Jump to content

Slower Convergence/reticle Movement For Larger Weapons?


25 replies to this topic

Poll: Slower Convergence/reticle Movement For Larger Weapons? (36 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you agree with the OP's suggestion?

  1. Yes (25 votes [69.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 69.44%

  2. No (11 votes [30.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.56%

  3. Abstain (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:59 PM

I'm starting to like this idea.

Although, I'd rather have some sort of convergence penalty for movement/torso twisting and projectile weapons (this includes JJs).

To properly balance weapons that deal instant damage, there has to be a mechanic with a little bit of randomness that allows it to hit, but not hit perfectly at where it is aimed at. All games have a similar mechanic to balance out differences in stronger weapons...

Edited by Deathlike, 01 June 2013 - 03:01 PM.


#22 ExtremeA79

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 351 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 01 June 2013 - 03:31 PM

In the novels, convergence to perfection took time, convergence was longer than it is now, which is almost instant. Mechs that charged/ran had a lower accuracy because the distance between the target and the pilot was changing, so the weapons had to constantly adjust, added that convergence was longer, this is the reason pilots were not so accurate while running. Just because a weapon is heavier doesn't mean it should have more convergence time or anything.

What the devs should do is increase convergence time as a whole. This makes the game more balanced, (snipers taking time to converge perfectly) more canon, and make the convergence module actually useful. Some one also pointed out that no 2 bullets are alike. This is true, even with perfect guidance and a sighted scope, you will not hit the same hole twice.
In the game this can be applied, with a small minimal effect. At long-extreme ranges, there should be a SLIGHT accuracy effect. I said slight kids.

#23 zraven7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • LocationDuluth, Georgia

Posted 03 June 2013 - 08:15 AM

How would we implement slower retical movement just for larger weapons? What if one arm has a gauss, and the other a medium laser? Would we have 2 arm reticals then?

#24 FrostCollar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • LocationEast Coast, US

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:41 PM

View Postzraven7, on 03 June 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

How would we implement slower retical movement just for larger weapons? What if one arm has a gauss, and the other a medium laser? Would we have 2 arm reticals then?

Easiest way: slow both down.

#25 ExtremeA79

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 351 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostFrostCollar, on 03 June 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Easiest way: slow both down.

That is a awfully dumb idea.

#26 FrostCollar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • LocationEast Coast, US

Posted 04 June 2013 - 06:50 AM

View PostDarren Tyler, on 03 June 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

That is a awfully dumb idea.

I didn't say it'd be the best implementation, but the easiest.

I'm in support of a multiple reticle solution, definitely, but PGI's shown resistance to multiple reticles already with the Highlanders.





9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users