704 replies to this topic

[Homeless Bill]

Rebas Kradd, on 20 June 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Disagree. Tactics should never be prevented, only punished. The point is to make people think about what they're doing and analyze the tradeoffs, not limit their options. That's probably the mindset PGI is proceeding under.

As far as Clans, let's wait until we're given info about them before we start trying to fix them. The devs have tried to give every unique weapon and loadout a notable drawback in the game so far, minus PPC boats; I'm sure they've got some idea for Clans. If we're able to easily spot problems when we extrapolate current issues to Clan weapons, so are they.

The tactic isn't being prevented - you can alpha strike all day. It gives the game an interesting tradeoff: accuracy or immediate damage output (unlike the current system which allows both). My solution not only allows it - it gives it its own, interesting role. It will no longer boil down to "click everything." It will force the player to make choices, and that's good.

It's the game-breaking effect is being prevented - you cannot put all that damage on a pinhead. If you really think that shouldn't be prevented, then I'm not going to try to convince you. When I'm playing assaults (my highest Elo), it's just a ******* mess of PPCs and AC/40s. I don't want them to blow up for doing it, I don't want them to move slower for doing it, I don't want them to heat up more for doing it - I just don't want them to be able to do it. I feel bad when I run my PPC Stalker or 732, but it's far and away more effective than legitimate builds right now.

Royce Mathers, on 20 June 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

one fallacy to your reasoning is that AMS makes a LRM user fire as many of their missiles in a volley as possible. If a mech with 3 LRM 15s has to fire each individually the AMS gets 3 shots at those missiles instead of one. AMS almost requires an LRM mech to boat. If you took some system that did the exact same to lasers or ballistics----those users would have a problem with this also.

First off, I wreck people in my ALRM25 Trebuchet. AMS makes it harder, but there are always a few people that didn't equip it. Second, this system allows you to fire 40 long range missiles in the span of a single second. An LRM80 can be launched over a period of two seconds. To me, nothing about that limitation sounds unreasonable.

scJazz, on 20 June 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

With Server Authoritative architecture and considering network latency I strongly suggest no weapon uses the entire 100 pts of TCL. So AC/20 is maybe 90 and PPCs are maybe 45. Why? To lessen the crazy associated with network latency. Yeah... someone will try to stick in another gun with the AC/20 but I'm not sure that is a huge problem. I could keep typing but you get my point don't you.

I am a Missile Crazy Pilot... if you make me lose lock because I caught that ECM Atlas at 190m and just volleyed 30LRMs and 8 Streaks (Catapult A1) at him I'm going to have to strangle you. I know the point and shoot crowd doesn't understand this but locking or re-acquiring lock is a complete PITA. So yeah... losing lock... hate that plan and don't think it works that well. In keeping with your CoF why not just decrease tracking and increase spead? Streaks... yeah I know... how about we send half of a Streak volley straight ahead just like normal Dumb Fire SRMs when you overload the TC. In other words your current plan works well for gimping LRM100 Stalkers and the like but totally destroys reasonable builds.

Perhaps adding some extra love penalties for firing oversized missile launchers through small missile tube sets is in order?

TAG and NARC: Let them reduce the TCL if the target is locked. No bonus if it isn't for no other reason than this simplifies implementation as I suspect CryEngine's Weapons Routines would get stressed out trying to apply the bonus on a target that isn't locked. 5% and 10% TCL reduction might be usable numbers. Someone will no doubt say... increase the bonus for Self-TAG and Self-NARC... no! That just leads us down the path of Awesome's with TAG in Head slot and similar crazy.

Clan Targeting Computers and Clan Weapons are going to be a huge issue but we already know that. Your plan gets us in front of the curve.

Modules and Skills could be reworked for your idea as mentioned.

There is one thing that the Jenner pilots keep bringing up but haven't really considered. Yes, they require Alphas and need to take their shots when they can get them. The point they keep missing is the fact that with their very small bodies even firing with no convergence at all still means most (all) of their Alpha lands pretty much where they wanted it to anyway.

Despise those icons on the HUD. How about just putting some "Eye Lids" on the Crosshairs. Green OK, Yellow no convergence, Red CoF. Add the same color coding in a slim bar across the top of the mini-map.

Great plan as mentioned before. Hope my thoughts from the Peanut Gallery help.

The numbers are just a starting point. I don't really see any problems occurring, but if that would fix it, I'm down. That's why I like this system: you have numbers to play with that don't affect anything else.

I'm a LRM harasser kind of guy myself, but I see no reason missiles shouldn't be held to the exact same standard as other weapons. Asking you to wait less than a half a second between firing your LRM30 and SSRM8 is perfectly reasonable. Losing convergence is an important binary aspect, and losing lock mirrors that penalty.

And again, how do you communicate a soft (increased spread/decreased tracking) penalty to the player? "Your TCL went over 150 when you fired those missiles five seconds ago, so that volley is spread out," sounds pretty sketchy to me. It's too delayed to be intuitive to the player; an immediate effect is needed. Plus, I think my numbers are very generous to missiles. I don't see how an LRM40 per second is some sort of harsh penalty.

Name a single legitimate build my system hits with the nerf bat, and I'll give you a cookie. You and your missiles will need fire discipline too; no one escapes this system.

I think the missile tube system needs to be more serious in general, but that's a rant for another thread...

I wouldn't be opposed to trying out stuff like TAG/NARC integration later, but I'm wary that anything that increases max TCL or TCL dissipation will need some serious testing before approved.

Clans and large ballistics - the two things that no other solution seems to fix.

Jenners won't be able to overload their targeting computer unless they mount stupid ****. You can fire up to eight medium lasers simultaneously without any penalty. I've tweaked the numbers based on preserving what I think are legit builds and making sure that every cheese build in the history of MWO would be penalized.

I like the idea of moving those icons to the side with the other status icons and putting something less abrasive in/around the reticle. For now, I'm going to leave the mock-ups as they are for ease of understanding. Ultimately, PGI would do their own interface design, and what I want to show is what's most easily understood.

I greatly appreciate the feedback =D

Edited by Homeless Bill, 21 June 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[CancR]

If they give you a job based on this, then I quit MW forever. Even battletech. Minus 5 stars.
you dont have to do anything but look to BT rules to balance a MW game. In fact the game was far more balanced when there was BT rules which PGI TOOK OUT, like death by 3 overheats, and R&R.

This inst a property you can just make up your own **** and think that could balance it out, period, end of statement.

[Homeless Bill]

Zomboyd, on 20 June 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

PGI should be offering you a job.

Maybe this will be my next suggestion for fixing game balance =P

WarHammerEBDA, on 20 June 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

Well done and well thought out.
Convergence and targeting penalties look like a good idea.

another +1 to this idea.

Always love getting you lurkers to voice your support =D

Pando, on 20 June 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

I would really like to test this, on the test servers when we have access to them.

To quote whichever developer said "to test our most modest ideas" or something to that effect FORGIVE ME if its wrong i'm like 9 beers into this message

You spell pretty well for someone nine beers into anything. To me, that means you're credible and we should take your advice. Put this **** on the test server. This system is the perfect candidate.

Immitem, on 21 June 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

I support everything you said Bill! The only thing I would like you to consider is the ability to swap out computers. What say that given the ****-poor knowledge of the technology leads to essentially two or three basic computers strapped together working in parallel instead of one solid, more sophisticated unit. Each one incrementally increasing the overall weight (basic = 2 Tonnes, superior = 4 Tonnes, Advanced = 8 Tonnes), vulnerability, and margin of error of the overall system. Not saying the it could be destroyed, just more easily mucked with via PPC shots and blows straight to the cockpit the more advanced the system. Each type of blow temporarily throwing off aim or filling the bar.

Another thing to consider is how much better each one is over the others.
Basic=100
Superior=150
Advanced =175

All of these numbers are just *** - grabs. What say you?

In the meantime I am going to message Brian this thread.

I think a piece of equipment and/or module to slightly increase your max TCL is a fine idea. I'd say 150 should be the absolute maximum the targeting computer threshold can be raised to before convergence is lost.

Zyllos, on 20 June 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

The idea of implementing the CoF before losing weapon convergence makes sense. It also makes sense that losing convergence should be at the same level of when you can no longer retain/gain lockons.

Signal27, on 21 June 2013 - 03:50 AM, said:

The only part of this solution I don't like is a few details: I don't believe there should be a point where, if you cross it by even a little bit (101 "TCL" in this case), your aiming instantly and severely gets jacked up. Completely eliminating convergence by going over a low and arbitrary limit...

Zyllos and I have been having a little back and forth about this. Basically, the implementation details are all up in the air, and I wouldn't be hearbroken if they made it cone of fire before convergence loss or a more gradual convergence loss or whatever. But here's why I think the way I have it now is the best way (#4 is probably the most important):

1. What you call a "low and arbitrary limit" I see as the equivalent to 100% on the heat scale. You're not supposed to go over 100, the TCL dissipates extremely quickly, you've got to fire quite a bit at once to overload your computer, and many 'mechs (especially lights and mediums) won't even be able to cause an overload. If the system was reversed (accuracy penalty from 100-200, convergence loss at 200), 4xPPC builds would be unaffected at close range. You'd be able to fire all of them for for near-pinpoint damage (cone of fire doesn't work under ~200m).

2. As I said to Zyllos, I really wish I didn't even have to have the cone of fire penalty at all. I'd rather my system be binary (you either practice proper fire discipline and have convergence, or you spam and you lose it). But the cone of fire is necessary to make sure snipers really can't do their thing when overloaded and to hit builds that can boat in a single location (HGN-732 with 3xPPC in RT).

3. Having the cone of fire penalty come first will do one of two things: make an accuracy penalty show up unnecessarily early or make the convergence penalty show up too late. If cone of fire started at 80 or 90 in the current system, it punishes players before I think they need it. If the cone of fire starts at 100 and convergence loss comes later, it's letting some cheese seep through the cracks.

4. Cone of fire first penalizes long-range builds more than short-range builds. I want this to kill alpha sniping - not sniping in general. If a non-convergence penalty is applied first, it will only affect long-range roles. I don't like favoring certain roles; the only way to make it equal across the board is loss of convergence.

Reptilizer, on 21 June 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

Deserves a sticky to keep the discussion alive and in the focus of the devs!

Yes, please.

Zomboyd, on 21 June 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

we need a poll added to this so we can drum up support for the concept

I would if I thought they'd care more. It's got 120 likes, people are spamming them with it, and once the article goes live, I'll be spamming them with it.

CancR, on 21 June 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

If they give you a job based on this, then I quit MW forever. Even battletech. Minus 5 stars.
you dont have to do anything but look to BT rules to balance a MW game. In fact the game was far more balanced when there was BT rules which PGI TOOK OUT, like death by 3 overheats, and R&R.

This inst a property you can just make up your own **** and think that could balance it out, period, end of statement.

Good to know you're addressing the merits of my argument instead of just saying "Battletech, Battletech, Battletech" and hoping game balance appears.

Real time != tabletop. Taking away convergence/aiming ******* sucks, and it's the only way to make the original Battletech balancing work.

Your resistance to anything new is stunningly sad.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 21 June 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[Kazly]

Nice Job.

[Dawnstealer]

This is a brilliant solution and I now want to have your babies. I will grow a womb to perform this action.

[AgroAlba]

Excellent excellent proposal. Well laid out, everything seems to have been thought of. You have my applause, and I really really hope they look very seriously at this.

[Homeless Bill]

Over 125 likes, lots of positive feedback, and despite disagreements, this thread still hasn't devolved into name-calling and e-peen waving. I've updated the OP again with Phaesphoros' latest mock-ups.

Never surrender. Their heat penalties will fail miserably, and when they do, I hope they've gotten enough spam about this thread to at least give it a shot.

It's a real long-shot, folks, but you can't succeed if you don't try.

[scJazz]

Homeless Bill, on 21 June 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

The numbers are just a starting point. I don't really see any problems occurring, but if that would fix it, I'm down. That's why I like this system: you have numbers to play with that don't affect anything else.

I'm a LRM harasser kind of guy myself, but I see no reason missiles shouldn't be held to the exact same standard as other weapons. Asking you to wait less than a half a second between firing your LRM30 and SSRM8 is perfectly reasonable. Losing convergence is an important binary aspect, and losing lock mirrors that penalty.

And again, how do you communicate a soft (increased spread/decreased tracking) penalty to the player? "Your TCL went over 150 when you fired those missiles five seconds ago, so that volley is spread out," sounds pretty sketchy to me. It's too delayed to be intuitive to the player; an immediate effect is needed. Plus, I think my numbers are very generous to missiles. I don't see how an LRM40 per second is some sort of harsh penalty.

Name a single legitimate build my system hits with the nerf bat, and I'll give you a cookie. You and your missiles will need fire discipline too; no one escapes this system.

I wouldn't be opposed to trying out stuff like TAG/NARC integration later, but I'm wary that anything that increases max TCL or TCL dissipation will need some serious testing before approved.

TCL Timer and TCS Values
Mixing fast timers with network latency leads to unpredictable user experience is all I'm saying. With a 1 second timer you will need to put a little slack into the system so that latency doesn't completely tick off the user.

Missiles
I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be held to the same standard. I'm pointing out that direct fire standard is loss of accuracy and missile standard is loss of ability to pull trigger at all. Not exactly the same standard. From my understanding of your system if I attempt to fire an Alpha from a reasonable Catapult A1 build (2xALRM15, 4xSSRM2) the TCL would be 123 which is over 100 and nothing happens as I just lost lock. TCL is calculated before the actual firing, hence no lock, hence no FWOOSH! Direct-Fire users get their DAKKA or PEW PEW... with convergence loss. Missiles... just sit there looking stupid. Increasing missile spread and/or lowering missile tracking brings them back to parity with the whole weapons still work but not as accurately concept.

As for communicating the "soft penalty" doesn't seem to be much of an issue. The GUI is relating the same data to direct fire users. As for calling the penalty "soft" I can't quite agree with that description considering how crushingly important it happens to be to a missile launch. Either I sandblast the targets entire body or with luck, at the right range, with a stupid target, lacking rudimentary defenses I might actually kill it, probably not but it could happen.

Tracking and Spread increase == loss of convergence
loss of convergence != whoops you can't fire at all

I'm going to stop here because I read and re-read and re-re-read your Missile sections and I see quite clearly that you have developed a certain attitude about them and their effectiveness.

[Zyllos]

Homeless Bill, on 21 June 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Over 125 likes, lots of positive feedback, and despite disagreements, this thread still hasn't devolved into name-calling and e-peen waving. I've updated the OP again with Phaesphoros' latest mock-ups.

Never surrender. Their heat penalties will fail miserably, and when they do, I hope they've gotten enough spam about this thread to at least give it a shot.

It's a real long-shot, folks, but you can't succeed if you don't try.

I really, really, really wish I shared your optimism in thinking PGI will change their "heat penalty" system if it does fail.

Anytime PGI has said they want to implement a system to fix something, they do it regardless of what the community thinks.

Edited by Zyllos, 21 June 2013 - 12:52 PM.

[Phaesphoros]

scJazz, on 21 June 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Direct-Fire users get their DAKKA or PEW PEW... with convergence loss. Missiles... just sit there looking stupid. Increasing missile spread and/or lowering missile tracking brings them back to parity with the whole weapons still work but not as accurately concept.

You know you can fire LRM's w/o lock? The SSRMs probably should dumb-fire IMO, though.

[wolfmanjake]

Not sure if someone else suggested this due to the large number of replies. It may be simpler to implement a max simultaneous damage to a single section type thing and have the rest distributed evenly among the adjacent sections.

[scJazz]

Phaesphoros, on 21 June 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

You know you can fire LRM's w/o lock? The SSRMs probably should dumb-fire IMO, though.

Yeah I know

[Homeless Bill]

scJazz, on 21 June 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

TCL Timer and TCS Values
Mixing fast timers with network latency leads to unpredictable user experience is all I'm saying. With a 1 second timer you will need to put a little slack into the system so that latency doesn't completely tick off the user.

Missiles
I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be held to the same standard. I'm pointing out that direct fire standard is loss of accuracy and missile standard is loss of ability to pull trigger at all. Not exactly the same standard. From my understanding of your system if I attempt to fire an Alpha from a reasonable Catapult A1 build (2xALRM15, 4xSSRM2) the TCL would be 123 which is over 100 and nothing happens as I just lost lock. TCL is calculated before the actual firing, hence no lock, hence no FWOOSH! Direct-Fire users get their DAKKA or PEW PEW... with convergence loss. Missiles... just sit there looking stupid. Increasing missile spread and/or lowering missile tracking brings them back to parity with the whole weapons still work but not as accurately concept.

As for communicating the "soft penalty" doesn't seem to be much of an issue. The GUI is relating the same data to direct fire users. As for calling the penalty "soft" I can't quite agree with that description considering how crushingly important it happens to be to a missile launch. Either I sandblast the targets entire body or with luck, at the right range, with a stupid target, lacking rudimentary defenses I might actually kill it, probably not but it could happen.

Tracking and Spread increase == loss of convergence
loss of convergence != whoops you can't fire at all

I'm going to stop here because I read and re-read and re-re-read your Missile sections and I see quite clearly that you have developed a certain attitude about them and their effectiveness.

Fair enough. As I've said, whatever needs to be changed to make it work is up for changing. Network issues will probably cause a few problems, and whatever needs to be tweaked is fine by me.

On missiles: I think there's a huge misunderstanding, and I'll make sure to add a little bit explaining this in the article - the missiles all fire; they just don't have lock. LRMs can fire without a lock, and the Streaks should just fire without tracking like regular SRMs.

Just because a build is reasonable doesn't mean its alpha is. An Atlas won't be able to fire all its weapons at once; neither will a Hunchback that mounts an AC/20 plus change. Just because this system preserves legit builds does not mean it makes them immune to fire discipline. Almost everything that isn't a light will need some modicum of fire discipline. I see absolutely no reason why a third of a second firing delay is unreasonable for the build you're talking about. Missiles are not at an inherent disadvantage, so they shouldn't get a special advantage from this new mechanic.

When I say "soft" penalty, I mean one applied in non-boolean terms. You either have convergence or you don't, but how do you deal with the travel time of missiles and fast dissipation of TCL? You spike above 150, the volley you just fired is super spread out, you do basically no damage because of the spread, but the TCL has been at 0 for four seconds. How do you explain that to a new (or even veteran) player? The delay in effect makes it jarring and confusing.

I'm not saying increasing missile spread isn't a good idea; I just see it as extra work in the missile code and difficult to communicate to the player.

Basically, I like my idea exactly the way I presented it (duh), but that doesn't mean I particularly care if things get changed. Most of the arguments and alternatives that have been presented here are ones I've thought of while constructing this beast. There are a lot of bits that can be fiddled with, and if PGI ever did take this solution, there's no doubt it my mind they'd put their own spin on it. And that's totally cool; any flavor of this system would be superior in my mind to any flavor of heat penalty.

wolfmanjake, on 21 June 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Not sure if someone else suggested this due to the large number of replies. It may be simpler to implement a max simultaneous damage to a single section type thing and have the rest distributed evenly among the adjacent sections.

This is the thread you're looking for. My thoughts are in that thread. TL;DR: I think it's de-coupled from other systems in the game, and thus a better solution than any heat penalty; however, it has a couple of drawbacks.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 21 June 2013 - 01:13 PM.

[Pater Mors]

Homeless Bill, on 21 June 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

It's the game-breaking effect is being prevented - you cannot put all that damage on a pinhead. If you really think that shouldn't be prevented, then I'm not going to try to convince you. When I'm playing assaults (my highest Elo), it's just a ******* mess of PPCs and AC/40s. I don't want them to blow up for doing it, I don't want them to move slower for doing it, I don't want them to heat up more for doing it - I just don't want them to be able to do it. I feel bad when I run my PPC Stalker or 732, but it's far and away more effective than legitimate builds right now.

The thing I can't quite understand about your attitude here, after following this thread since our original exchange of ideas is that all those things WILL disappear almost entirely under other systems. Sure, with heat, you can put 4PPC's on target on your first shot, but you're not doing it again for the rest of the match and you've effectively gimped yourself and your team badly too. I disagree with totally preventing tactics and builds from happening.

Ballistics are a different matter and should be treated differently but that being said, a hell of a lot of ballistic boats run hot anyways especially if they pack backup energy weapons. It's really only Gauss that's a serious issue with future releases.

In any case, I still support this idea as being the most likely candidate if PGI ever realise how badly their system is going to fail to stop people running hot and unlike their system, this one will actually work. If it doesn't touch my 'non-cheese but still super hot and high Alpha' HGN's it's not a good system.

Edited by Pater Mors, 21 June 2013 - 01:11 PM.

[scJazz]

Pater Mors, on 21 June 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

It's really only Gauss that's a serious issue with future releases.

Here is the important bit right here... right now his is the only reasonable working idea that actually deals with this issue. Quite pointedly it deals with every issue out there.

Edited by scJazz, 21 June 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Pater Mors]

scJazz, on 21 June 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Here is the important bit right here... right now his is the only reasonable working idea that actually deals with this issue. Quite pointedly it deals with every issue out there.

If ballistics actually acted like ballistics in this game though, then the issue goes away. This idea certainly deals with that but as far as I am aware CryEngine supports realistic ballistics and I am unsure as to why we can't just use that, without needing a whole new system on top to fix the problem.

So, implementing heat properly (which is an existing system) fixes 90% of the Meta and implementing proper ballistics fixes the other 10%, all within existing systems.

Again let me reiterate that I do support Bill's idea, it's just that I really hate added complexity when I can see that it can potentially be solved without adding it. At the very least, heat/ballistics ideas need to be tested thoroughly before moving to Bill's system.

[Tolkien]

Pater Mors, on 21 June 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

If ballistics actually acted like ballistics in this game though, then the issue goes away. This idea certainly deals with that but as far as I am aware CryEngine supports realistic ballistics and I am unsure as to why we can't just use that, without needing a whole new system on top to fix the problem.

So, implementing heat properly (which is an existing system) fixes 90% of the Meta and implementing proper ballistics fixes the other 10%, all within existing systems.

Again let me reiterate that I do support Bill's idea, it's just that I really hate added complexity when I can see that it can potentially be solved without adding it. At the very least, heat/ballistics ideas need to be tested thoroughly before moving to Bill's system.

I'm not sure what facet of 'realistic' ballistics you are referring to - if you take a ballistic weapon out and fire it well past its optimal range you do get projectile fall off

test it out with the AC20 since it has the shortest range.

Windage and coriolis corrections when firing north/south would add more 'realism' but I'm not sure we want to go there

[Pater Mors]

Tolkien, on 21 June 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

I'm not sure what facet of 'realistic' ballistics you are referring to - if you take a ballistic weapon out and fire it well past its optimal range you do get projectile fall off

test it out with the AC20 since it has the shortest range.

Windage and coriolis corrections when firing north/south would add more 'realism' but I'm not sure we want to go there

At the moment, if you fire 3 of the same type of ballistic, the only feature you get is bullet drop. Other than that, they all hit the same pinpoint spot. Try that at a live firing range with any three of the same type of ballistic weapon (handgun, rifle whatever) and see if you can get all three bullets through the same hole.

Now try it at 5 different ranges in under 20 seconds.

Now try it at 5 different ranges in under 20 seconds while moving laterally to the target at 120kph.

See what I mean now? In MWO all that is possible. No ballistics behave that way. We essentially have Quake ballistics with added bullet drop at the moment.

Edited by Pater Mors, 21 June 2013 - 02:26 PM.

[scJazz]

Pater Mors, on 21 June 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

If ballistics actually acted like ballistics in this game though, then the issue goes away. This idea certainly deals with that but as far as I am aware CryEngine supports realistic ballistics and I am unsure as to why we can't just use that, without needing a whole new system on top to fix the problem.

So, implementing heat properly (which is an existing system) fixes 90% of the Meta and implementing proper ballistics fixes the other 10%, all within existing systems.

Again let me reiterate that I do support Bill's idea, it's just that I really hate added complexity when I can see that it can potentially be solved without adding it. At the very least, heat/ballistics ideas need to be tested thoroughly before moving to Bill's system.

But properly implemented Heat doesn't fix the pinpoint fire which has plagued every single MechWarrior version ever released. They gave us 11 hit locations, made one of them near impossible to hit, took away the randomness of hitting locations and then scratched their heads as to why people hate/boat high alpha mechs... just like EVERY Mechwarrior ever released. 20 years later the strangest damn thing imaginable is the fact that no one ever fixed this single fatal flaw

[Pater Mors]

scJazz, on 21 June 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

But properly implemented Heat doesn't fix the pinpoint fire which has plagued every single MechWarrior version ever released. They gave us 11 hit locations, made one of them near impossible to hit, took away the randomness of hitting locations and then scratched their heads as to why people hate/boat high alpha mechs... just like EVERY Mechwarrior ever released. 20 years later the strangest damn thing imaginable is the fact that no one ever fixed this single fatal flaw

It does at anything except the lowest heat thresholds where I believe pinpoint is fine. They just need to be uncompromising and actual deterrents. As soon as you start running hot you're getting accuracy penalties. As soon as you pass 100% you're getting permanent accuracy penalties (plus, speed, twist, blown heat sinks etc etc).

How many people are really going to risk that to keep firing their super Alphas? You get one that's pinpoint and then you're crippled for the rest of the match. You're now a burden for your team and probably haven't even killed anyone unless you managed to one-shot a smaller guy. If you miss, it's even worse! Seems like a very fair trade off to me.