459 replies to this topic

[Atak Snajpera]

***** n stuff, on 14 June 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

How about a crosshair that moves around as you move, with the weapons converging on whatever it happens to be pointed at. Convergence speed or lack thereof should make it extremely difficult to hit a single spot while moving, and the crosshair movement would make it really hard to hit a mech at all at range when you're running full speed.
Edit: not like that ^^^^ one, the same ones we have now, with both crosshairs drifting around at the same speed.

something like this ?

[Dracol]

Cone of fire while moving would hurt light mechs and reduce their already low numbers seen on the field.

Also, CoF is required in gices like CoD cause any weapon can kill in one shot. MW:O does not suffer from this. In regards to WoT, the mimic older tanks whch didn't have advanced targeting computers.

[Joseph Mallan]

Atak Snajpera, on 14 June 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

something like this ?

Only more sway. You are moving at max speed, Not a lot more mind you, that would be perfect for walking speed(>2/3 trottle).

[tenderloving]

Ralgas, on 14 June 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

what about the armless mechs with no lateral movement though?

I think we are allowed to infer that this system would work on the vertical plane as well.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Hello guys...

I think a cone of fire is a terrible idea... When it comes to shooting a weapon, the ordinance should go where the barrel is pointed (assuming no wind etc etc) provided the barrel has no sideways momentum (relative to the target) of its own when the projectile is fired. The idea of a round going to some lightly randomized position, even in a moving mech, is ludicrous.

If you want to simulate the inherent inaccuracy of firing a projectile from a moving object, then a better idea would be to make the targeting reticule sway slightly as the mech is moving. Using this mechanic, rounds still go were the gun is pointed, but it is still harder to shoot while moving.
The challenge comes as a result of the reticule moving, so timing is of the essence, and also the fact that if the barrel is moving when the projectile is launched, the projectile has some of the sideways momentum of the barrel.

Remember this is a 65 ton machine which spits out a round every 2-4 seconds, not a 175 pound man firing an AR-15. Such a machine is inherently a very stable firing platform.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kabenla Armah, on 14 June 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Hello guys...

I think a cone of fire is a terrible idea... When it comes to shooting a weapon, the ordinance should go where the barrel is pointed (assuming no wind etc etc) provided the barrel has no sideways momentum (relative to the target) of its own when the projectile is fired. The idea of a round going to some lightly randomized position, even in a moving mech, is ludicrous.

If you want to simulate the inherent inaccuracy of firing a projectile from a moving object, then a better idea would be to make the targeting reticule sway slightly as the mech is moving. Using this mechanic, rounds still go were the gun is pointed, but it is still harder to shoot while moving.
The challenge comes as a result of the reticule moving, so timing is of the essence, and also the fact that if the barrel is moving when the projectile is launched, the projectile has some of the sideways momentum of the barrel.

Remember this is a 65 ton machine which spits out a round every 2-4 seconds, not a 175 pound man firing an AR-15. Such a machine is inherently a very stable firing platform.

But that's the point, if you are moving your barrel may not BE pointing at the moving target!

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Huh?

[DocBach]

Kabenla Armah, on 14 June 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Huh?

the idea is that the targeting computer has to align your weapons to the target, and the speed in which they do so should be affected by the players movement, heat level, range to target, ect

[3rdworld]

Cool idea.

Now do we not only make snipers vastly superior, we include wak a mole.

If the entire purpose of this idea is to lower the effectiveness of sniping, why do all of your ideas have the exact opposite effect?

tenderloving, on 14 June 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I think we are allowed to infer that this system would work on the vertical plane as well.

I think you would need to be blind to not see how that would make mechs without lower arms (stalkers) even better.

I wish you guys could at least think about what will happen with this stuff before posting.

[DocBach]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

If the entire purpose of this idea is to lower the effectiveness of sniping, why do all of your ideas have the exact opposite effect?

The idea I'm putting out has nothing to do with countering sniping, its about removing the ability to direct several heavy weapons all into the same hole. In the Battetech system in which MWO is based on, Gauss rifles and ER PPCs are suppose to be effective, long-ranged weapon systems.

...However, the system we are using never supported the ability to fire four of them all into the same point of impact, and that has created a problem where we see massed heavy weapons dominating everything else in terms of effectiveness, to the point of one-shot kills of medium 'Mechs and lighter.

Edited by DocBach, 14 June 2013 - 08:37 AM.

[Aslena]

If the weapon spread was consistent it might be ok, however my right clicky hand replaced a multi-ton firing computer from the year 3050 and wherever I point things should hit

[DaZur]

Point to ponder: Harmonization proposal

This proposition solves:

- Mitigates ranged pin-point alpha damage (unless the firing mech is stationary) AND that stationary mechs perfect aim CAN BE temporarily interfered with with any return fire.
- Torso weapons STILL benefit from pin-point aim as torso mount does not deviate making weapons associated with them 100% reliable for accuracy... only RT/LT mounts deviate. = mitigate high-alpha snipers UNLESS they are stationary.
- Makes boating and high-alpha builds globally acceptable as while still able to deliver pin-point damage... it is only possible under a narrow criteria, which has a built in counter in return de-harmonization and movement.

No need to nerf anything to counter boating or high alphas... The nerf is self actuating as soon as the mech moves or is hit with return fire.

Simple / clean solution that does not manipulating numbers.

[3rdworld]

DocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

The idea I'm putting out has nothing to do with countering sniping, its about removing the ability to direct several heavy weapons all into the same hole. Gauss rifles and ER PPCs are suppose to be effective, long-ranged weapon systems. What they aren't suppose to do is fire four of them all into the same point of impact.

And how does it do that? PPCs on stalkers shoot out of the same port from the arms. How exactly could you explain that they don't hit the same location other than "reasons"?

Nothing to do with countering sniping? Are you saying you are tired of people pin pointing damage with SRMs? cause i really doubt that is what you are saying.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Cool idea.

Now do we not only make snipers vastly superior, we include wak a mole.

If the entire purpose of this idea is to lower the effectiveness of sniping, why do all of your ideas have the exact opposite effect?



I think you would need to be blind to not see how that would make mechs without lower arms (stalkers) even better.

I wish you guys could at least think about what will happen with this stuff before posting.

Considering how the stalker is designed I hardly ever considered the "arms" to actually be anything other than more torso. So they would converge about as Much as the torso mounted Weapons In DocBach's example. It's not easy to "think of all the strengths and weaknesses unless you discuss them. I doubt the DEVs expected us to turn a PPC carrying Pult into a GaussPult or a Stalker into a 6xPPC boat. But there it is.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[Lostdragon]

Dracol, on 14 June 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Cone of fire while moving would hurt light mechs and reduce their already low numbers seen on the field.

Also, CoF is required in gices like CoD cause any weapon can kill in one shot. MW:O does not suffer from this. In regards to WoT, the mimic older tanks whch didn't have advanced targeting computers.

So give lights a pilot skill or chassis quirk to reduce it. There are ways to implement these ideas that won't kill the viability of strikers and such.

As for the second point, ever been hit by 3x PPC and a Gauss in a light? Best case scenario you lose an arm but usually it is instant death or a leg blown off. And current IS mechs have very limited targeting systems. The ranges of weapons are low in the lore not because the weapons are not effective at longer ranges but because it is really hard to hit anything at long range. Clans already have more sophisticated targeting computers that help calculate leads and compensate for movement and recoil but the IS doesn't develop similar equipment until 3062, 12 years down the road from when this game is set.

[I am]

WoT uses the cone of fire, is much more "skill based" than MWO, and is hands over feet more popular than MWO. So I say ya, go for it, put the cones in. I think a lot of the guys that hate WoT ,and want this to be nothing like it, are just bad at WoT and feel bhutt by that fact. Give us the cone! It will more closely reflect the randomness of you dice rolling from board games of old. How can the BT purist be so against it? It's resistance to changes like this, that are sending MWO to an early grave.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Considering how the stalker is designed I hardly ever considered the "arms" to actually be anything other than more torso. So they would converge about as Much as the torso mounted Weapons In DocBach's example. It's not easy to "think of all the strengths and weaknesses unless you discuss them. I doubt the DEVs expected us to turn a PPC carrying Pult into a GaussPult or a Stalker into a 6xPPC boat. But there it is.

If they didn't, they're pretty naïve, and lack meaningful testers. It takes one minute of logical thinking. For example I could say, next mech is a new hero mech, a raven, with 6 missle slots. You and I immediately know that's a terrible idea. That would equal 6 streaks on a Raven. Tears would flow. That took us 10 to 60 seconds of thinking to realize. (# of weapon slots) x (strongest weapon) ='s exactly what they should be expecting when they give us a new chassis to min/max on. Am I wrong?

Edited by I am, 14 June 2013 - 08:47 AM.

[3rdworld]

DaZur, on 14 June 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Point to ponder: Harmonization proposal

This proposition solves:

- Mitigates ranged pin-point alpha damage (unless the firing mech is stationary) AND that stationary mechs perfect aim CAN BE temporarily interfered with with any return fire.
- Torso weapons STILL benefit from pin-point aim as torso mount does not deviate making weapons associated with them 100% reliable for accuracy... only RT/LT mounts deviate. = mitigate high-alpha snipers UNLESS they are stationary.
- Makes boating and high-alpha builds globally acceptable as while still able to deliver pin-point damage... it is only possible under a narrow criteria, which has a built in counter in return de-harmonization and movement.

No need to nerf anything to counter boating or high alphas... The nerf is self actuating as soon as the mech moves or is hit with return fire.

Simple / clean solution that does not manipulating numbers.

Cool, so when I charge a stalker with a medium, I know he won't move as my reticle spreads my damage all over the mech.

Do you really not see how this completely bones any fast mech?

You don't make high alpha pinpoint a niche, you make it the only way to play the game ie, the exact same position we are in now.

Currently brawlers do nothing cause lasers /srms spread way to much to make up for the damage you take getting in range. Your system actually reinforces that.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

DocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

the idea is that the targeting computer has to align your weapons to the target, and the speed in which they do so should be affected by the players movement, heat level, range to target, ect

Simulating targeting time with a randomized mechanic is still a bad idea. There was a suggestion above with reticules for each projectile weapon.

[3rdworld]

I am, on 14 June 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

WoT uses the cone of fire, is much more "skill based" than MWO, and is hands over feet more popular than MWO. So I say ya, go for it, put the cones in. I think a lot of the guys that hate WoT ,and want this to be nothing like it, are just bad at WoT and feel bhutt by that fact. Give us the cone! It will more closely reflect the randomness of you dice rolling from board games of old. How can the BT purist be so against it? It's resistance to changes like this, that are sending MWO to an early grave.

never played WoT and am not a BT purist

Go project on someone else.

[DaZur]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Cool idea.

Now do we not only make snipers vastly superior, we include wak a mole.

If the entire purpose of this idea is to lower the effectiveness of sniping, why do all of your ideas have the exact opposite effect?



I think you would need to be blind to not see how that would make mechs without lower arms (stalkers) even better.

I wish you guys could at least think about what will happen with this stuff before posting.

"Arms" is a colloquial misnomer... Let's use: LT-SIDE WEAPON MOUNT | TORSO WEAPON MOUNT | RT-SIDE WEAPON MOUNT... Each mount has it's own aim-point that attempts to "harmonize" with the center reticle.

It's not necessarily about nerfing snipers or high-alpha... It's about mitigating their dominance in all scenarios / conditions through a moderate movement difficulty modifier.

Edited by DaZur, 14 June 2013 - 08:45 AM.