill, but it will never remove it because players can still aim their weapons.

The argument "you do not like being shot at, go play WoT" is a strawman argument. Your arguing that being shot at is the reason why we think weapon convergence is an issue but that is just not the case. Your using that argument to give yourself basis to argue when being shot at is not even an issue we are arguing against in the first place.

Edited by Zyllos, 21 March 2013 - 07:21 AM.

[Seox]

Zyllos, on 21 March 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Ok, it *might* reduce torso twisting skill, but it will never remove it because players can still aim their weapons.

The argument "you do not like being shot at, go play WoT" is a strawman argument. Your arguing that being shot at is the reason why we think weapon convergence is an issue but that is just not the case. Your using that argument to give yourself basis to argue when being shot at is not even an issue we are arguing against in the first place.

My argument is symbolic, and I don't think it's immediately apparent; What I'm saying (rather harshly) is that a lot of people seem to more or less be upset that people can take large amounts of damage. With awareness, torso twisting and general good piloting skills, this can be heavily mitigated, and the mechanics used have been seen in mechwarrior games before. My argument, then, is both saying that it's an issue of inability to torso twist/pilot and insulting RNG and anything moving away from true aim, which is what is being proposed.

I have never argued that being shot at is why convergence is being proposed, I had long since explained that. I admire your desire to call logical fallacies and debate from a strong base, but the quoted segment really isn't a straw man so much as an ******* simplification of my point (Err, to clarify, I'm saying that what I said was an ******* way of simplifying both the concept that: 1. People don't seem to be addressing the existence of long standing mechanics to mitigate convergence through skill, and 2. RNG and anything deviating from true aim is bad. Not calling your comment assholish : P)

Edited by Seox, 21 March 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[Imagine Dragons]

If this topic is trully about boats, and reducing their effectiveness... IMO its better to go after their heat generation like so...

XenomorphZZ, on 18 March 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

There needs to be a clearer distinction between specialist and boating.h

My Dragon 1N is a specialist in CQC but I'm not boating MPLs...

I have 2 mlas 2 srm 4s and 1 AC10. All my weapons can hit in CQC but they're not all the same weapons.

An idea to "fix" boating of one weapon is to simply put an exponential increase in heat generated from the same weapons on a boat. You can boat, but it would be painful to be shutting down for 10 seconds after every volley starting at 0 heat... note this would start to come into affect when you have 3 or more mounted. Other weapons do not get penalized.

Crazy?

That, or limiting hardpoints to size specific hardpoints...

Edited by XenomorphZZ, 21 March 2013 - 11:06 AM.